• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Prized posession

Warp 4 added speech navigation (which I typically don't use), a menu bar, and more multimedia support . It does get a lot of programs via Linux crossovers. I believe Mozilla for OS/2 is based on the Linux code set (i'm using Mozillia 1.5b ) The last public fix pack is 15 - there is a "Subscription" fix pack 16. There are also USB drivers available via the subscription package (which I didn't opt for - so no real USB support for me). Since I bought Warp 4 in 1996, it almost qualifies as vintage!

I've deleted it from my machine from time to time, but always end up putting it back.
 
As for me, if I had to keep only one, it would be a CPC... I know, it was not the best machine technically speaking, but it offered the best price/performance ratio at the time. And what a pleasure to be able to program even when my parents were watching TV...

As for the most proud of, it would be the Amstrad CSD (non comercial demo set for the GX) or the Enterprise 64... But I guess that you can be proud of any machine of that time since they were all original and not responding to any standard... :p
 
"mbbrutman"

>Ah, another OS/2 user/abuser. I was an
>early adopter - version 2.11 on a 486.
>Upgraded to Warp 3.0 and went all of the
>way to fixpak 42. It's still on my machine
>and I can run it, but I'm starting to forget
>too much.

>What state is Warp 4 in? Can you get a
>decent browser (Mozilla?), compilers, etc?
>How much of the new software being made
>available is ported from Linux?

What's wrote with Netscape?

>I always viewed OS/2 as a poor man's Unix.

Um? What gave you that impression?
I've played with both & felt they were nothing
alike.

>Back in 1994 on version 2.11 I had a fully
>pre-emptive multi-tasking OS with threads,
>a TCP/IP stack, X-Windows Server, telnet
>server, ftp server, a great C compiler, etc.
>It ran Windows 3.1 and DOS apps, and did
>it all at the same time on 20MB of RAM.

Version 2.xx of OS/2 is so confusing to me
because in the early stages of ver 2. OS/2
only handled version 3.0 of Windows.

X-Windows Server is a 'nix thing, isn't it?
So I guess I can see where you're comming
from with the OS/2 vs Unix thing.

>Gracefully too. The hardware at the time
>was:

>486-66 DX/2 with 256KB cache
>20 MB RAM
>Buslogic BT445S VL Bus SCSI II card
>Fujitsu 400MB hard drive
>ATI Graphics Ultra Pro with 2MB VRAM
>1x external NEC CD-ROM
>SoundBlaster 8
>IBM 17P running 1280x1024 with 256 colors.
>($1200 in 1994)

Around 1995 I belive that those machines
were upgradable to 52Mb (when Win95 came
out), well maybe it wasn't for all machines.

I played with OS/2 Warp (v3) on a machine
like that, except I didn't have 20Mb (only
16), a fairly large hard disk (540 I think),
but I really didn't boost my 486 @ 66Mhz to
it full potential! :-(

Cheers.
 
If I could have only one vintage machine it would be a Dimension 68000. That would be cheating tho, because it is actually 4 machines in one. In it's native mode it runs CP/M 68K, but with available co-processor boards can run programs designed for the Apple II, CP/M 80, and the IBM-PC. I really miss mine, but it has found a good home in the local computer museum, so I can visit it any time I feel like playing with it.

--T
 
What's wrong with Netscape depends on the version of Netscape you are talking about. The Netscape I have on Warp is 4.7.x, and it's old enough where it doesn't display a lot of web sites correctly. It wasn't a very standards complient browser, and now that it's not current anymore people don't care if their stuff displays on it correctly anymore or not. There maybe a newer version, but I don't want the AOL branded versions. I'd rather run Mozilla.

I already mentioned why OS/2 was a good poor man's unix:

"version 2.11 I had a fully pre-emptive multi-tasking OS with threads, a TCP/IP stack, X-Windows Server, telnet server, ftp server, a great C compiler, etc"

That's my definition of a good Unix box - a good process model, a good TCP stack, and good compilers. It is very unix-like in the APIs - it just isn't multi-user, which is sad - that would have done a lot for it in the server market.

Version 2.xx of OS/2 handled version 3.x of Windows up until they added Win32 extensions. Remember the time frame - 1992 to 1994. Only Windows 3.x existed, not Win 95. And Microsoft was literally doing the API or patch of the week to Windows, which would invariably break the Win-OS/2 support in OS/2. This was dirty pool.

How far you could expand a 486 depended on the chipset, the motherboard, and your wallet. 16MB was a minimum for a usable OS/2 2.x machine. (Published spec was 8, but that would have been painful.) I got it to 20 by scavenging the memory out of my 386 box. Two years ago I took it to 32MB with four SIMMs I bought from eBay. To have 32MB in the box, that requires 8 sticks of 30 pin memory. (Each stick is 4MB in size.) This motherboard was bought in 1993 before the introduction of DIMMs. In theory 16MB SIMMs existed. However, at $40 per MB it was an expensive proposition.
 
"Terry Yager" wrote in message:

> If I could have only one vintage machine
> it would be a Dimension 68000. That
> would be cheating tho, because it is
> actually 4 machines in one. In it's native
> mode it runs CP/M 68K, but with available
> co-processor boards can run programs
> designed for the Apple II, CP/M 80, and
> the IBM-PC. I really miss mine, but it
> has found a good home in the local
> computer museum, so I can visit it any
> time I feel like playing with it.

Oh well, I play around with other machines
on my IBM through emulators, so I guess
that's doing the same thing! ;-)

Even my good 'ol Amstrad has had an
emulator written for it, so I guess it's not
all bad! :)

Cheers.
 
It's hard to pick a favourite from mine - the NeXT slab wins for out-and-out cool looks (and is fun to hack code on too). The Mac Classic II is just a joy to type on, and given that I spend a lot of time writing (text, not code) it's the machine I use most. The machine I have fondest memories of is the Sinclair QL - it was the first machine that I bought for myself, with my own hard-earned cash, it served me faithfully throughout my final year at college, and I learned the ins and outs of C programming on it. I hated (still hate, in fact) the unreliable microdrives and soon added a 3.5" floppy drive to the mix, but other than that it was a top machine. Much maligned at the time, to my mind unjustifiably, but you can't release it the way Sinclair did and expect it to be taken seriously I suppose :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top