Is This Group Active

Mark Conrad wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <cLdq6jdb1N4Q-pn2-cVFv8mTL4YOI@localhost>,
> "Mark Dodel" <madodelNOSPAM@ptd.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > -> Every time I try to encourage my fellow Mac users to run
> > -> Windows on their Macs, I usually get flamed.
> > ->
> >
> > Why would anyone want to screwup a perfectly good Mac
> > with a piece of bloated junk like windoze?[/color]
>
> Well the Mac is not exactly a tiny OS these days either,
> my Leopard install is 8.6 GB, my Vista install is also 8.6 GB
>
> Fair amount of junk in both of them.
>[/color]

Well, surprise surprise!

But are you sure you installed Leopard correctly? Because it would
seem to me that a superior 21st century operating system like OS X
should occupy only a few dozen megabytes of disk space, just like
Microsoft's first BASIC interpreter had to fit within the tiny 4 KB of
memory that came with the MITS Altair computer.

*LOL*

Well anyways, are you enjoying Leopard so far? What do you think are
its pros and cons?

In article <50P1j.1320$C24.796@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>,
"Erich Kohl" <synth.virtuoso@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Well anyways, are you enjoying Leopard so far?[/color]

Oh yes indeed, for an off-the-shelf OS it is great.


[color=blue]
> What do you think are its pros and cons?[/color]

That is a bit tough to answer in 25 words or less.<g>

Mainly because the OS and the Mac hardware are so
intertwined, Apple controls them both, unlike $MS
who only controls the OS.

(although $MS can beat-up the hardware guys,
if they don't do what $MS wants them to do)


Pros and cons about Leopard, hmm.

Now is my chance to make enemies in both camps ;-)


Pros about Leopard,
as compared to "other" OS's
***************************

1) Easier to learn and operate, Apple is known for
pushing ease of use

2) Zero malware worries, for whatever reason

3) Integrated Unix for the geek users

4) Ability to run any other popular OS, such as
XP, Vista, various Linux flavors. Because of this
one ability, I can run almost all of the same stuff
that Windows users run, the only exception being a
very few extremely low level util's which rely on
actual PC hardware chips

5) Modern Macs have most of the major software bases
covered, as one can see by browsing these links:

[url]http://www.apple.com/itpro/[/url]

[url]http://www.apple.com/pro/[/url]

[url]http://www.apple.com/games/[/url]

[url]http://www.apple.com/education/[/url]

[url]http://www.apple.com/business/[/url]

[url]http://www.apple.com/science/[/url]

5) Apple's willingness to try new OS 'concepts' on its
users, trinkets like "Time Machine" and "Stacks".
Apple users hate Stakes, so that backfired.
Apple users like Time Machine, however.

Time Machine is kinda like Windows "Shadow Copies", only
a lot more fun to use, mainly because of the easy-to-use
interface which is really well implemented to resemble
a Time Machine lashup.

(doesn't everyone have a Time Machine nowadays?)




BTW, when I was browsing those Apple websites I found a
handy dandy "printer" that will run off a modern Mac such
as mine. Don't ask me where the preliminary links are,
I did not keep track of them.

<[url]http://www.stratasys.com/uploadedFiles/North_America/Products/Arcam/EBM%[/url]
20S400%20specFIN.pdf>


It is a kinda 3D 'printer' which creates finished titanium
parts, using a process called "electron beam melting".

The parts which pop right out of that 'printer' have an
accuracy of .015 inch, according to the spec's.

Can be micro machined by conventional means for higher
accuracy, of course.

That would be a neat device to hook up to a Mac for
receiving CAD spec's from Earth, to create parts locally
on the planet Mars, should one want to avoid the long
transit time needed in order to get the same parts
shipped from Earth.

Arcam is the swedish outfit that manufactures that
cheapy printer, Stratasys is their U.S. distributor.





Cons about Leopard,
as compared to "other" OS's
***************************

1) Does not have some minor features like resizing of
windows from any border of a window. Apple eliminates
a lot of these features on the altar of 'simplicity',
kinda like the clutch and gearshift were eliminated on
automobiles for the same reason.

....
....
sure I could think of other "cons", but...

<yawn> - this post is getting too long, better chop it off.

Mark-

On Nov 23, 1:20 pm, "Erich Kohl" <synth.virtu...@gmail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> Mark Dodel wrote:[color=green]
> > On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 05:01:14 UTC, "Erich Kohl"[/color]
>
> Holy crap! Overreact much?
>
> Sir, I certainly don't feel like making an enemy over something like
> one's choice of a personal computing platform.[/color]

Erich, you need to understand this here and now about Mark "Dodie"
Dodel. The guy is a true nutball. When IBM stopped selling OS/2 and
I advised OS/2 users to move on to other operating system a group of
OS/2 zealots, led by Dodie Doel, went totally ballistic on me and
haven't stopped attacking since. They've mail-bombed me, threatened
my employees, set up a bogus web page of hate against me, stalk me to
any newsgroup or forum I participate in - and will do and say whatever
it takes to discredit me. The guy is in serious need of psychiatric
help but he'll blame everything on you (or me, whomever his target is
at the time being).

You are now on his hit list - good luck to you! Secure your systems,
guard your personal information because this guy is a true nutcase!
I'm now a Mac user and don't give a damn about the handful of fanatics
who use it but I felt the warning to you was important - just to
protect yourself and be vigilant because Mark "Dodie" Dodel is a bona-
fide wing-nut.

Dr. Tim Martin, The OS/2 Guy
Visit The OS/2 Guy Blog Today
[url]http://www.os2guy.com[/url]

(c) The OS/2 Guy (c) wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Nov 23, 1:20 pm, "Erich Kohl" <synth.virtu...@gmail.com> wrote:[color=green]
> > Mark Dodel wrote:[color=darkred]
> > > On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 05:01:14 UTC, "Erich Kohl"[/color]
> >
> > Holy crap! Overreact much?
> >
> > Sir, I certainly don't feel like making an enemy over something like
> > one's choice of a personal computing platform.[/color]
>
> Erich, you need to understand this here and now about Mark "Dodie"
> Dodel. The guy is a true nutball. When IBM stopped selling OS/2 and
> I advised OS/2 users to move on to other operating system a group of
> OS/2 zealots, led by Dodie Doel, went totally ballistic on me and
> haven't stopped attacking since. They've mail-bombed me, threatened
> my employees, set up a bogus web page of hate against me, stalk me to
> any newsgroup or forum I participate in - and will do and say whatever
> it takes to discredit me. The guy is in serious need of psychiatric
> help but he'll blame everything on you (or me, whomever his target is
> at the time being).
>
> You are now on his hit list - good luck to you! Secure your systems,
> guard your personal information because this guy is a true nutcase!
> I'm now a Mac user and don't give a damn about the handful of fanatics
> who use it but I felt the warning to you was important - just to
> protect yourself and be vigilant because Mark "Dodie" Dodel is a bona-
> fide wing-nut.
>
> Dr. Tim Martin, The OS/2 Guy
> Visit The OS/2 Guy Blog Today
> [url]http://www.os2guy.com[/url][/color]

All of this seems almost hard to believe, but I do appreciate the
warning, and I guess I'll just have to be on the lookout and deal with
the situation as it unfolds. Right now it just seems like he dislikes
me a lot since I'm a Windows user and advocate; hopefully it won't get
any worse than that.

As you can see, I wrote a lengthy and tactful reply to his attack (for
the lack of a better word) on me because I wanted to straighten things
out. I even /apologized/, even though all I was doing was defending
Windows users everywhere (okay, I admit, maybe it started out as being
a little sarcastic, but he was coming on awfully strong as well when he
criticized Mark Conrad for suggesting the notion that someone might
want to have "Windoze" installed on a Mac). All I can do is reason
with the guy; if he can't accept that, then I'm officially out of
options.

You know, I actually found the guy's website where he provides a lot of
OS/2 information, and I don't mind saying that it's pretty well done.
He seems to possess a fair amount of technical knowledge, and whether
or not he's a bit mentally unbalanced as you claim, I'd even go so far
as to say that he seems intelligent (I don't know if he'd say the same
thing about me, however).

Personal computer users everywhere are bound by the love and passion we
have for the technology. It's fun to compare the different operating
systems, and the debate can often be interesting. I even get a kick
out of all the commotion that goes on in newsgroups like
comp.sys.mac.advocacy. But I've got to say, I'm not very good at
fighting and confrontation. The principle I want to live by is the
belief that we each have different needs and, as a result, we use what
is right for us -- in this case, it might be Windows, it might be OS X,
or it might be Linux. And this is fine. And we can even talk about it
-- but it shouldn't be the source of idiotic hatred or prejudice.

Hopefully Mr. Dodel can see that this is really where I am coming from.
We shall see.

P.S. I visited your website and decided to use that pier photo as my
desktop background. Nice pic!

In article
<218f05a5-29a7-43ef-a786-738f60c00109@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"(c) The OS/2 Guy (c)" <os2guy@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Erich, you need to understand this here and now about Mark "Dodie"
> Dodel. The guy is a true nutball.[/color]

[color=blue]
> Dr. Tim Martin, The OS/2 Guy
> Visit The OS/2 Guy Blog Today
> [url]http://www.os2guy.com[/url][/color]

Erich, you need to understand that there is no "Dr. Tim Martin". "The
OS/2 Guy" is really Larry Chauvet. He lives in San Francisco and is a
noted usenet nutcase who did his best for 10 years to disrupt the OS/2
newsgroups.

Do a search on Larry Chauvet and you will see what I am talking about.
Like this:

[url]http://www.chauvet.com/2007/01/test.html[/url]

Bob Campbell

Bob Campbell wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article
> <218f05a5-29a7-43ef-a786-738f60c00109@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "(c) The OS/2 Guy (c)" <os2guy@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Erich, you need to understand this here and now about Mark "Dodie"
> > Dodel. The guy is a true nutball.[/color]
>
>[color=green]
> > Dr. Tim Martin, The OS/2 Guy
> > Visit The OS/2 Guy Blog Today
> > [url]http://www.os2guy.com[/url][/color]
>
> Erich, you need to understand that there is no "Dr. Tim Martin".
> "The OS/2 Guy" is really Larry Chauvet. He lives in San Francisco
> and is a noted usenet nutcase who did his best for 10 years to
> disrupt the OS/2 newsgroups.
>
> Do a search on Larry Chauvet and you will see what I am talking
> about. Like this:
>
> [url]http://www.chauvet.com/2007/01/test.html[/url]
>
> Bob Campbell[/color]

Well, at this point I am now officially very pissed off and tired of
dealing with any of this (and I'm a little embarrassed and mad at
myself too).

I confront someone (which I thought was justified), get my ass handed
to me on a platter as a result, and then I actually apologize and try
to clear the air. But I never receive another response from that
person.

Then somebody else tells me that the person I confronted is a nut who
stalks, threatens, and mail-bombs.

Now I find out that the person I got the warning from is a lying hoax
who is also a nutcase.

I give up. I don't feel like participating in this thread anymore or
conversing with either one of them; hopefully they'll just leave me
alone.

Of course, it goes without saying that I'm not mad at you, Bob.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:36:36 UTC, Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:

->
-> Erich, you need to understand that there is no "Dr. Tim Martin". "The
-> OS/2 Guy" is really Larry Chauvet. He lives in San Francisco and is a
-> noted usenet nutcase who did his best for 10 years to disrupt the OS/2
-> newsgroups.
->
-> Do a search on Larry Chauvet and you will see what I am talking about.
-> Like this:
->
-> [url]http://www.chauvet.com/2007/01/test.html[/url]
->
-> Bob Campbell

For more on the psycho-troll who uses the alias Tim Martin/Nick
Marc/Meng Tianmu/Larry Chauvet/Hudson Johns/John S. Hudson and so many
more, see [url]http://www.mr2ice.com/TMFaq/[/url] This creep did so much
trolling of the comp.os.os2 groups that the OS/2 community came up
with a solution of how to deal with the creep. He now pretends to be a
Mac fan.


Mark

--
From the eComStation of Mark Dodel

Warpstock 2007 - Toronto, Ontario, Canada: [url]http://www.warpstock.org[/url]
Warpstock Europe - Valkenswaard close to Eindhoven, the Netherlands:
[url]http://www.warpstock.eu[/url]

Erich Kohl wrote:
[color=blue]
> [snip]
>
> But in the end, all I can say is, Windows usually does what I tell it
> to do in a relatively easy and straightforward way that is compatible
> with the largest amount of hardware and software that's out there. I
> guess that's why it's so hard not to give up.[/color]

Whoops . . . I meant to say, "hard to give up."

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 00:00:36 UTC, Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:

-> In article <cLdq6jdb1N4Q-pn2-xTd3Fdx5X1HY@localhost>,
-> "Mark Dodel" <madodelNOSPAM@ptd.net> wrote:
->

You quoted Eric's text as if it were from me.

-> > They did have the option until microsoft strong armed IBM and forced
-> > them to kill their own opeating system in favor of the inferior
-> > windows. When Warp came out, every month PC Magazine had a list of
-> > the 10 best selling software for the month. OS/2 was always at the
-> > top, so what happened? PC Magazine dropped the feature. Millions
-> > every month were paying for OS/2 to replace the crappy windoze on
-> > their machines.
->
-> comp.sys.mac.advocacy removed since this has nothing to do with Macs!
->

The thread was in part about the freak troll that was being discussed
now hangs out in the Mac groups. The Mac community should be aware of
the creep.

-> The above is completely wrong. If you think MS was in a position to
-> "strong arm" IBM in 1995 you are simply crazy. IBM had to sell Windows
-> if they wanted to sell PCs because no one wanted OS/2.

Fact is they did. It was part of the testimony at the microsoft
monopoly trial.

->
-> OS/2 was usually IN the PC Mag top 10 list, it was never at the top.
-> The feature disappeared for a month or 2, but it came back.
->

Interesting this thread from 1997 tends to agree with me, not you -
[url]http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.os2.advocacy/browse_thread/thre[/url]
ad/d5b39407366ed82/005a931775cd13cc?hl=en&lnk=st&q=%2B%22OS%2F2%22+%2B
%22PC+Magazine%22+%2Btop+%2Blist#005a931775cd13cc

-> The fact is, IBM ****ed up OS/2 on their own - they didn't need any help
-> from MS.

No doubt IBM did screw up but it was microsoft's criminal behavior
that pushed it over the edge.

->
-> First of all, IBM insisted on making the first version a 286 OS, so it
-> would run on all the IBM ATs that had been sold. When Windows 3.0 (and
-> later 3.1) hit the market, using the 386 CPU features, OS/2 1.0 looked
-> completely ridiculous.
->

Agreed, IBM had its own agenda for OS/2 and had made promises to major
clients. IBM continues to support OS/2 for a number of large clients
today because of promisesthey made 15+ years ago.

-> Second, the name didn't help AT ALL. It was perceived as an IBM
-> attempt at lock-in (PS/2, OS/2), and along with the PS/2's micro channel
-> expansions slots was rejected by the market place.
->

Agreed. Many equated OS/2 with only running on IBM hardware. Which
was completely wrong, but then many hardware manufacturers refused to
make drivers for OS/2. IBM had to do it. Why develope windoze
drivers only? Especially back then, when OS/2 had a bigger market
share then wincrap.

-> Third, when Windows 95 and NT4 hit the market - with 32 bit apps - it
-> was all over. IBM was still chasing 16 bit Windows with OS/2 2.1's and
-> 3.0's ability to run 16 bit Windows apps. No one cared about 16 bit
-> Windows any longer. In 1996 when Will Zachmann threw in the towel, you
-> knew OS/2 was dead.

windoze95 was not 32bit. It was a GUI on top of 16bit DOS. That was
done to defeat the terms of the first microsoft anti-trust trial
settlement. Intel then had to cripple the 32bit Pentium Pro line
because windoze had such poor performance on a real 32bit CPU. I know
this because I bought a damn dual Pentium Pro system and then Intel
killed off the Pentium Pro, so the best I could ever upgrade it to was
a ****amamie 333MHz overdrive.

NT was a piece of crap until 4.0, and even that never had half the
features or the multitasking ability of the concurrent OS/2 releases.

->
-> Yes, OS/2 was technically superior - and 2.1 and 3.0 were absolutely
-> stunning achievements - but that doesn't matter. It's marketing,
-> marketing, marketing. IBM - for some unknown reason - forgot how to
-> market. Look at the original IBM PC. Nothing special about it AT
-> ALL. Off the shelf parts in a plain beige box. But it had an
-> extremely clever and sophisticated marketing plan behind it. The
-> Charlie Chaplin ads were ****ing BRILLIANT!

They put a cracker/cigarette peddler in chargeof the company. He had
no clue as to the quality of products he had. He decided to make IBM
a service company, and now other than the mainframe and high end
servers, IBM has little real product left. IBM used to be the largest
software developer in the world. Its sad. It also was a major problem
that other IBM divisions saw OS/2 as a competitor. Both the IBM AIX
and mid-systems, and the PC company took every opportunity to snub
OS/2.

->
-> FWIW, I ran OS/2 2.0 and 2.1. They got me thru the dark days of
-> Windows 3.1. But in August 1995, when Windows 95 was released I
-> switched and never looked back. I still have an eCS 1.0 (OS/2 4.5)
-> install running under VPC in Vista that I fire up occasionally when I'm
-> feeling nostalgic. But OS/2 is a classic example of missed
-> opportunities and hubris.

I have worked with OS/2 since 1.3. And that was a real piece of crap,
but mostly because the hardware wasn't up to the real requirements.
2.0 was when it began to shine, with 2.1 being almost a piece of art.
I've run every version since then, including eComStation 2.0 RC3 today
on my Thinkpad.

Mark


--
From the eComStation of Mark Dodel

Warpstock 2007 - Toronto, Ontario, Canada: [url]http://www.warpstock.org[/url]
Warpstock Europe - Valkenswaard close to Eindhoven, the Netherlands:
[url]http://www.warpstock.eu[/url]

In article <cLdq6jdb1N4Q-pn2-QdfL344efJxu@localhost>,
"Mark Dodel" <madodelNOSPAM@ptd.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> -> Third, when Windows 95 and NT4 hit the market - with 32 bit apps - it
> -> was all over. IBM was still chasing 16 bit Windows with OS/2 2.1's and
> -> 3.0's ability to run 16 bit Windows apps. No one cared about 16 bit
> -> Windows any longer. In 1996 when Will Zachmann threw in the towel, you
> -> knew OS/2 was dead.
>
> windoze95 was not 32bit.[/color]

Windows95 absolutely WAS 32 bit. It ran the very same 32 bit apps that
NT4 ran.

Yes, Win95 ran "on top of DOS", sort of. Once you were running 32 bit
apps, DOS was no longer involved, however. It only "ran on top of
DOS" so you could continue to run your 16 bit Win and DOS apps and
drivers. You didn't need any of that to run 32 bit apps.

OS/2 had none of that. OS/2 1 had terrible backwards compatibility.
Most DOS apps would not run. The "DOS penalty BOX" was called that for
a reason!

OS/2 2.x had MUCH better 16 bit DOS and Win support, and in fact OS/2
2.1 was THE BEST environment ever to run 16 bit Windows 3.1 and DOS
apps. Hell, you could even boot DOS games in OS/2 2.1 from floppy
disks using the excellent DOS VM! Those would never run in Windows.

The 32 bit Windows apps were a major cause of the downfall of OS/2.
The new 32 bit Windows apps that came in 95, 96 and 97 (and since) would
not run on OS/2. That and IBM's incredible ineptitude at marketing
OS/2 killed it.

Bob Campbell

Here in comp.os.os2.advocacy, Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob>
spake unto us, saying:
[color=blue]
>In article <cLdq6jdb1N4Q-pn2-xTd3Fdx5X1HY@localhost>,
> "Mark Dodel" <madodelNOSPAM@ptd.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> They did have the option until microsoft strong armed IBM and forced
>> them to kill their own opeating system in favor of the inferior
>> windows. When Warp came out, every month PC Magazine had a list of
>> the 10 best selling software for the month. OS/2 was always at the
>> top, so what happened? PC Magazine dropped the feature. Millions
>> every month were paying for OS/2 to replace the crappy windoze on
>> their machines.[/color]
>
>comp.sys.mac.advocacy removed since this has nothing to do with Macs!
>
>The above is completely wrong. If you think MS was in a position to
>"strong arm" IBM in 1995 you are simply crazy. IBM had to sell Windows
>if they wanted to sell PCs because no one wanted OS/2.[/color]

Sworn testimony from IBM executives in the US DOJ's trial against MS
and comments made after the fact seem to indicate otherwise.

[url]http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/7885/MS/IBM-1.html[/url]
[url]http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/7885/MS/IBM-3.html[/url]
[url]http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/7885/MS/IBM-4.html[/url]

--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [url]http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner[/url] >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
Mainframe/Unix bit twiddler by day, OS/2+Linux+DOS hobbyist by night.
WARNING: I've seen FIELDATA FORTRAN V and I know how to use it!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.

In article <w4kUHpHpvedf092yn@visi.com>,
[email]rsteiner@visi.com[/email] (Richard Steiner) wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> >The above is completely wrong. If you think MS was in a position to
> >"strong arm" IBM in 1995 you are simply crazy. IBM had to sell Windows
> >if they wanted to sell PCs because no one wanted OS/2.[/color]
>
> Sworn testimony from IBM executives in the US DOJ's trial against MS
> and comments made after the fact seem to indicate otherwise.[/color]

Yeah, and that's completely unbiased right?

Bob Campbell

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 01:07:47 UTC, Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:

-> In article <w4kUHpHpvedf092yn@visi.com>,
-> [email]rsteiner@visi.com[/email] (Richard Steiner) wrote:
->
-> > >The above is completely wrong. If you think MS was in a position to
-> > >"strong arm" IBM in 1995 you are simply crazy. IBM had to sell Windows
-> > >if they wanted to sell PCs because no one wanted OS/2.
-> >
-> > Sworn testimony from IBM executives in the US DOJ's trial against MS
-> > and comments made after the fact seem to indicate otherwise.
->
-> Yeah, and that's completely unbiased right?

So you are questioning sworn testimony given in a U.S. federal court
proceeding? So there isn't any evidence or proof that will keep you
from questioning your own opinions? Are you just another microserf
troll?

Mark


--
From the eComStation of Mark Dodel

Warpstock 2007 - Toronto, Ontario, Canada: [url]http://www.warpstock.org[/url]
Warpstock Europe - Valkenswaard close to Eindhoven, the Netherlands:
[url]http://www.warpstock.eu[/url]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 05:15:12 UTC, Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:

-> In article <cLdq6jdb1N4Q-pn2-QdfL344efJxu@localhost>,
-> "Mark Dodel" <madodelNOSPAM@ptd.net> wrote:
->
-> > -> Third, when Windows 95 and NT4 hit the market - with 32 bit apps - it
-> > -> was all over. IBM was still chasing 16 bit Windows with OS/2 2.1's and
-> > -> 3.0's ability to run 16 bit Windows apps. No one cared about 16 bit
-> > -> Windows any longer. In 1996 when Will Zachmann threw in the towel, you
-> > -> knew OS/2 was dead.
-> >
-> > windoze95 was not 32bit.
->
-> Windows95 absolutely WAS 32 bit. It ran the very same 32 bit apps that
-> NT4 ran.

This could go on forever "was so", "was not". The fact is Intel ended
the true 32bit Pentium Pro line and replaced it with a crippled
Pentium II just because win95 ran poorly on a 32bit CPU.

->
-> Yes, Win95 ran "on top of DOS", sort of. Once you were running 32 bit
-> apps, DOS was no longer involved, however. It only "ran on top of
-> DOS" so you could continue to run your 16 bit Win and DOS apps and
-> drivers. You didn't need any of that to run 32 bit apps.
->
-> OS/2 had none of that. OS/2 1 had terrible backwards compatibility.
-> Most DOS apps would not run. The "DOS penalty BOX" was called that for
-> a reason!

Yeah and the printer drivers microsoft wrote didn't work, and it only
used FAT which fragmented badly. At least IBM recognized the problems
and fixed them in later versions. As to the "penalty box" that was
because of the requirement to run on a 286 which couldn't virtualizea
DOS session. That was imposed on IBM by contracts with large clients.
So stupidity goes beyond IBM.

->
-> OS/2 2.x had MUCH better 16 bit DOS and Win support, and in fact OS/2
-> 2.1 was THE BEST environment ever to run 16 bit Windows 3.1 and DOS
-> apps. Hell, you could even boot DOS games in OS/2 2.1 from floppy
-> disks using the excellent DOS VM! Those would never run in Windows.
->

And it could pre-emptive multitask, something the 16 bit based windows
couldn't do. And it was much better at it thenthe NT variant as well.

-> The 32 bit Windows apps were a major cause of the downfall of OS/2.
-> The new 32 bit Windows apps that came in 95, 96 and 97 (and since) would
-> not run on OS/2. That and IBM's incredible ineptitude at marketing
-> OS/2 killed it.
->

Actually IBM did write a win32 subsystem for OS/2. In fact there were
two ways to run win32 apps on OS/2. OS/2 could use the microsoft
win32s API which was for 16bit win-OS/2 to run 32bit windoze apps.
And there was OPEN32 (originally named DAPIE or DAX) which allowed
running PE executables natively under OS/2. This was later open
sourced as the Odin project, started by Innotek, and now run by
Netlabs [url]http://odin.netlabs.org[/url] OPEN32 was used to port the win32
source of Lotus Smartsuite to OS/2. Odin was used to port Opera and
OpenOffice.org 1.1.x to OS/2. IBM had given up on OPEN32 when they
realized that microsoft kept changing the win32 API. Now microsoft
defeats things like Odin and Linux's WINE by requiring things like IE
calls from windoze programs. microsoft also adds a requirement that
programs developed with their tools can't be run on anything but
windoze. That was why Macromedia wouldn't allow an updated Flash to
be run on OS/2 using Odin.

I agree that IBM's complete lack of marketing OS/2 didn't help, but
why didn't they market their own product? They actually had an OS/2
director of marketing up until recently. I have no idea how he
justified his paycheck. But it was microsoft's predatory activities
that made/make it impossible to compete.


Mark

--
From the eComStation of Mark Dodel

Warpstock 2007 - Toronto, Ontario, Canada: [url]http://www.warpstock.org[/url]
Warpstock Europe - Valkenswaard close to Eindhoven, the Netherlands:
[url]http://www.warpstock.eu[/url]