>I just scanned over the May issue of PC/Computing and it looks like they did
>a good job of reviewing OS/2- even though Win 3.1 is splashed all over the
>Headlines include: OS/2 2.0, Alive and Kicking
> OS/2 2.0 Does the Job
>They do a pretty good job of "Is OS/2 for You?", the main reason NOT to buy
>it is insufficient hardware. Right behind it is if you only use a few DOS apps.
>In such a case DV or a task switcher is better (I agree). Reasons for: If
>you run DOS & Windows apps, or if there are OS/2 versions of your favorite
>apps already or in development.
For anyone not quite sure about the 'intangible' (I quote myself here)
benefits of OS/2, This issue has an excellent, IMHO, explanation of Os/2's
benefits for the technical and non-technical readers. It's also objective,
meaning that it's biased neither towards nor against OS/2. It shows
several pictures of the WPS for those who have never seen it, and mentions
that to really understand the WPS, you have to sit down and use it for a
Other, advocating commentary on the article follows.
Interestingly, one might notice the Windows 3.1 article. While it makes no
reference to OS/2, take a look at the '10 Features Missing From 3.1 and
Where to Get Them'. Interestingly, OS/2 answers almost all of them.
1. Long Filenames. Try HPFS.
2. Hierarchical Program Groups. WPS goes far, far beyond this.
3. A Command-Line Interface. With OS/2, any character-mode app can be run
either full-screen or in a window. OK, some very old ones can't be
run in a window, but generally, it's true. This includes the standard
command shell, Rommel's sh port, MKS ksh....
4. Undelete. OS/2 has an undelete.
5. A Trash Can. Another WPS object.
6. A File Viewer. Would be nice.
7. Content-based Text Searching. OS/2 does not have this.
8. A recall list for the File Run dialog. Not really applicable, though OS/2
could use a simple program launcher like the File Run dialog.
note, however, that it's just as easy to start up a command shell
and start up programs from there. OS/2's CMD.EXE has all the
functionality of DOSKEY built-in. In fact, DOSKEY is essentially
the command-line editing code from CMD.EXE.
9. Inits, or Startup programs. I'm not really sure what they are asking for.
Any program that could be put in the startup folder or as a device
driver under either OS/2 or Windows could do the same as a Mac INIT.
10. Systemwide Command Language. OS/2 goes one step beyond here. Not only
is there a language, REXX, but REXX is a standard language available
on almost all micros and mainframes, and OS/2 programs can tap into
the REXX interpreter so that they can use it as their own script
interpreter. Wouldn't it be nice if every program that used a script
language used the same one? OS/2 has some nice programming features
to allow this to happen.
In addition, the '10 Best Things About Windows 3.1' are almost all in OS/2,
1. Better File Manager. Try WPS.
2. Greater Reliability. This is one of Os/2's strongest points. In addition,
The Windows 3.1 error management code is already in Win-OS2.
3. More efficient printing. In OS/2, printing is a true process, so the
problems associated with Windows printing don't even come up.
4. Revised SmartDrive. Thanks to Gordon Letwin, we have HPFS, with its
own cache. In addition, we have a FAT cache that does its job
quite well, without ever touching it.
5. 32-bit disk access. Windows' 32-bit access is only on certain controllers,
and only used for swapfiles. OS/2's FAT is fully 32-bit, and the
HPFS, though only 16-bit, is faster yet. Imagine when the HPFS
code goes 32-bit.
6. TrueType. OS/2 has ATM. Plus or Minus wither way, depending on your
7. Drag-and-Drop Interface. Windows direct manipulation is pathetic compared
8. OLE. Time will tell, but SOM has the ability to far surpass OLE technology.
9. Startup Group. OS/2 has had startup items since 1.1, and v2.0 has
a Startup Folder.
10. Improved Installation. OS/2 installation is long, but a no-brainer, bar
hardware incompatibility. I've done installation on three machines.
One was a no-go (didn't even read the first disk, but could have
been an alignment problem), and the other two went flawlessly.
If you have additions or objections, please e-mail. I'll summarize and post.
David Giller, Box 134 | Q: How many Oregonians does it take to*in a light
Occidental College | bulb? A: Three. One to replace the bulb, and two to
1600 Campus Road | fend off all the Californians trying to share the