![[Index]](../toc.gif){kind=small}
![[® Previous]](../left.gif){kind=small}
-![[Feedback]](../feedback.gif){kind=small}
The reason many of your readers requested improved WIndows 3.1 & Windows 95 support is because of the lack of native OS/2 applications available to the average HOME USER. There is no Quicken, Lotus Smartsuite is on the way but who knows when it'll be here? Maybe IBM should spend some of its $$$ not in "keeping up" with MS, but rather offering software companies some form of monetary incentive, or assistance in developing apps for the OS/2 platform. OS/2 Warp works, it's stable, there are just a limited number of home user apps out there...
I was very pleased to read Dan Porter's commentary in the lastest issue of OS/2 e-Zine!. I have been trying out different Java programs, such as Corel Office for Java, JavaFTP and MaxBase all with very disappointing speed. Now I know, the reasan for this is not just my old 486 DX2 but also the JDK 1.0.2 and the fact that the programs I have tried properly where created to this specification and not the newer version 1.1. Dan Porter's commentary means I soon will be downloading InnoVal's Free E-mail client, so I can try out the Java client when it is available.
BTW, Although I virtually never use boot-to-DOS/WIN from Boot Manager, the fact that it is there is important!
In addition to asking how many apps are installed, you might consider asking how many are used. Otherwise the results may be misleading. I tend to install all kinds of stuff that I rarely, if ever, use.
Even though they closed their doors, I think the folks at Describe, Inc. provided a great product to the computing community. I still use the last version they shipped (frequent flyer upgrade) to publish a 9 times per year newsletter. What's really neat is that the NT version allows me to use the tabloid printer in my office, while the OS/2 version lets me work in the comfort of my own home for bulk development.
I have been reluctant to switch to anything else. Why has no one picked up the code and renewed development efforts on this high quality application? Anyway, they get my vote... posthumously.
My own feeling on paid betas comes from things I've seen in both the OS/2 and Linux communities: while the purpose of a beta is wide *testing* of a program, all too often people who "must" have the absolute latest-and-greatest programs (or versions) download and install betas, heedless of warnings about possible or even known problems, and then complain about how "it doesn't work! How can anyone release such a buggy piece of crap! yadayadayada..." (Perhaps the ultimate example is people who whine for weeks about buggy OS/2 FixPaks which they lifted from testcase -- they're not only not released, they're deliberately obfuscated because they're *known* to have problems and IBM doesn't want Joe Schmuck downloading them.) Putting a fee on a beta raises the bar to try to keep out those people who aren't serious about *testing* the program.
That said, I don't really like the idea much. But this is not a perfect world, and as long as people will go to enormous lengths to get even deliberately hidden code -- and then complain about how it shouldn't have been "released" and how horrible the vendor is -- *something* is needed to keep them out and make the beta process useful.
Another point: a lot of people participate in betas just to get a free copy of a new program. There are *still* people running the "Merlin" beta because they wanted Warp 4 for free, for example. OS/2 users in particular have a nasty habit of complaining when some program isn't available for OS/2 and then complaining even louder when it comes out because the price is "too high". ("Too high" has been known to be as low as $30. Horrors!) Quite aside from these folks not having heard the saying "beggars can't be choosers", maybe they should compare the cost of equivalent Windows programs. Or worse, commercial Unix programs. But instead we see people complaining about the programs not being essentially free, and getting into beta programs just to satisfy their desire for free programs.
Again, the solution is far from ideal -- but so is the problem. I don't use much shareware, but what I do use I register, and I regularly buy commercial OS/2 software as well. I happen to think it's a good idea to support OS/2 ISVs so they can afford to continue developing OS/2 programs. And I'm always frustrated when I see messages from people trying to find out how to work around a bug in an ancient beta who respond to "buy the released version" with a whine about how $100 for a program going for $250 in the Windows world is "too much". I find it difficult to fault ISVs for going to paid betas in light of this. -- Of course, then you get whines about how eeeeevil paid betas are, from the same people who whine because any price at all for released software is "too high". No, I don't mean the authors of the "paid beta" article, I'm thinking of people in the noisegroups (that's not a typo :-) .
(The same thing happens in the Linux community, with ALPHA software that gets treated as released and whined about -- and with the inevitable stream of fools who complain about how commercial software for Linux must be "illegal" using a distorted view of the GNU General Public License as their argument. But this is somewhat understandable in the Linux arena, given that the OS itself is free software. There is NO excuse for it in the OS/2 market.)
I beleive that free public beta tests should continue. I beta tested Merlin, and If I had not done so, I would probobly be using Windows now. Beta versions not only help developers write bug free software, they can help sell software. How many people out there tried the beta version of Lotus WordPro that is included in the Application Sampler CD with Warp 4, before purchasing WordPro?
While I think the debate in this month's magazine is interesting, I would have to say that beta's testers should not be paid. Testing is simply a cost of doing business, and paying people to beta does not guarantee that you will get a single person that will find a significant bug. It seems to me that the developer should have an application for beta testers, and select based on the answers to the questions on the applications, limited the pool to a number that is reasonable to support and will give good feedback.
Something disturbing happenned to me recently that I felt the need to share, so here goes.
I've been using OS/2 since version 2.1. At the time, I was attempting to use Windows 3.1, but my computer and it had their differences. After loading OS/2 on my system, it was love at first click. I'd finally found an OS that I could work with in a stable environment and have stayed with it, upgrading to Warp 3.0 and now Warp 4.0, since then.
Because of my success with OS/2, I have always tried to point others in its direction when I could, with many good results. Naturally, this extends into my online life as well. When you are bombarded by Microsoft ads and programs that seem very Microsoft-centric, not many people know that you have the option of other operating systems. One such program, the On Computers radio show, seems to be a hothouse for Microsoft-centric thought. No matter what the subject, from drag and drop to voicetype, the caller always seems to be given a Windows based solution.
A couple of weeks ago, as I sat listening to this and wondering where the regular host was, I decided to join the online irc chat and find out. Upon logging on, I was greeted friendly and started chatting with the folks online. Something came up on the radio show that we began discussing online, and I mentioned OS/2.
Well hold back the floodgates! From that point on, I was barraged with whatever folks wanted to say about my OS of choice. This was fine, as I "held my own" with the online users. However, one of the online hosts of the show, who was a Microsoft Network employee, just wouldn't let up. It started out as small snipes against OS/2, but ended up of me being accused of being mentally ill, mentally unstable, and all around incompetent solely based on the fact that I chose not to run a Microsoft operating system.
As things sometimes do, this had a happy ending after all. At the point where the MSN emplyee became his most abusive, the shows main online host, Nathan Garcia, saw what was going on, and stepped in. The attacker let up somewhat, but not all the way. Later, in an email to me, Nathan let it be known that the MSN employee was now undergoing counseling for his online activities, and hoped that I would be back to join in on the show. Well, if it gives me the chance to promote OS/2, you know I will.
Thanks for an enjoyable article to read. I have been using OS/2 since 1.2 and Win 3.0, 3.1 to Win 95. My daily work is actually developing systems on OS/2. The real reasoning behind the product development and marketing of OS/2 by IBM, has always been cloudy as seen from my point of view. Your article put things in front which I had not thought about, e.g., that IBM should have shipped OS/2 in the summer of 1991 without the Workplace Shell.
I have always thought that if IBM really wanted to compete fully in the desktop operating system market with Microsoft, IBM would need something more than just the OS to show itself off . IBM should have made applications like those found in MS Office.
Not only are they back (with a vengeance), but they have OS/2 drivers right in the box. They have 3D and 4D sound cards, and this time, they're Sound Blaster-compatible.
I have seen some strange comments about LaTeX and OS/2. Emtex (by Eberhard Mattes) is "the" reason I use OS/2. I have used TeX on all existing platforms, and this is the best. I use Mr. Ed as an editor, and it is easy to arrange saving and TeXing from the editor by a couple of key strokes. The previewer is the only one I know that has a search function, so altogether emtex on OS/2 is the best existing TeX implementation by far. This ought to be sufficient reason for a lot of people to use OS/2.
-
Copyright © 1997 - Falcon Networking