[® Previous] - [Feedback]
Feedback from November 11

More e-Banking Comments

An interesting editorial, but I think that you overlooked something: I work for one of the top 10 banks (measured by assets) in the U.S. At this bank eventhough ALL of our branch offices run ALL of the branches workstations (including teller positions) from an IBM LAN Server machine; and even though, until very recently, OS/2 was the bank standard for a desktop OS (in the back office), there is a very strong desire on the part of many to move away from OS/2 in favor of Micro$oft's offerings.

I can't say that I understand this desire, but that may be part of what you're experiencing with your attempts to get native OS/2 software from your bank. I know that we offer software to both commercial and retail customers and all of it is Windows based. There is one other thing to keep in mind concerning banking institutions which use OS/2 and other sectors that use OS/2 (airlines for example). Banks are buyers of software not builders of software as a general rule. Airlines, on the other hand, are builders of software (predominantly) not buyers of software.

Kevin J. Slater


I read your article on the coming of computerized banking to Canada. This is an important service, which I have enjoyed having for a few months in the USA (through BayBank, which is in New England, mostly Massachusetts). Like your writer, I have a Win16 client for the software. There is also a Mac version of the Client available, FWIW. I would also, of course, prefer an OS/2 client for my bill paying to the current Win16 one.

However, my slant on the Win16 version is a bit different. Win16 IS INDEED the version that can run on the most computers. There's no argument to be made. But the fact that the version is Win16, and that is ALL that is available, I consider a VICTORY for OS/2. Microsoft has all but declared war on Win16 programs, and done its damnedest to get people to more both their OS, and their apps to Win32.

Canadian banks, and my local Baybank, are apparently refusing this MS bandwagon, instead retaining a version which runs quite nicely under OS/2. It's when you start seeing the *Win95* only version of such important (and exclusive in a way that a choice of wordprocessor is not) products that something will be wrong in OS/2 land. We have seen remarkably little of that.

David Mertz


I just wanted to share my thoughts. I wonder if your bank wanted to make their home banking software available to as many people as possible, why didn't they make a DOS version? That might have been running even on DOS emulators for Macs and UNIX systems, besides, of course, OS/2.

Javier Llopis


Yeah but bacon tastes good, pork chops taste good.

I'm sure I won't be the only one to do this, but I really have to take issue with your rant in the November OS/2 e-Zine. Yes, programs have gotten a _lot_ bigger, but there's a reason those programs have gotten so big. That reason is you and me and everyone else who makes software purchase decisions by comparing the bells and whistles.

Face it, a word processor doesn't really have to do all that much. Accept text input, save files, print text. As you put it, it's not rocket science. But when you're deciding which word processor to buy, do you go for the basic model that word wraps and prints in only one font, or do you pick the one that merges, sorts, collates, checks spelling, check grammar, automatically indexes, and prints in 2000 fonts? Me too. It doesn't matter that I've never used the magnifying glass on my Swiss Army knife, I'm glad to know it's there. And if it makes the knife a few millimeters wider, that's a small price to pay. And one of these days I may actually need to merge a few mailing lists.

As for your remarks about the complexity of programming, how can I put this? Writing a play is a simple matter of stringing together a bunch of everyday words until the characters say what you want them to say. Let me know when you hit Broadway.

And, by the way, programming sort of _is_ rocket science. How do you think they control the engines on the space shuttle?

Jay


I must say I really enjoyed reading your November's issue's rant. It conveys an feeling that I've felt for a long time now...

Don't feel too old thought: I'm only 17 and I had 2 (!) TRS-80's of my own (Coco 2&3). I know exactly what you mean when you say bloat-ware. The best example you could've given, however, was that of today's games. Instead of actually designing a good game that was actually fun (I played with my coco's games for well over 5 year), today's programmers would include a line similar to "movplayer "intro.mov"" into their code and off starts a 50mb animation file for the intro (off the cdrom of course; anything less is considered unacceptable by today's standards). No need for brilliant technique or code planification, just pull out the old video camera and tape your GI Joe's in action for a few minutes.

Examples: King's Quest 6, Command & Conquer (although this one actually has a game hidden amidst it's *2* cds!), dozens more...

James Church


I *still* use Professional Write (though it is a larger version than the one you mention; mine's the 1988 version)! When I need a desktop publisher I use Corel Ventura Publisher (if I could find video drivers, I'd use the DOS based version instead: Windows is bloat!). If I need a graphics program, its Corel Draw. I use Aseasy As if I need a spreadsheet, and if it's database, then I write it in (DOS based) Clipper 5.0. Indeed, how can one program do it all well? Or quickly? Haven't these major software houses ever heard of KISS?

John Weiss


Visual Age for Basic

Am I the only one excited about IBM's announcement of VisualAge for Basic? I believe one of the reasons for Windows success is Visual Basic. To finally have a Basic program for OS/2 is pretty exciting to this Visual Basic programmer.

Jim Marshall


Warp 4 Disappointment

Am I the only one disapointed with Warp 4?! As an avid supporter and exclusive user of Warp 3, I ordered 4 the week it shipped, even at a steep $120 upgrade -- more than I spent on Warp 3 blue (non-upgrade). After a two hour installation, I have an ugly desktop, obviously cribbed from Win95, complete with an inferior toolbar and tacky 3-d icons.

Despite all its acclaimed netwoking features, I lost my ppp functionality -- I couldn't even log in manually. IBM tech refused to help unless I forked over yet more money. I should note I have a perfectly ordinary config and had all the config files in place. Three weeks and five temper tantrums later, I gave up, reformatted, reinstalled w/o networking, and installed the IAK from warp 3, losing whatever improvements were made in 4. Now I have a system which is slower, uglier, less reliable, and with no compensating improvements I can detect.

Even Voice Type, while it might have potential, seems useless right now. On a P100 w/ 16meg, (a bit over minimum reqs) all VT navigation does is turn a 10 sec task into a 10 minute one. As far as OpenDoc and Java go, at the moment, they are totally useless to the end user, until (if) any real apps are developed for them. I was excited at all the prospects warp 4 held out, but after two months, I am quite disapointed with IBM, as I never was with 3. Enough, in fact, to make me keep an eye out for NT4.

I am really surprised I have not heard more opinions like this. Any takers?

Mark Bourgeois


How Do I?

Bojan Landeki I haven't had my hand at PM programming in OS/2, but was forced to program for the MacOS (which I am not tooooooo fond of, just like Windows). Anyhow, in MacOS, we were forced to resize, move, and redraw the contents of the window(s) ourselves everytime an event happened (it's also event driven as I'm sure most GUIs are). My question is, why can't IBM design Warp (Merlin, v4.0 as it is now) to to the resizing/moving/redrawing of windows, for this task to be done by the operating system, and if the programmer wants to do it themselves, they can have a flag to turn off the OS-do-it feature, and they can then do it themselves.. or did I miss something here and we don't really have to redraw/move/resize the windows ourselves?

Bojan Landeki


- Well, IBM built OS/2 just as you described. It takes care of most moving, sizing and redrawing. Except in the cases that we want to do something ourselves. If we want we can take control over sizing,

Eric Slaats


If I wanted to program for OS/2, what should I use? Some have suggested visual basic.

Are there any books you could recommend to help me get started?

John Kristelli


- Well, visual Basic doesn't strike me as a typical OS/2 programming environment. It's a great graphical tool that Microsoft put out for Windows. I don't think there's an OS/2 version yet. Another thing that C has going for itself is that virtually every book about OS/2 PM programming is written around C (or REXX of course).

I would suggest you use C++ because that's the best supported language under OS/2. (Although a couple of nice Pascal compilers for OS/2 have seen the light recently). There are a number of options on the tools you might want to choose. In September, OS/2 e-Zine! did an number of articles on C++ compilers, you might want to check them out. There's also a free tool called GNU. In back issues of OS/2 e-Zine! and other resources you can find more about that.

About what books to get: actually that's a question I often get. For the beginner I would recommend a book by Petzold called: OS/2 Presentation Manager Programming. It's published by ZD and coveres a terrific broad area in clear and understandable text. It's also packed with examples. So for a beginner it's probably the best bet.

Eric Slaats

 [® Previous] - [Feedback]


This page is maintained by Falcon Networking. We welcome your suggestions.

Copyright © 1996 - Falcon Networking