I feel about the same as the editor. If I.B.M. stopped developing for OS/2 tomorrow OR today I would still continue to use it unless something better came along.
As much as I hate the sorry bunch at I.B.M. for what they HAVEN'T done with OS/2 they have still made it the OS best there is.
Now, if THEY would just get as excited about it as they are about Java and NT...
"...deliriously happy with OS/2."
Wow! I loved this little sentence! it really captures how I feel with my PC running OS/2 !! I will start using this one on all my .sig lines.
Even more, we should ALL start using this on our sigs. It's extremely positive!
So you get peeved at the anti-OS/2 crowd? Me too. I wonder how many of them have ever TRIED OS/2. Probably not many. I'd guess these are the same folks who think everybody should listen to the same music, drive the same car, and eat the same food. McDonald's and Yugos for everybody!!
Actually, they probably have a case of sour grapes. Betcha the boss would not let them use it, or maybe the wife & kids couldn't figure out Boot Manager.
It's really scary, though, to compare this attitude with Marxism. Didn't universal conformity, lack of choice, and enforced mediocrity go out with the Stone, er, Soviet Era? Or maybe the hard-core types just migrated from Red Square to Redmond.
I have been a long time user of OS/2, but my patience is running thin. It can't run CorelDraw 7.0, and won't support my new Epson 600 printer (and there are still no drivers for the older Epson 500). There's two very good reasons to dump it! Quite frankly, the only reason I am still using it, is for work compatibility (ie, I can bring work home from the office). But that is fast disappearing too, now that IBM has introduced Win95 versions of all the tools I need.
Thanks for the article, I had been wondering if InJoy could do these things.
Perfect Timing.
One comment other than that. Nowhere in the article or on the web page for injoy does it mention how much it costs.
A good point. From the InJoy documentation (please see register.txt in the InJoy zip archive for more details):
Registration for InJoy is as follows:
- editorInJoy Basic Client $20.00 InJoy Extended Client $35.00 InJoy Professional
Enterprise Server/Client$150.00
A key reason why Netscape Navigator for OS/2 is at the 2.02 level instead of 3.0 seems to be missed by most people: 3.0's user interface is written as (a) a somewhat unstable X11 implementation and (b) an MFC implementation for Windows and Macintosh. The X11 version has the habit of hanging X servers, so it wasn't an ideal candidate for porting; and Microsoft has forbidden MFC implementations or ports to OS/2. So in order to produce a Navigator for OS/2, the 2.02 user interface was grafted onto the 3.0 "engine". (In fact, there is a not-well-documented "-3" switch to Navigator to make it claim to be 3.0 instead of 2.02. It's a bit unstable, probably due to the mismatch between the UI and engine versions.)
Why is it that the OS/2 Supersite is constantly promoted by attacking the Hobbes archive? Hobbes has been a faithful puppy dog, working with us since before I was an OS/2 user. Joshua updates it on a nearly daily basis. From my attempts, it has more bandwidth than the OS/2 Supersite. Hobbes should be applauded, not attacked. It is still THE best source for a comprehensive collection of OS/2 freeware and shareware.
Don't get me wrong. I like the OS/2 Supersite and think it has a lot of potential. I'm glad to see it. I just don't like to see good ol' Hobbes put in a bad light. It's been too good to us for too many years.
Just in case you haven't noticed, March has been a phenomenal month for OS/2 in Browserwatch. Normally, OS/2 maintains a strong 8-9% share of hits, in third place behind Windows and Macintosh. This month, though, OS/2 is pulling 19% of hits and has moved into a commanding second place. It's still going up, too -- a few days ago it was only 17%. This should make the OS/2 faithful happy!
Enjoyed your article on the Chat programme. Your articles prompted me to try it. Thanks.
I remember a news post regarding an e-Zine! CD-ROM, I think it was a good idea to put a year's worth of e-Zine! issues into one CD-ROM. What's the status of this idea?
Just today I saw on TV the publisher of Penthouse claiming that their printed circulation has dropped significantly and that the number of hits in his www site have increased to 8 million hits a day! He continued saying that "the electronic publishing is the future"
Today I read your latest e-Zine! issue and I have to admit that every month it gets better and more professional. I particularly enjoyed the stupid questions section (Chris' Rant).
Keep up the good job and don't forget the CD-ROM idea.
Hey, we don't need Bob G. to tell us that electronic publishing is the way of the future!
Don't worry, the OS/2 e-Zine! CD compilation will most likely be available soon.
- editor
The subject line may be a bit harsh, but it conveys my feelings on the matter. I don't see many legitimate reasons why a program would need to modify these two files, nor the config.sys file for that matter. I believe that the best place to store information pertinent to a program is at the same location as the executable, or in a user specified location.
To store the INI at the same location as the executable, you need to obtain the executable's handle (DosGetInfoBlocks) and then you obtain the path from DosQueryModuleName. To store the INI in a user-specified location, you could add a switch for the command line: -ini or -i. Or you could combine the two: if no switch is specified, default to the executable's location. But for God's sake, keep out of os2.ini, os2sys.ini, and config.sys.
My partner runs Windows95, and the only thing I've been slightly envious about is the Plus! pack that you can buy, with the themes it has, and themes that are popping up on the 'net. When I saw PlusPak! for OS/2, I thought that OS/2 had gotten its own version, so I read a little about it, and bought it. The way that Stardock wrote about it, it seemed like it was identical to the abilities of the Microsoft counterpart with the same name. Whether or not this was intentional, I don't know. But I do know that I was dissapointed when I installed it. Yes, the icons were nice, but "installing a theme on your Desktop" means more than icons, if you've ever seen Windows95. As it has been said, let the buyer beware!
Classic stuff, dude!! Another to add to the hopper...
Question: Why aren't you using WindowsNT?
a. I've already bypassed it, I'm up to Warp 4 already.
b. I prefer an OS that has drivers.
c. You don't get out much, do you?
Question: Isn't everybody eventually going to use NT?
a. Well, eventually everybody's dead... so yeah, right.
b. Everybody's going to eat Spam, too.
c. That's what they said about Windows 3.1.....
Contary to your report on the complexity of the Warp 4. FP1. this was the easiest update I have ever done. I kicked off the WWW based update in the evening, the next morning I rebooted the computer per instructions on the screen. The update was complete! It also gets you the option NOT to delete the FP files so the process can be repeated on other computers without having to download the FP again. My only complaint: poor documentation. I found this to work through trial and error, fortunately there was only one trial and no errors (this time).
Copyright © 1997 - Falcon Networking