🚀 go-pugleaf

Bob Pepin (Bobi@vo.lu) wrote:
BP> Chublai wrote:
Ch>> Talking about that: I'm also stricken with Win95 (undeservedly, I
Ch>> maintain) and need to get another OS.

BP> Good idea

I second that!

Ch>> Now, does anybody out there have some experience with OS/2? It is said
Ch>> to be better than WinNT.

BP> The only main Advantage of OS/2 is the graphical interface, the
BP> Workplace Shell. But OS/2 requires many system-ressources, and it can
BP> be very slow when you don't use a Pentium-166 and 32 MB RAM.

And X-Windows with, say, Motif as a window-manager _isn't_ slow? (-:
OS/2 works fine on a 486DX33 with 16Mb.

Having used Win 3.x, Win NT, Win 95 and OS/2 Warps 3 & 4, OS/2 stomps all
over any of those except NT for reliability, and even though I wouldn't
say "stomps" for NT, I would most definitely say "is better than." Once I
got over my Windoze habits, it became easier to use. Meg-for-meg it is
faster than NT. In fact, it is NT-powerful yet also competes against
Win95 -- which is not difficult unless the attribute of competition is
bloatedness.

Ch>> Can it be compared to Linux?

It could be compared with Linux + X-Windows but it wouldn't be a
straight 1-for-1 comparison. OS/2 is commercial, Linux, generally
speaking, is not. Most OS/2 stuff is fire-and-forget. (-: Windows
is misfire and fragment? :-) Most Linux stuff must be fiddled with
for satisfying results. OTOH, it is much more fiddlable and much
more fun to fiddle with. OS/2 doesn't come with source, Linux
does (if you don't understand why a thing happens, you can read
the source rather than trolling hopefully through reams of bug-
lists, mailing-list postings or pointless help in search of a
reason or at least an alternative).

BP> Linux is very fast and stable.

Agree. So is OS/2, especially if we're thinking in terms of Windoze.

BP> Also a great advantage is that it is UNIX.

Agree! OTOH, most of Unix (such as shells, tools etc) is available
under OS/2.

BP> The X-Window environment is also available for Linux.

...and also for OS/2.

At least OS/2 is reasonably upwards-compatible. I still don't
understand why M$ wrote their OS stuff so badly that they have
to thunk twice about everything the system does. In fact, it thunks
so hard one would suspect a broken gudgeon pin, or at least that it
runs on diesel. Mind you, history portrays the lessons unlearned
from MS-DOS...

Ummm, do you get the impression that I don't like Windoze? :-( M$
Publisher 2 threw away four hours' work for me last night, and
would have thrown away more if save-as-RTF hadn't worked. )-: 

As an aside, has anyone used anything under Linux/X which would be
a suitable drop-in replacement for M$-Publisher? M$P is a simple
WYSI(almost)WYG page-layout package. I use it for making a local
news-letter, books and booklets and advertising materials like
three-fold brochures.

BP> For beginning, it is best to buy any pre-configured, commercial
BP> distribution

Agree. Slackware was pretty simple but even then there were a few
hiccups and much foraging for and reading of manuals. Mucho worth
it, though, to have Linux to play with.


-=-=-=-=-=- Regards / Leon Brooks -=-=-=-=-=-
Even if you win the rat-race,
you're still a rat.