🚀 go-pugleaf

Lines: 131

In article <5hufn9$66o@client2.news.psi.net>,
os2@mistik.express.net (Mustafa Soysal MS57) wrote:
>In article <RRZQz0E6ARuI092yn@momeraths.org>,
>Sysop <MarchHare@momeraths.org> wrote:
>>Lines: 109
>>
>>In article <5hm64f$n0f@client2.news.psi.net>,
>>os2@mistik.express.net (Mustafa Soysal MS57) wrote:
>>>In article <zEVPz0E6A5GN092yn@momeraths.org>,
>>>Sysop <MarchHare@momeraths.org> wrote:
>>>> <Nk8NzgRDAMcC091yn@bigblue.no> <5hc5mg$p0o@client3.news.psi.net>
>>>>Lines: 80
>>>>
>>>>In article <5hc5mg$p0o@client3.news.psi.net>,
>>>>os2@mistik.express.net (Mustafa Soysal MS57) wrote:
>>>>>In article <Nk8NzgRDAMcC091yn@bigblue.no>, B. Vermo <bv@bigblue.no> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It must be something you (or your hardware) are doing. I have always
>>>>>>been running on a 365 day 24 hour basis. All serious problems up to
>>>>>>now have been traced to hardware or experimental software. Warp 4 is
>>>>>>not as stable as OS/2 1.3, but then nothing else on the Intel platform
>>>>>
>>>>>Linux is, and apparently reportedly on os2-l, NT 3.1 is...
>>>>
>>>>Why not compare it to NT 4.0?  Because you know it is not as stable as 
>>>>3.51.  At least have the courtesy to compare apples to apples.
>>>
>>>;) You would have to compare it to Warp 4.0....I am comparing it to
>>>Warp3.0, and even Warp Connect 3.0
>>
>>Re-read the above.  You are comparing Warp 4 with NT "3.1".
>
>No, you reread the thread and the archives, your cut and paste acrobacy
>won't do it.  I am running Warp COnnect 3.0, and will compare it to that
>since Warp COnnect 3.0 is more stable than Warp 4.0.  Yet, NT seems to
>be more stable than Warp Connect 3.0, NT3.51 which is the previous
>version, just like Warp Connect 3.0.

And, your shoddy writing skills won't cut it either.  Just admit that 
you meant one thing and wrote another.

>>>;) Yeah, don't use the keyboard, because the keyboard and the mouse
>>>drivers have bugs too...
>>
>>Pretty hard to use the keyboard or mouse while doing unattended reboots.
>
>Hmmm, it hasn't needed unattended reboots while you were not in the
>office for 1-1/2 weeks.... Hmmmm....

UNATTENDED means I was not there.  Duh!  The computer reboots itself
only when programmed to do so under specific conditions.  And, yes, it
did reboot while I was gone.  Finally, I could attach to it over the
network and reboot it, if it really becomes necessary.  

>>Frankly, I don't buy IBM hardware.  I have run previous versions of OS/2
>>(and DOS and Windows) on PS/2's at a previous employer.  Sorry, but no 
>>thanks.
>
>The question still stands....you have not answered it.  If IBM can't
>make it run on its own "reference" platform, who would?

Quite frankly, I'm not so sure that having another company post little 
stickers all over computers is really a Good Thing.  I find things like 
that to be a marketing ploy, nothing less.  However, it appears that you
won't be happy until IBM does just that.

>>>So what hardware was so bad, and what is the good one you have found? 
>>>Did IBM tell you what was good?
>>>Did IBM tell you what was bad?
>>
>>The only "advice" I got from IBM was their compatibility list.  The rest
>>was either through personal experience or talking to people who had a 
>>clue.  After putting up with a 486 that barely ran Windows, I started 
>>lurking in newsgroups as well.  A gem here, a gem there, wading through 
>>a lot of crap, but I decided I wanted a machine that would run 
>>practically anything (I originally was going the NT route, but that's a 
>>different story).  After ditching a computer shop that couldn't 
>>recognize good h/w from bad, I started asking friends and acquantices 
>>who they dealt with, etc.
>
>So, the hardware on the compatibility list should be a reference
>platform should it not?  But we know that isn't the case.  So, where on
>earth would OS/2 run without any problems?  What reference platform?
>You haven't answered the question.

Don't know what isn't the case?  I looked at the compatibility list and 
bought an Adaptec card.  Not specifically one of the ones on it, as it 
was newer than the list, but you get the idea.

In other words, the answer that is eluding you is "Don't buy junk."  If 
the hardware is shown to have any incompatibility on any platform, then 
why buy it?  IMO, it probably won't work sooner or later for the 
platform you want, even one of Microsoft's.

>Your pride might be blinding you to the instabilities of your setup, but
>that's probably OS/2 instability.

Yeah, you've been to my house and see it crash every day :)  Perhaps it 
is your hatred towards IBM that is blinding you to the fact that very 
few people are having all of the problems that seem to have happened to 
you.  It is definitely your hatred towards IBM that is driving you make 
advocacy postings in an apps newsgroup.  In short, you are just another 
troll.  But, hey, keep rambling on so everyone can see just how much of 
a troll you really are.

>>And you don't?  Stupid question to ask a pathological liar, I guess.
>
>Ahem, you got it backwards.

A liar calling someone else a liar doesn't mean he is telling the truth.

>Now I understand you better, your system got to be running perfect or
>you would be an idiot who cannot fix himself a computer system while he
>is a troubleshooter for a living....Don't feel bad, IBM can't make it
>run flawlessly on their own hardware either.

Actually, the perfect system would know what I wanted to type before I 
did and never run out of disk space :)  All in all, though, I don't care
if IBM or you cannot get jack to run on their hardware.  But, this is 
an apps group, not a hardware or advocacy group, so I'll spare everyone
the rest of that opinion.  Something you still should learn.

John

-- 
//------------------------------------------------------------------------
// momerath@apk.net                    sevot yhtils eht dna ,gillirb sawT`
// MarchHare@momeraths.org                 ebaw eht ni elbmig dna eryg diD
//                                           ,sevogorob eht erew ysmim llA
//                                            .ebargtuo shtar emom eht dnA
                     In case of stupidity, break glass.