🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

>
>>>Odd, I have a machine at work that does unattended reboots.  The 
>>>hardware isn't even all that great, and I wouldn't recommend that 
>>>particular combination to anyone.  Yet, it does work.  It only reboots 
>>>when a specified parameter is given to a specified program under 
>>>specified conditions.  It hasn't needed a reboot in a while, and I was 
>>>recently out of the office for 1-1/2 weeks.
>>
>>;) 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....

>
>>>>However, weekly manual restarts would be acceptable, even for ISP use,
>>>>if OS/2 was that stable.  But it is not.  And I cannot be locked in a
>>>>certain selection of hardware, especially if it is not known at any time
>>>>until you tried it since I may need to upgrade for performance reasons.
>>>
>>>Yet, you say you did your own research.  Sounds like you made a bad 
>>>decision, and now you are trying to blame anyone but yourself.  Heck, 
>>>I've made a few bad decisions myself.  Deal with it.
>>
>>Comprehend what you read, and you may figure out that dealing with it is
>>not possible due to lack of a guaranteed platform.  <G> How about
>>Aptivas?  It is IBM hardware isn't it?
>
>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?

>
>>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.

>
>>>I should mention, also, that my home machine does a lot of beta testing,
>>>including junk I've hacked together myself.  Honestly, I'm sometimes 
>>>surprised it does as well as it does.
>>
>>That means, when you say it does well, it does well for running
>>betas.... I don't run any betas...May be I should run betas to make it
>>appear more stable than it is...
>
>Actually, it seems to run the more commercial stuff as well.  Maybe the 
>difference is that I'm not afraid of my computer.  After all, I picked 
>out a lot of parts myself :)

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

>
>>>All operating systems have their flaws, and all major vendors, including
>>
>><G> Now the confession, and that everbody else sins too...
>
>And you don't?  Stupid question to ask a pathological liar, I guess.

Ahem, you got it backwards.

>>
>>>IBM, have their flaws.  OTOH, the directionless efforts by MS ("What 
>>>are we going to do tonight, Brain?"  "What we do every night, Pinky. 
>>>We're going to take over the world."), the cluelessness of Gateway 
>>>technicians and the strangeness of Seagate products make IBM look like 
>>>angels.
>>
>>:) I could not expose you better than that.
>
>Even realizing you are a smart-ass, this didn't make sense to me for 
>quite a while.  Maybe, I've just had a little more experience in dealing
>with hardware problems than you have?  Could even be my fucking job to 
>troubleshoot PC's?  Naw, that would make too much sense for you.

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.

>
>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.


Best Regards,

Mustafa Soysal

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mustafa Soysal               (313) 741-1844 Voice                      TeamOS/2
MISTIK Systems               (313) 741-1937 Fax          Author of UnTieCom(tm)
PO Box 7064                                        Authorized Motorola Reseller
Ann Arbor, MI 48107-7064, USA                            os2@mistik.express.net
               Online catalog:  http://www.express.net/mistik/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------