🚀 go-pugleaf

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".

>>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.

>>>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.

>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.

>>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 :)

>>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.

>
>>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.

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.