🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <344CFD22.5D17F764@mistralk.co.uk> - Andrew Holmes
<andyholmes@mistralk.co.uk>Tue, 21 Oct 1997 20:06:11 +0100 writes:
:>
:>I've been using win95 for the last 18months and have just gone over to
:>OSR2. Is there any benefit of going to OS/2, and will my current Win'95
:>software like office'97 still work?
:>

The benefit : it doesn't come from microschrott ;-) and it is fully
object-orientated. Windows 95 software can be forgotten, you can't use it.
Only Windows 3.1 software will work under OS/2


Regards
        Peter

The other thing I need to know is what versions of OS/2 have been
released and what is current. I was reading a doc written about 4 years
ago and it said that there are quite a few versions. Could someone let
me know by email as I don't often use news. Thanks.

--
Andy Holmes.

mailto:andyholmes@mistral.co.uk
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/andyholmes/win95

In message <344CFD22.5D17F764@mistralk.co.uk> - Andrew Holmes
<andyholmes@mistralk.co.uk> writes:
:>
:>I've been using win95 for the last 18months and have just gone over to
:>OSR2. Is there any benefit of going to OS/2, and will my current Win'95
:>software like office'97 still work?
:>
:>--
:>Andy Holmes.
:>
:>mailto:andyholmes@mistral.co.uk
:>http://www3.mistral.co.uk/andyholmes/win95
:>
:>


Yes, there is a lot of benefit in moving to os/2. No, your win95 apps will not
run under os/2. The benefits are too many to list, but stability and power are
the most apparent, with TRUE multi-tasking capability.

jim101

>
>   I've been using win95 for the last 18 months and have just gone over to
>   OSR2. Is there any benefit of going to OS/2, and will my current Win'95
>   software like office'97 still work?
>

Win95 software does not works under OS/2, but we do not need to use it.
I have many OS/2 programs, and this software works under OS/2 better than
other 'standard' Windows software uder OS/2 and Windows.

For example, multi-threaded PMView and PMJPEG graphical applications is better
than LView 32 - that is a solid task, and image processing is difficult in it.
TrueSpectra is better than MS Paint - using TSpectra, I can create a GIF or JPEG
pictures with color texts and transparent squares, rumbs and other figures.

... E. T. C. ...

If you want to find any software for OS/2, you can visit following home pages:

www.cdrom.com/pub/hobbes
ftp.leo.org
ftp.bmtmicro.com
ftp-os2.nmsu.edu
www.os2ss.com
www.truespectra.com

ftp.ccas.ru
ftp.kiae.su
ftp.demos.su

... E. T. C. ...

In article <344CFD22.5D17F764@mistralk.co.uk>,
Andrew Holmes <andyholmes@mistralk.co.uk> wrote:
|I've been using win95 for the last 18months and have just gone over to
|OSR2. Is there any benefit of going to OS/2, and will my current Win'95
|software like office'97 still work?

It all depends on what is important to you.

Windows 95 software will not work under OS/2, but there are many
major advantages running Warp 4 instead of Windows 95 if your hardware
is of a suitable quality. The benefits are mainly in a much higher 
reliability - roughly the same as you would see if you upgrade to
Windows NT, with some give and some take depending on actual hardware
and usage patterns - and in a much better user interface. Wether the
difference is worth the trouble, depends on your own needs and desires.

OS/2 is not really worthwhile unless you reformat to use the HPFS
file system, just like you should reformat to NTFS if you want to run
NT. This is very important both for performance and reliability. The
file systems used by Windows 95 are not adequate for any kind of
serious use. OS/2 will make effective use of hardware which does
not offer much of an advantage under Windows 95, like SCSI devices
on bus-mastering adapters and RAM above 32MB. It does not work any
better than Windows with PIO-mode ATA-2 IDE drives, but does exploit 
Ultra ATA-3 DMA drives. It works much better when you have many drives
in the system, and is excellent for any kind of networking. It works 
poorly with things that are connected to the printer port if they are
not printers, and will not support "Windows printers". It is really
excellent on Pentium Pro systems, which are slow under Windows
but faster than the more expensive Pentium II under OS/2.

Hi, all.
Prior versions of OS/2 came in different flavours, depending on whether
you already had 
a Windows 3.x license or not, but the latest (Warp 4.0) only has one: 
with IBM's own WinOS2 emulation of 3.1 environment.
  
This will not run the latest, win32 application programs, but perhaps
you have copies of the older 3.x versions?
Anyway, there are plenty of native OS/2 applications, many of which are
far better! 
One difference has to do with the full multitasking, multithreading
capabilities possible under OS/2, 
another with the true object orientation. When you move an object, it is
moved in all relevant senses -- 
not just its shortcut updated for some aspects. 
This also includes capabilities for drag'n'drop, if the app developer
has done their work.
  
In fact, this very weekend there is a conference for, by and with OS/2
enthusiasts in East Los Angeles 
that will adress all kinds of issues for users, programmers, networkers
and ISV's. 
Check out http://www.warpstock.org !
  
I'd really like to have been able to go, not least because a Texan
fellow, Timur Tabi, 
has promised to explain how to run win32 applications in OS/2 after all! 
Let's hope he delivers on this, and see what can indeed be done.
  
Wintel need a bit of competition, don't they? And don't we need it too?
  
- - - - - - - - - - >8
|
Andrew Holmes wrote:
> 
> The other thing I need to know is what versions of OS/2 have been
> released and what is current. I was reading a doc written about 4 years
> ago and it said that there are quite a few versions. Could someone let
> me know by email as I don't often use news. Thanks.
> 
> --
> Andy Holmes.
> 
> mailto:andyholmes@mistral.co.uk
> http://www3.mistral.co.uk/andyholmes/win95
|
- - - - - - - - - - >8

Andrew Holmes wrote:
> 
> I've been using win95 for the last 18months and have just gone over to
> OSR2. Is there any benefit of going to OS/2, and will my current Win'95
> software like office'97 still work?
> 
> --
> Andy Holmes.
> 
> mailto:andyholmes@mistral.co.uk
> http://www3.mistral.co.uk/andyholmes/win95

I have been using OS/2 for quite awhile and can tell you that a
changeover from Windows 95 would be a tremendous upgrade for you. Aside
from stability OS/2 offers the ability to customized your system to
exactly meet your needs. Windows 95,  to me,  is more of hack. If all
you plan to do is run games then stick with Windows.  As to the Win95
Apps they wont run in an out of the Box OS/2 WarpIV configuration but
some of them could run using either the base WIN32s implementation of
OS/2 or using XFreeOS2 and running a Win95 Emulator such as Wine.
(XFreeOS2 will let you run some of the XWin software used on Linux
systems and its FREE).  I would not recommend do either because I
beleave that OS/2 has a very good application base to begin with.

1. The bonus pack which comes with OS/2 is loaded with great software
from productivity tools to a great PIM program. Furthermore there are
several software developers that either have software or are developing
software which would meet your needs.  And if you like application
Suites then I can tell you that the StarOffice Suite will give Office
Pak 97 a Run for their money check them out they have versions for
almost every platform.

2. Java support is built in and was the first Operating system to have
the JVM intergrated into the desktop.

3. As for connectivity the networking capabilities of OS/2 are far
superior than that of Win95

4. Its been around for a long.... Time.... I used OS2 2.0 '92/93'. Went
back to windows 3.1 because I felt you had to be the developer to get it
to work right. Early 94 swithed to OS2 Warp 3.0 and was completely
amazed at how well the system worked and the install didn't require me
to be some king of computer Dilbert.(All this and Win95 was still being
developed)

5. OS/2 has always had the latest future requirements built in.  What I
mean by this is: Internet Connectivity built in before it was even the
popular thing to be on, win95 a hack to add it in,  Voice Type Dictation
aware desktop and system, if you look back at some of the win mags and
newsgroups you would see a lot of discussion as to why would OS/2
include such a useless feature,  Did I hear that Win98 might include
this featue :o ?


On the down side OS/2 requires a small amount of learning on how a
computer really works and how networks really work if you plan to set up
a small lan/wan. But its not as bad as it seems first the information is
readily available with you installation and there is a wealth of Web
Sites that show you just how to set up any feature you may require in
OS/2. Other than that I see no real obstacles.

PS. - On my system I run just about everything,
(netscape,Pmmail,Newsreader, Goserve WebServer, Netbios File & Printer
Sharing, Process Commander, Unzip & Install, Crack RC5 64 bit, and
voiceType dictation for IRC Sessions Great !!!) any slowdowns NO !!!! It
All Runs Smoothly and I can Even Format a Floppy at the same time :D ha,
ha ... (Inside Joke - Can't figure out why OS2'rs always bring this one
up, yes it demonstrates the multitasking and multithreading
capabilities/power of OS/2 but what does this mean to anyone when almost
all the floppies you buy nowadays are already formatted !!!)

For more information take a look at  Timur's Web Page
http://www.os2ss.com/Information/NewUsers/

In article <34538101.5BF1@home.org> me@home.org "rr" writes:

> All Runs Smoothly and I can Even Format a Floppy at the same time :D ha,
> ha ... (Inside Joke - Can't figure out why OS2'rs always bring this one
> up, yes it demonstrates the multitasking and multithreading

It was the favourite simple and spectacular example of how much better OS/2
was than WIN 3.x at multitasking DOS-based applications. Under WIN3.x all
other tasks froze solid while the disk was being formatted; under OS/2
formatting a disk in the background had no perceptible effect on running
applications.

I don't know how Win95 performs in this respect.

--
Anahata

anahata@freereed.demon.co.uk           http://www.freereed.demon.co.uk/
anahata@locust.ml.org   (sends SMS to mobile phone, 8 lines max)
phone 0171 229 6076 home, 0171 638 5577 work, 0976 263827 Orange mobile

rr wrote:

> Andrew Holmes wrote:
> >
> > I've been using win95 for the last 18months and have just gone over to
> > OSR2. Is there any benefit of going to OS/2, and will my current Win'95
> > software like office'97 still work?
> >
> > --
> > Andy Holmes.
> >
> > mailto:andyholmes@mistral.co.uk
> > http://www3.mistral.co.uk/andyholmes/win95
>
> I have been using OS/2 for quite awhile and can tell you that a
> changeover from Windows 95 would be a tremendous upgrade for you. Aside

As far as the OS, yes, I agree...otherwise, see later on...

> from stability OS/2 offers the ability to customized your system to
> exactly meet your needs. Windows 95,  to me,  is more of hack. If all
> you plan to do is run games then stick with Windows.  As to the Win95
> Apps they wont run in an out of the Box OS/2 WarpIV configuration but
> some of them could run using either the base WIN32s implementation of
> OS/2 or using XFreeOS2 and running a Win95 Emulator such as Wine.
> (XFreeOS2 will let you run some of the XWin software used on Linux
> systems and its FREE).  I would not recommend do either because I
> beleave that OS/2 has a very good application base to begin with.
>
> 1. The bonus pack which comes with OS/2 is loaded with great software
> from productivity tools to a great PIM program.

Great???? Come on, now!!!! Works is a joke for anything except small text
documents and the capabilities compared to Excel of the spreadsheet are
miniscule....e.g, try putting a graphic image in a Works document....

> Furthermore there are
> several software developers that either have software or are developing
> software which would meet your needs.  And if you like application
> Suites then I can tell you that the StarOffice Suite will give Office
> Pak 97 a Run for their money check them out they have versions for
> almost every platform.
>

They are slowly getting there, but are way behind.....not knocking them,
where was IBM providing developer support back when 2.0/2.1 was being
introduced?

> 2. Java support is built in and was the first Operating system to have
> the JVM intergrated into the desktop.
>

This is good.....

> 3. As for connectivity the networking capabilities of OS/2 are far
> superior than that of Win95
>

So is this....

> [snip]

> On the down side OS/2 requires a small amount of learning on how a
> computer really works and how networks really work if you plan to set up
> a small lan/wan. But its not as bad as it seems first the information is
> readily available with you installation and there is a wealth of Web
> Sites that show you just how to set up any feature you may require in
> OS/2. Other than that I see no real obstacles.
>

On the real downside, drivers are difficult to get for many devices (see
complaints about HP Deskjet printers for one simple example) and
compatability with MS shops is a problem for many....

> PS. - On my system I run just about everything,
> (netscape,Pmmail,Newsreader, Goserve WebServer, Netbios File & Printer
> Sharing, Process Commander, Unzip & Install, Crack RC5 64 bit, and
> voiceType dictation for IRC Sessions Great !!!) any slowdowns NO !!!! It
> All Runs Smoothly and I can Even Format a Floppy at the same time :D ha,
> ha ... (Inside Joke - Can't figure out why OS2'rs always bring this one
> up, yes it demonstrates the multitasking and multithreading
> capabilities/power of OS/2 but what does this mean to anyone when almost
> all the floppies you buy nowadays are already formatted !!!)

But do you do any WORK on that machine?????....this is all play as near as I
can tell.

What substitutes (equivalently) for AutoCad, Matlab, TecPlot, layout design
tools, graphics apps for scientific presentation/visualization, ....???

Mathematica or Maple are alternatives in some ways, but extremely expensive
compared to capable alternatives in Windows world...

If you are aware of such, let me know....

> For more information take a look at  Timur's Web Page
> http://www.os2ss.com/Information/NewUsers/

  Good place...Timur is super!!!

Duane Bozarth
bozarthd.at.smtpg.dot.compsys.dot.com

Andrew Holmes wrote:
> 
> The other thing I need to know is what versions of OS/2 have been
> released and what is current. I was reading a doc written about 4 years
> ago and it said that there are quite a few versions. Could someone let
> me know by email as I don't often use news. Thanks.
> 
The downside to OS/2 is that it will not currently handle any Win 95
products.  IE anything requiring WIN32S past version 1.25

The current version of OS/2 is OS/2 Warp 4.0, the current fixpack is 4 I
believe.

Prior to Warp 4 OS/2 came in two seperate versions... One with Win 3.1
kernel (red spine on the package) one without (blue spine on the
package).  Pre OS/2 Warp 4 did not come with network capabilities... You
had to purchase a seperate product called OS/2 connect.

Os/2 is a great OS, as long as you do not need access to the latest and
greatest software for win X... 
__________________________________
From the totally disorganized desk of:
Dave Kozlowski

dkozlows@telusplanet.net
dave.kozlowski@keyanoc.ab.ca

In <345411FA.5126@telusplanet.net>, on 10/26/97 at 11:00 PM,
   dkozlows@telusplanet.net said:

**Prior to Warp 4 OS/2 came in two seperate versions... One with Win
**3.1 kernel (red spine on the package) one without (blue spine on the
**package).  Pre OS/2 Warp 4 did not come with network capabilities...
**You had to purchase a seperate product called OS/2 connect.

Oops, you must have meant Pre OS/2 Warp 3.

Warp Connect was Version 3. Great network client.

John

On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 18:52:16 -0800, Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Great???? Come on, now!!!! Works is a joke for anything except small text
> documents and the capabilities compared to Excel of the spreadsheet are
> miniscule....e.g, try putting a graphic image in a Works document....
Did it. What now? Does your Works have problems with graphics?
BTW: rr wrote about a great PIM on which I have to agree.

> On the real downside, drivers are difficult to get for many devices (see
> complaints about HP Deskjet printers for one simple example) and
> compatability with MS shops is a problem for many....
I agree on the latter. But I don't think that drivers are *that* difficult 
to get. As for the Deskjets: There are special drivers available for Canon
and Epson, so buy these.

> What substitutes (equivalently) for AutoCad, Matlab, TecPlot, layout design
> tools, graphics apps for scientific presentation/visualization, ....???
I use Euler as a Matlab substitute, it is free. The new Gnuplot version
has everything and the kitchen sink with respect to scientific graphing.
Free, too. There ist BlueCAD, PJ2CAD and Microstation 95 for the AutoCAD
substitution.

> Mathematica or Maple are alternatives in some ways, but extremely expensive
> compared to capable alternatives in Windows world...
What is as capable as Mathematica?

Bye Thomas.
-- 
Thomas Vandahl [Team OS/2 #505]   Technical University of Ilmenau, Germany
Thomas.Vandahl@E-Technik.TU-Ilmenau.DE   http://www.rz.tu-ilmenau.de/~os2/

In message <34538101.5BF1@home.org> - rr <rr> writes:
:>
:>Andrew Holmes wrote:
:>ha ... (Inside Joke - Can't figure out why OS2'rs always bring this one
:>up, yes it demonstrates the multitasking and multithreading
:>capabilities/power of OS/2 but what does this mean to anyone when almost
:>all the floppies you buy nowadays are already formatted !!!)

I'm not sure why you denigrate the formatting ability.  Who buys floppies
anymore?  I just reformat all the floppies that AOL keeps sending me.... :-).

Jerry

Thomas Vandahl wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 18:52:16 -0800, Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > Great???? Come on, now!!!! Works is a joke for anything except small text
> > documents and the capabilities compared to Excel of the spreadsheet are
> > miniscule....e.g, try putting a graphic image in a Works document....
> Did it. What now? Does your Works have problems with graphics?

Yeah, it absolutely kills it from a refresh standpoint.....appears to repaint
entire screen completely for each line move even for paging and multiple line
downs....so slow I just gave up after a few minutes of frustration..

Its user interface is also poor in my view...the outline of the paper is drawn on
top of the first character in a line so that an "I" or "l" is invisible...I've
fixed a lot of "iin"s, etc., because of that....table dialog is very inflexible
or difficult to interpret how to use....I never was able to figure out how to
change many properties, etc.  "Save As" dialog wipes text typed for file name if
then select directory for which to store the file..."Open" refused to read a html
file as text, gave no message, and closed the open window so had to go all the
way back to try to open another file.....I could go on and on....

> BTW: rr wrote about a great PIM on which I have to agree.

Could be, I haven't tried it yet

> > On the real downside, drivers are difficult to get for many devices (see
> > complaints about HP Deskjet printers for one simple example) and
> > compatability with MS shops is a problem for many....
> I agree on the latter. But I don't think that drivers are *that* difficult
> to get. As for the Deskjets: There are special drivers available for Canon
> and Epson, so buy these.

But how many people already have Deskjets??  And they are not the only example by
any stretch...

> > What substitutes (equivalently) for AutoCad, Matlab, TecPlot, layout design
> > tools, graphics apps for scientific presentation/visualization, ....???
> I use Euler as a Matlab substitute, it is free. The new Gnuplot version
> has everything and the kitchen sink with respect to scientific graphing.
> Free, too. There ist BlueCAD, PJ2CAD and Microstation 95 for the AutoCAD
> substitution.

And I lose 15 years of Matlab .m files, and nearly that many of TecPlot
macros....or, as I choose (so far), stay with either the DOS or W3.1 versions
while (Matlab, particularly) introduces wonderful new extensions that won't work
under V4.x.....

I wasn't able to get Gnuplot to work in my earlier attempts and TecPlot was so
familiar I didn't try to much more.  I may have to try again.

> > Mathematica or Maple are alternatives in some ways, but extremely expensive
> > compared to capable alternatives in Windows world...
> What is as capable as Mathematica?
>

Good point....maybe S. Hawking on a good day????

> Bye Thomas.
> --
> Thomas Vandahl [Team OS/2 #505]   Technical University of Ilmenau, Germany
> Thomas.Vandahl@E-Technik.TU-Ilmenau.DE   http://www.rz.tu-ilmenau.de/~os2/

On Mon, 27 Oct 1997 10:37:44 -0800, Duane Bozarth wrote:
> But how many people already have Deskjets??  And they are not the only example by
> any stretch...
BTW: I could get the OMNI-Driver to print quite well with changing a couple 
of settings (this was with my Canon, before the new driver was released).
Might be the case for Deskjets, too.

> And I lose 15 years of Matlab .m files, and nearly that many of TecPlot
> macros....or, as I choose (so far), stay with either the DOS or W3.1 versions
> while (Matlab, particularly) introduces wonderful new extensions that won't work
> under V4.x.....
I think I remember programs like RLab and Octave that claim to be Matlab
compatible. They use Gnuplot as a graphics frontend.
I dunno Tecplot, though.

Bye, Thomas.
-- 
Thomas Vandahl [Team OS/2 #505]   Technical University of Ilmenau, Germany
Thomas.Vandahl@E-Technik.TU-Ilmenau.DE   http://www.rz.tu-ilmenau.de/~os2/

In article <344CFD22.5D17F764@mistralk.co.uk>,
Andrew Holmes <andyholmes@mistralk.co.uk> wrote:
>I've been using win95 for the last 18months and have just gone over to
>OSR2. Is there any benefit of going to OS/2,

Depends what you want to use it for.

>and will my current Win'95 software like office'97 still work?

No.

However, maybe you are confusig OS/2 with OSR2 ?

Frankie

Frank G. Pitt | When in doubt, wash | fun:    frankie@mundens.gen.nz
Wellington    |   (Orlando)         |         frankie@ibm.net 
New Zealand   |                     | profit: fpitt@nz1.ibm.com
    

In article <345401E0.7E0A3C4F@smtpg.compsys.com>,
Duane Bozarth <bozarthd@smtpg.compsys.com> wrote:
|
|They are slowly getting there, but are way behind.....not knocking them,
|where was IBM providing developer support back when 2.0/2.1 was being
|introduced?

I got my Developer Toolkit and hardcopy Red Book before OS/2 2.0
went golden. Afterwards, I subscribed to Developer Connection for
a small fraction of what Microsoft charges for a similar service.

In article <345411FA.5126@telusplanet.net>,  <dkozlows@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>Andrew Holmes wrote:
>> 
>> The other thing I need to know is what versions of OS/2 have been
>> released and what is current. I was reading a doc written about 4 years
>> ago and it said that there are quite a few versions. Could someone let
>> me know by email as I don't often use news. Thanks.
>> 
>The downside to OS/2 is that it will not currently handle any Win 95
>products.  IE anything requiring WIN32S past version 1.25

This is a _downside_?
I'm currently suffering a Win95 box at work (not for much longer
though..;). It came with oriface97 or whatever on it. It isn't there
any more. Most W95 software I'm met (and rapidly deleted) is so slow
and unstable as to make it a positive liability. This box now runs
Word 2b and Lotus Smartsuite 1.1, which are fairly stable (as much as
any windows application is stable) and run at an acceptable pace.
To me the ability to avoid any W95 packages is a positive advantage.
I can't think of anything which requires W95 which offers any advantage
over non-W95 packages, apart from the ability to make an i586 run
slower than an i286, if you feel that's an advantage.

>
>The current version of OS/2 is OS/2 Warp 4.0, the current fixpack is 4 I
>believe.
>
>Prior to Warp 4 OS/2 came in two seperate versions... One with Win 3.1
>kernel (red spine on the package) one without (blue spine on the
>package).  Pre OS/2 Warp 4 did not come with network capabilities... You
>had to purchase a seperate product called OS/2 connect.
>
>Os/2 is a great OS, as long as you do not need access to the latest and
>greatest software for win X... 

Quite. And I can't imagine any circumstances where I would. Others may
feel differently.

Andy

Thomas Vandahl wrote:

> > On the real downside, drivers are difficult to get for many devices (see
> > complaints about HP Deskjet printers for one simple example) and
> > compatability with MS shops is a problem for many....
> I agree on the latter. But I don't think that drivers are *that* difficult
> to get. As for the Deskjets: There are special drivers available for Canon
> and Epson, so buy these.

I had to wait 2 months after I bought my Canon BJC-210 printer for Canon
todeliver drivers for OS/2 Warp 3. But the drivers are present in Warp 4.
My parents have a HP 690C which prints better, and under Warp 4 I use some other
HP color-deskjet drivers for OS/2 - they work fine!
I agree: under OS/2 you need to watch out which hardware to buy: no cheap laser
printers! But Inkjets do not form a problem anymore.

In message <3454336a$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net> - jbrush@aros.net (John
Brush)Sun, 26 Oct 97 23:22:32 -0700 writes:
:>
:>In <345411FA.5126@telusplanet.net>, on 10/26/97 at 11:00 PM,
:>   dkozlows@telusplanet.net said:
:>
:>**Prior to Warp 4 OS/2 came in two seperate versions... One with Win
:>**3.1 kernel (red spine on the package) one without (blue spine on the
:>**package).  Pre OS/2 Warp 4 did not come with network capabilities...
:>**You had to purchase a seperate product called OS/2 connect.
:>
:>Oops, you must have meant Pre OS/2 Warp 3.
:>
:>Warp Connect was Version 3. Great network client.
:>
:>John

Yes, Warp Connect was version 3 (March 1995; about fixpack 8 or so); but Just
Plain Warp 3 (Nov. 1994) (blue spine and red spine) was also version 3, and
certainly did not have networking support. This made a total of four (!)
separate flavors of Warp 3. 

How soon they forget...  

--Kevin

In <3454336a$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net>, jbrush@aros.net (John Brush) writes:
]In <345411FA.5126@telusplanet.net>, on 10/26/97 at 11:00 PM,
]   dkozlows@telusplanet.net said:

]**Prior to Warp 4 OS/2 came in two seperate versions... One with Win
]**3.1 kernel (red spine on the package) one without (blue spine on the
]**package).  Pre OS/2 Warp 4 did not come with network capabilities...
]**You had to purchase a seperate product called OS/2 connect.

]Oops, you must have meant Pre OS/2 Warp 3.

]Warp Connect was Version 3. Great network client.

Preferred by many to Warp 4.

I was browsing my web site logs and discovered almost everybody uses
    Netscape (various platforms), some use webex 1.1h, nobody used webex
    1.2, a few use Lynx and one visitor used IE 4 (which claims netscape
    compatibility!!!)

Couldn't identify any Warp 4 users (though I imagine they're numerous), 
    but I imagine the webex 1.1h users are on Warp 3/Warp Connect.


Cheers
John Summerfield
OS/2 support at http://www.ami.com.au/os2/
Configuration, networking, searchable index to IBM ftp sites

In article <c1.01.2J8XCq$1C9@maximus.os2.ami.com>
           see.my.web.pages@www.ami.com.au/os2/  writes:

> I was browsing my web site logs and discovered almost everybody uses
>     Netscape (various platforms), some use webex 1.1h, nobody used webex
>     1.2, a few use Lynx and one visitor used IE 4 (which claims netscape
>     compatibility!!!)
> 
> Couldn't identify any Warp 4 users (though I imagine they're numerous), 
>     but I imagine the webex 1.1h users are on Warp 3/Warp Connect.

Just shows how misleading server logs can be: I've visited your site
(many times; it's really pretty great [with certain caveats]) from my
work address, using webex 1.2 under Warp 4.  You *may* have missed it
because at work I'm behind a Gauntlet firewall, which, I suspect,
suppresses the transfer of this sort of gratuitous breach of privacy...

-- 
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}                                         bhk@dsl.co.uk
   "Where do you want to go today?", ask M$.  According to their TV adverts:
          "confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis...", which means:
                   "the damned and accused are convicted to flames of Hell"!

In <878601255snz@dsl.co.uk>, bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) writes:

]Just shows how misleading server logs can be: I've visited your site
](many times; it's really pretty great [with certain caveats]) from my
]work address, using webex 1.2 under Warp 4.  You *may* have missed it
]because at work I'm behind a Gauntlet firewall, which, I suspect,
]suppresses the transfer of this sort of gratuitous breach of privacy...

Certainly I didn't read ALL the log. It's quite voluminous.

I don't see that the browser info constitutes a breach of privacy: it's 
    not identifying the caller. The remote IP address is nearer to doing 
    that, and that's essential.

The browser info is used by a lot of CGI (some of mine included) to decude
    how to format responses. Some of the recent web servers can choose 
    html based on the browser info too.

Cheers
John Summerfield
OS/2 support at http://www.ami.com.au/os2/
Configuration, networking, searchable index to IBM ftp sites

see.my.web.pages@www.ami.com.au/os2/ wrote:
> I was browsing my web site logs and discovered almost everybody uses
>     Netscape (various platforms), some use webex 1.1h, nobody used webex
>     1.2, a few use Lynx and one visitor used IE 4 (which claims netscape
>     compatibility!!!)

I tend to view the web from NT on one PC using the internet connection
of my OS/2 PC, or via a proxy on the OS/2 PC. What would that show on
your server ?

--
home: simon@moo.geordie.demon.co.uk
work: scrute@moo.uk.oracle.com
(remove the cow sound to generate correct repplyto address)
Join the largest computer in the world. http://www.distributed.net