Publishing geniuses, wow! I'm going to my boss right now and asking for a raise :-)
And let me just say, thanks for thrashing IBM instead of us for a change. We could use the break.
My undertanding of OS/2 (and keep in mind, I've never used it beyond playing with it a little at some trade shows) is that it is a powerful, flexible OS that requires some heavy tinkering to install and configure properly. If you're not willing or able to invest some time into making it run, you're probably not going to get much out of it. As far as the DOS thing goes, I believe that there are properties you can assign to a DOS session to set up the available memory, installed devices, etc.
Personally, if IBM had delivered OS/2 for the PowerPC six months ago, that's what I would have bought. (I just hate to give Microsoft and Intel any MORE of my money.) Unfortunately, it wasn't there, so I now own a Pentium running Windows 95 - and let me add that having used Win95, I wouldn't consider moving to any other OS. It's all I use these days. (Well, I have to deal with a little UNIX, but it's under protest.)
Our resident OS/2 maven, Jim from Tech Support, says:
"I don't have much to say about OS/2 improving your computer's performance. It runs pretty well on my machine. Maybe you should talk to IBM about making sure your system is set up correctly. Windows and DOS don't run too well either, if your system is not configured corrrectly.
"I have never had OS/2 delete files during installation. Did you set up OS/2 to use Bootmanager? If so, then maybe you used FDISK to repartition your harddrive. Once you do this you have to reformat your hard drive just like DOS.
"I installed OS/2 with Windows and DOS already installed. It set up Windows along with its groups and put them on my OS/2 desktop. Windows programs do run a little slower when using them through OS/2, but DOS programs run great. I can create an icon for games like Falcon and Doom and they run just as fast as in DOS. Did I mention that I have a 486Dx2 66?"
