The purpose of this section is to provide a forum for our readers to voice their opinions and thoughts on issues related to OS/2. If you have an observation, concern, gripe or compliment regarding something, please feel free to send them to the OS/2 CONNECT editor for inclusion in this section, at: Title & Publisher or complete the form at the bottom of this page.
The opinions expressed in this section are those of the individual writer and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the editor or publisher of OS/2 CONNECT. NOTE: Letters may be edited for inappropriate or offensive language or clarity.
On a recent load up of a new PC, I ran into some Mircosoft blocks. If I used a Win95 format and FDISK, then OS/2 would not accept it (DOS 6.2 worked OK). I setup three disks and the OS/2 Boot Manager, starting with DOS and Win 3.1 and followed by OS/2. OS/2 finds all Win 3.1 tasks okay. When I loaded Win95 it stopped because it found Win 3.1 on D: and Win 95 was being installed on C:. I removed Win 3.1, loaded Win95 okay. Now Win95 reset the disk so that Win95 booted directly without the Boot Manager. I used DOS 6.2 FDISK to reset boot to use OS/2 Boot Manager and then reinstalled Win 3.1 on D:. Question: Why did Mircosoft change the format of FDISK records, when they seem to use OS/2 installation disk's FDISK and DOS' FDISK okay? Second, why not allow Win 3.1 to co-exist since it works okay? Third, why reset boot to Win 95 and then not reset it back? It seems that the programmers were told to write this into Win 95. It reminds me of a board game, but instead of "go directly to jail" it is "go directly to Win 95 for a life sentence."
You sound sooo positive minded in this month's editiorial; I am seriously wondering if aliens have not sub-planted the real TB with a clone. Pretty nice to see.
RE: US vs Micro$oft: If there is any way we can get the public the message that MSoft OS'es are junk and Gates is feeding us bad clams and that we don't need to be force fed but instead we want THE RIGHT STUFF that works and a choice so that computer worlds would revert to fair and competitive practices, open developement and hence the innovations to follow, including a slice of the pie for OS/2 client, let me know.
PS..NO where in the news is mentioned an alternative OS such as the one we are commited to. NO place.
I am passing on to you the following information as it might help other OS/2 users. In summary, the SIS6205 video chip set is supported under Warp 3 but not under Warp 4. I found this out the hard way; if you look on the SIS site (http://www.sis.com.tw/) you will see a Warp 3 driver. This appears to work with Warp 4 but gives intermittent (puzzling) errors. The problems I found were a failure to open SKBLOCKS in BlueCad (causing BlueCad to crash if reference was made to SKBLOCKS), crashes in Approach on adding a record to a file and intermittent failures to open Organiser. "Older" programs like WordPro work OK which is why diagnosis was difficult, but the problem was eventually correctly diagnosed by Lotus. The hardware affected includes IBM Aptiva models. The informal fix suggested by IBM UK through Lotus was to install the S3 Trio 64 video card and this works perfectly under OS/2. (As an aside, Windows 95 in my dual boot had a particularly difficult time with recognising this plug and play card, being able to diagnose no more that the overall hardware config had changed! I had to carry out a manual installation.)
I hope this information is useful and will save somebody spending the many frustrating hours I had to spend in working out a solution.
I continue to hear, and see the sad and pitiful display of those who say they are OS/2 Users. I have read the excerpt from IBM. I work in the Windows community, I hear the smug and quirk statements because I use and work with OS/2.
But my reason for continuing to use OS/2 is because it works, and works well with the things I do.
I refuse to have a pity party because IBM or any of the other so-called name brand companies won't produce software for Warp, and have produced limited amounts for version 2.x and 3.x.
There are a wealth of great programs by sad to call them that (no name companies and individuals).
I am faced on my job with the extinction of my OS, but that does not mean I have to stop using it.
For what? Just because of Office 97, and a few 3D games????
Duh......
Its really sad that some in the OS/2 community have been bitten by the new toy bug that Microsoft pushes.
Haven't you realized yet that you don't have to buy just because its there????
As long as you buy, someone will sell, and pretty soon.
You have above server class PC's in your homes, and only use a tenth of the power.
I said it before, I'll say it again. Regardless of IBM releasing the code for OS/2, that does not stop the community of users from producing their own software and converters.
Regarding your November Editorial regarding the new Netscape Communicator 4.04: I have OS/2 Warp 3. I installed FixPak 38 then downloaded the Communicator, installed it and it works fine. It seems as though nobody is mentioning the fact that OS/2 Warp 3 users can also use the new Netscape Communicator. Just thought I'd point this out; it just seems that everybody ignores us v3 users. Thanks for listening.
FOLLOW-UP: I bought the upgrade from BMT Micro for FixPak 38 and figured I'd just give it a try. What did I have to lose? It installed with no problem and I even installed the Plug-In Pack. Maybe IBM is just trying to push Version 4.0 so much they didn't want to mention version 3. I just thought that since the basic system really didn't change too much from Version 3 to Version 4 that the code might just be compatible. Most of the changes I saw with Version 4 was extra software, easier web connectivity, and an improved user interface.
I can't believe all of the software available for OS/2! I thought that there wouldn't be much software available but with sites like yours it really opened my eyes. I hope IBM changes its collective mind and keeps supporting OS2.
Hi to all. I've been keeping an eye on OS/2 to see where it is going and I'm kind of in a quandary. I've read the other letters and partly agree with some of them but I disagree with others. I have Win95 on my PC (unfortunately) for two reasons: First, and foremost, there are a lot of new games and applications coming out that are only coming out as Win32 apps. This means they will presently only run on Win95 or NT. This is a real pain in the butt because I have worked with both Microsoft products long enough to hate both of them. One of your readers said he didn't see why anyone would want to run a Win32 app. Its simple. Look at your local computer store and see how many of the new pieces of software are exclusively Win32 offerings. You'll find it's probably over 50% and growing. If OS/2 could run these applications, the excuse of OS/2 not being able to run the latest and greatest software goes away. That means that the average user could then run OS/2 and be able to run all the PC software out there. Well, at least most. This also means that the average user could run one operating system and be happy with it. I would love to see that. It seems that that dream may come true with the Win32-OS/2 project. Unfortunately I'm still not completely happy with IBM and their support for OS/2. I have an AGP video card and I have yet to see any support for the AGP port or the video card. I haven't tried loading OS/2 on it yet but I expect problems. If IBM would just get their support up to date and MARKET OS/2 like Microsoft would, maybe we'd all be running OS/2 instead of a Microsoft piece of garbage. Just a thought.......
Why do we cry that OS/2 is dead? What makes us so different then all other computer users in America? Because we hate Bill? We hate ourselves? Why do we keep struggling on with OS/2; because we dislike IBM so much that in spite of them we go on? Many questions, many reasons; no answers. Who or why at IBM do they not want to support a better OS? Why do they use a MS product at IBM? For myself I will always use and support OS/2, to quote Rush Limbaugh, "A mind numbed robot." What we lack is a central point of development. If somehow Stardock, Sundial, and others could come together to produce software/hardware for OS/2. We then have to start a low level ad campaign, showing the superiority of OS/2 over the MS platform. Then we also have to have the best computer to operate OS/2 on. I think we can all see that even in the MS field there are less and less software products being written, as more and more companies are either bought by MS or just go out of business. Now I am rambling a little, but I will get it off my chest now. If Apple can make a small comeback, then OS/2 can without IBM. We only need one e-mail program, only one spreadsheet, one word processor. What we need are products that we don't already have, like native scanner support and Interfaces, I am using CFM, and it has its limits. I don't have a way to write to a CD, like HP provides for Windows, e.g., drag and drop. We do not have video capture card support. And above all why is so much time and effort being put into this Win95 to OS/2 conversion? Why are we not writing programs in native OS2 or at least in Java?
To submit a letter to the editor for this section, please complete the following form. NOTE: Some web browsers may not support e-mail protocols. In this event, e-mail or fax your message separately.
