Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 16th Dec 2006 22:58 UTC, submitted by martini
OS/2 and eComStation eComStation 2.0 beta 3, the new evolution of OS/2, is available to download for registered users. The new features of this beta version are available on the online readme file. Among other things, this new release includes better support for wireless chipsets and advanced power management features.
Order by: Score:
I thought OS/2 was left in obscurity
by Phloptical on Sun 17th Dec 2006 01:00 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

I've only ever seen this in use at one place....my old college radio station. I think it was something having to do with running the spots at certain times of the day.

Other than that, it was the first and last time I ever came in contact with OS/2.

Reply Score: 1

blixel Member since:
2005-07-06

I use to work at a call center that was all IBM token ring and OS/2. Though, in the time I was there we were already moving to MS Windows. (And Ethernet.)

It's a shame OS/2 didn't put up more of a fight. It was better than Windows in pretty much every way. It wasn't until Windows 2000 came out that Microsoft had an operating system that you could realistically compare with what OS/2 had had for more than a decade. (Edit: I suppose Windows NT could be considered as well. But Windows NT was never aimed at consumers where OS/2 Warp was.)

Great link here if you're interested in reading some OS/2 history:

http://pages.prodigy.net/michaln/history

Edited 2006-12-17 01:17

Reply Score: 3

Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

I had heard about OS/2's better multitasking and multithreading than Windows had pre-Win2k. Since I was new to the field at the time, I really had no concept of what that meant.

I'll check the link out. Thanks.

Reply Score: 1

DoctorPepper Member since:
2005-07-12

FYI, I used Windows NT 3.1, 3.5 and 3.51. I also used OS/2 2.11 and 3.0. Of all of them, OS/2 3.0 was the best OS. It had the best multitasking of any non-Unix OS I have ever used.

I also really regret that IBM didn't put up more of a fight. I despise Windows (sorry, my personal feelings), and would much rather use OS/2.

I keep saying I can't afford eComStation, but maybe I will free up the $$$ when 2.0 gets released, and give it another shot. It won't be OS/2 3.0, but it will still be a better OS than Windows! :-)

Reply Score: 2

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"I've only ever seen this in use at one place....my old college radio station. I think it was something having to do with running the spots at certain times of the day. "

I've seen OS/2 being used together with IBM mainframes (AS/400 eSeries) at our local financial authority (Oberfinanzdirection). Programmers used the OS/2 boxes for programming and performing the dialog with the AS/400 and, of course, to work with the results (doing statistics, diagrams, reports, bills etc.).

I had my own experience with OS/2 3.0 many years ago, I found it was quite cool. It was used as OEM operating system and came preinstalled on PCs for some time. My friends using it were happy with it - happier than with "Windows" 3.1 before and '95/'98 after. OS/2 was more stable, offered better multimedia support and could even run DOS applications in multitasking.

You might want to have a look at http://toastytech.com/guis/indexos2.html where you can see some impressive screenshots.

So it's nice to hear about eComStation. It even supports multiple virtual desktops. OS/2 and eComStation are still worth to be mentioned being present in the OS field.

Reply Score: 2

Nice
by Xaero_Vincent on Sun 17th Dec 2006 01:22 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

Only $259 for a full copy eComStation 1.2R.

eComStation even has great support for my 16-bit Windows 3.x applications.

For additional productivity, I can buy OpenOffice 1.1.5 with premium support for only $49.

Step aside Microsoft... we have a new boy in town!


Resources:
http://www.ecomstation.biz/cgi-bin/db2www/biz_art2.d2w/report?catna...

http://www.ecomstation.biz/cgi-bin/db2www/biz_art2.d2w/report?catna...

Reply Score: 4

RE: Nice
by arielb on Sun 17th Dec 2006 03:09 UTC in reply to "Nice"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

Does IBM have anything to do with ecomstation?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Nice
by Brmbolec on Sun 17th Dec 2006 09:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice"
Brmbolec Member since:
2005-07-23

As far I know they don't. They licensed it to Serenity Systems.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nice
by deb2006 on Sun 17th Dec 2006 19:55 UTC in reply to "Nice"
deb2006 Member since:
2006-06-26

you forgot to add the irony tags. You cannot be serious about this ... "only $259 for a full copy of eComStation" - I have a full copy of a Linux operating system that supports more hardware, brings along tons of good software etc. And there is OpenOffice - why should I buy it???
You really must be living in a distant galaxy if you seriously believe that this eComStation price is a good offer ...

Reply Score: 2

Lockup
by sb56637 on Sun 17th Dec 2006 03:23 UTC
sb56637
Member since:
2006-05-11

I like the "Lockup Now" button in the Start menu.
http://toastytech.com/guis/ecsdstart.png
Windows and Linux are SO much more advanced that OS/2, because they lockup all on their own, even while you're using the computer, and you don't even have to click a single button!

Edited 2006-12-17 03:31

Reply Score: 2

Heh... I bought...
by Tuishimi on Sun 17th Dec 2006 07:14 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...OS/2 preloaded on a machine from Indelible Blue... it was a good operating system, at least back then. Had some i/o limitations in the form of bottlenecks if I remember, and updating it was a pain... (at least in my opinion). But I preferred it enough over windows and even MacOS at that point that I found it worth spending the extra $$$ to purchase a system from a specialized dealer.

On the other hand, when I discovered BeOS, all bets were off.

I did download the eComm live CD and tried it out, it brought back some old memories. ;)

Reply Score: 2

What for ?
by fffffh on Sun 17th Dec 2006 11:15 UTC
fffffh
Member since:
2006-01-04

Who need (so oold) OS/2 when other newer operating systems are already hear, having speacial version for desktop (Linux,*BSD even Solaris), and a lot of applications for them, emulators (or native execution OS in OS on 2XCore) for Win32/16?

Reply Score: 0

RE: What for ?
by steampoweredlawn on Sun 17th Dec 2006 11:42 UTC in reply to "What for ?"
steampoweredlawn Member since:
2006-09-27

The only reason I continue to use OS/2 is the GUI. The WPS is a one-of-a-kind animal, unlike any other interface out there. You kind of have to experience it to understand why people would continue to use and develop for a "dead" OS.

Aside from that, all the advantages that OS/2 had over other systems in its day (rock solid stability, *real* pre-emptive multitasking, memory management, etc) are now present in Linux and other systems, but IMO no other system has an interface that can compete with the WPS.

Ask any current or former OS/2 user what they like/miss most about OS/2, and I'd bet at least 9/10 will say the GUI.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What for ?
by rcsteiner on Mon 18th Dec 2006 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE: What for ?"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Not me. The GUI is nice, but for me the big drawing point for OS/2 is the CLI. I like having a sophisticated command line environment (in my case a mix of 4OS2+4DOS) where filenames retain case but are not case sensitive, and I think REXX is a nice scripting language (though I also use Perl under OS/2 on occasion as well as 4OS2 batch files).

Linux isn't bad, either, and DOSEMU is fairly seamless these days, but bash isn't 4OS2.

Edited 2006-12-18 19:19

Reply Score: 2

RE: What for ?
by Sparrowhawk on Sun 17th Dec 2006 12:10 UTC in reply to "What for ?"
Sparrowhawk Member since:
2005-07-11

Surely you don't believe that noone should develop for BeOS/Haiku, AmigaOS, FreeDOS, RISC OS, ReactOS, Menuet, Plan9, SkyOS, etc, etc? All of these, like eCS, have very small user-bases relative to the behemoths that are Win/Mac/Linux and BSD.

People use eCS because they enjoy the experience, are free from viruses and malware, have sufficient up-to-date software to perform most tasks, and principally because OS/2 was integral to so many business processes that it is simply not economic to remove an OS/2 element to replace it with WIndows/whatever.

Serenity Systems is a commercial vendor. It makes good money out of the eCS business. How is this a dead OS? eCS and OS/2 users get a desktop OS that is constantly evolving.

For the record, eCS is my third most used OS, after OSX and WinXP.

I would hate to see an OS landscape devoid of the variety of minority OS's.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What for ?
by dylansmrjones on Sun 17th Dec 2006 17:40 UTC in reply to "What for ?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

OS/2 isn't that old. It's about the same age as Windows, if you count in the entire development history. The newest IBM release of OS/2 is from 2003, and is younger than Win2K3 Server ;)

One could claim *BSD and GNU/Linux are older or the same age as OS/2.

Reply Score: 3

looking forward to it
by steampoweredlawn on Sun 17th Dec 2006 11:25 UTC
steampoweredlawn
Member since:
2006-09-27

I'm currently using eCS 1.0, looking forward to upgrading when 2.0 goes gold. Serenity has added things to eCS that OS/2 has very conspicuously lacked for years, like ACPI support, multiple user desktops, and support for modern hardware. Plus, with the recent announcement that Java and Flash are to be open-sourced (and thereby soon ported to OS/2), combined with Odin (Win32 app support), Everblue (Linux app support), and projects like Win32-Prn (support for Windows printer drivers in OS/2), eCS will continue to remain modern and relevant for at least the next couple of years.

I just wish IBM would release the source code for the Workplace Shell, so someone could finally fix the message queue once and for all, and maybe even port the WPS to Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE: looking forward to it
by twenex on Sun 17th Dec 2006 14:05 UTC in reply to "looking forward to it"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I just wish IBM would release the source code for the Workplace Shell, so someone could finally fix the message queue once and for all, and maybe even port the WPS to Linux.

If they could make it work on top of X, that would be very cool. (It would be cool even if it was independent of X, but whoever ported it wouldn't even have the power of Apple to get people to write apps for it, and I doubt OS/2 apps would work on it straight out of the box.)

Reply Score: 4

RE: looking forward to it
by helf on Sun 17th Dec 2006 17:56 UTC in reply to "looking forward to it"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

I haven't used OS/2 in ages... And I never got a chance to try out odin. How well does it work?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: looking forward to it
by rcsteiner on Mon 18th Dec 2006 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE: looking forward to it"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

I'm still using an older version of Odin, but I've used it to run the Win32 versions of Palm Desktop 3.1 plus various filters, IrfanView, and Adobe Acrobat Reader.

It fails with a lot of programs, though.

Reply Score: 2

RE: looking forward to it
by ronaldst on Sun 17th Dec 2006 18:08 UTC in reply to "looking forward to it"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

@steampoweredlawn

I just wish IBM would release the source code for the Workplace Shell, so someone could finally fix the message queue once and for all, and maybe even port the WPS to Linux.

It's currently being rewritten by the Netlabs folks.

http://wiki.netlabs.org/index.php/Voyager_FAQ

Edited 2006-12-17 18:09

Reply Score: 2

RE: looking forward to it
by sb56637 on Mon 18th Dec 2006 00:32 UTC in reply to "looking forward to it"
sb56637 Member since:
2006-05-11

>...recent announcement that Java and Flash are to be open-sourced...

Flash is going to be open-sourced??

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: looking forward to it
by steampoweredlawn on Mon 18th Dec 2006 02:44 UTC in reply to "RE: looking forward to it"
steampoweredlawn Member since:
2006-09-27

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/press/mozilla-2006-11-07.html

I guess I misread the article, and Flash might not be released in it's entirety, but the core engine at least is being released.

and to Kancept, yes Flash and Java do exist for OS/2, but Flash support only goes up to version 7 and Java only up to 1.4.2, and it's more or less the Windows distro w/ an Odin wrapper. It's slow and very memory hungry. Would be nice to see a native port of Java 1.6

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: looking forward to it
by Kancept on Mon 18th Dec 2006 05:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: looking forward to it"
Kancept Member since:
2006-01-09

Flash only goes up to version 7 in any alt OS as well. Linux is only @ 7 IIRC. I think Win and OSX are the only ones at current.

As for Java, there are really 2 1.4.x implementations. One is an odin wrapped, the other is a port (from GoldenCode IIRC). One group is working on a native 1.6 release, but I haven't seen news on that in a while, only a bounty offered for it to be produced.

Not that I miss flash or newer java stuff in eCom anyhoo.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: looking forward to it
by DeadFishMan on Mon 18th Dec 2006 17:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: looking forward to it"
DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

Flash only goes up to version 7 in any alt OS as well. Linux is only @ 7 IIRC. I think Win and OSX are the only ones at current.

Thatīs partially correct. The stable release of Flash Player in Linux indeed is 7.X but Adobe released the Beta of version 9 on Linux and it seems to be up to the snuff but I believe that they still need to iron out a few bugs here and there. See http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer9/

However, since itīs very unlikely that Adobe will port this version to other platforms, niches OSes best hope of use an up to date Flash Player is Gnash but it will need some time to it mature to the point of being usable on a daily basis.

Reply Score: 2

Plus - the DOS support
by joeprusa on Sun 17th Dec 2006 13:54 UTC
joeprusa
Member since:
2006-05-25

OS/2 (in it's) 3.0 days had absolutely marvelous DOS support. So if you have some old DOS-only game which absolutely refuses to run in DOSbox, then OS/2 might do the trick. But it's been some time since I had the pleasure...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Plus - the DOS support
by DoctorPepper on Mon 18th Dec 2006 11:05 UTC in reply to "Plus - the DOS support"
DoctorPepper Member since:
2005-07-12

I remember installing OS/2 Warp (3.0) on my computer at work (back then, it really was MY computer!). It was a 486 DX-2 66 with some ridiculously low amount of RAM, like 8 or 16 MB. I was playing around with Windows 3.1 support, and pulled my boss back to make him watch me run 32 separate Windows 3.1 programs at a time. When I tried to launch #33, OS/2 popped up a dialog that told me I had reached the limit for this Windows 3.1 session, but would I like to launch it in another session? Needless to say, my boss was totally blown away.

Yeah, I really loved OS/2 back in the day.

Reply Score: 1

Tried Demo CD
by twenex on Sun 17th Dec 2006 22:39 UTC
twenex
Member since:
2006-04-21

Tried the Demo CD, and I like. I think I'll set aside some time this week to give it a good once-over and write a feature for OSNews about it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Tried Demo CD
by DoctorPepper on Mon 18th Dec 2006 12:27 UTC in reply to "Tried Demo CD"
DoctorPepper Member since:
2005-07-12

I just (this morning) requested the demo CD. The response was very fast, and I'm now running it on an older Dell Dimension XPS, P-III 733. For being CD-based, it is quite snappy. It found all of my hardware and came right up.

My only "complaint" is the resolution of the demo CD is limited to 1024x768@16 colors, but I noticed the installed version isn't.

Very nice indeed! I think I will have to see if I can get some money together after all! :-)

Reply Score: 2

Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

OS/2 is/was FAR better than DOS, Win3.1, Win9x and only (in some ways but not others) caught up by Windows 2000. Windows (even with Vista) still hasn't gotten the user interface to be as good as OS/2 has been since 1992.

The most impressive thing was that I could literally has one computer do the work of four Windows 3.11 or Windows '9x computers on the SAME hardware.

As another person said. It was amazing how many programs you could have running on OS/2 at the same time with a 386 or 486 computer. Did you need to work on 15 things at the same time? (Updating servers remotely, recalcing a big spreadsheet, etc.) No problem. OS/2 handled it without crashing. Windows? What a laugh in comparison.

Plus you had more control of memory settings for each and every program. So even DOS programs ran better in a DOS box on OS/2 than running them in DOS (no Windows). Links Golf for DOS is a great example.

Another great thing was that I could have multiple modems connecting to different remote servers gathering performance data (or whatever) or I could be remotely updating two or more servers at a time with every loosing any connections.

Now if they could get it so eComstation ran on my Core 2 Duo iMac I could run it in VMware. XP or Vista? No Thanks. I have to support XP at work now and soon Vista. Nothing like working on Vegas and Pintos at work and going home and using something that works a lot better.

Reply Score: 1

net admin
by PipoDeClown on Mon 18th Dec 2006 18:32 UTC
PipoDeClown
Member since:
2005-07-19

executing a command on a remote server...
e.g.
net admin \\\server (c:os2cmd.exe /c dir /s > \\\server\\logs\\dir.txt)
type \\\server\\logs\\dir.txt

or something like that

i have never seen an builtin equivalent in windows ;)

edit:stupid osnews parser

Edited 2006-12-18 18:33

Reply Score: 1

v Tim Holwerdi
by Tim Holwerdi on Tue 19th Dec 2006 11:52 UTC