Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Apr 2007 21:11 UTC, submitted by judgen
OS/2 and eComStation "In this anniversary, I'd like to shed some light about my first-hand experience with [OS/2], especially since I see many attempts at history re-writing and over-simplification, when people compress OS/2's two decades into a single paragraph. An OS/2 user named Roger Perkins wrote to OS/2 newsgroups ten years ago: "Here's to OS/2's 10th Anniversary on April 2nd! No OS has ever died so many times!"
Thread beginning with comment 226969
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Help Me
by ronaldst on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Help Me"
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

Oh... Which is better. CONFIG.SYS, or a much larger registry that can't even be edited without special tools? I know which one I choose!

OS/2 had it's own registry aka OS2.INI. Everything is dumped there. And it's not editable without tools. Because it's another binary blob. People need to run tools to clean it. And it's certainly isn't better than the Windows Registry. It's the same thing. Except the Windows Registry has evolved and taken steps to remedy it's shortcomings. I wish I could say the same for OS2.INI.

While CONFIG.SYS isn't better anyway. Especially when the user has to edit config.sys to modify a few lines to fix their video card problems. These show how much OS/2 is outdated and has always been poorly developed.

I don't see how could anyone put merit in these ackward things like OS2.INI and CONFIG.SYS.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: Help Me
by rcsteiner on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 18:53 in reply to "RE[2]: Help Me"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

What does CONFIG.SYS have to do with video?

The only thing I can think of are the old procedures to install Matrox's MGA Millenium video drivers and the like which required one to modify a couple of lines in CONFIG.SYS, but that type of thing hasn't been required under OS/2 for ages.

OS/2 isn't XFree86. It doesn't need mode lines. :-)

Seriously, though -- editing a settings file is editing a settings file, be it a registry or a text file -- and I've always been fans of text files because I can see and fix them with ease. Such files are a strong point of all Unix variants in my mind, since I'd rather edit a dotfile than have to use a GUI tool to make some sort of basic change.

Would you prefer that the settings ALL be in OS2.INI? It seems like that's what you're looking for, and I frankly don't understand that at all... At the moment, I'm aware of very few things which use OS2.INI, and IMO that's a good thing.

Edited 2007-04-03 19:01

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Help Me
by rcsteiner on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 18:56 in reply to "RE[2]: Help Me"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

I actually preferred the relatively simple WIN.INI and SYSTEM.INI files in Windows 3.1. Text files.

You're right about OS2.INI being a binary blob, but I've not run into issues with it. No corruption, no hidden application and/or system settings, and no application dependencies on weird fields therein.

I've hit all three of those issues with Windows variants.

YMMV, I guess...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Help Me
by chekmarx on Mon 9th Apr 2007 21:45 in reply to "RE[3]: Help Me"
chekmarx Member since:
2007-04-09

Also, a real plus IMO of how OS/2's INI files were setup, was the fact that:

a] They were completely separate from the booted OS - ie you could have a trashed INI file and still fully boot into OS/2 to repair the problem, providing you didn't need a WPS app to fix the issue.

b] If the system was so trashed and couldn't be repaired, it was real simple and fast to boot into VIO mode and re-generate new INI files - ie creating basically a fresh new install *without* having to actually re-install the OS.

Something Windows *still* doesn't handle as smoothly. Yes, there are "restore points" and all that, but they aren't nearly as reliable as MS likes to pretend they are.

chekmarx

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Help Me
by justin.68 on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 20:19 in reply to "RE[2]: Help Me"
justin.68 Member since:
2006-09-16

OS/2 had 2 binary *.ini system files if I remember correctly. At some point IBM programmers included a Windows registry look-alike in a fix pack in order to edit them. I guess that was just to show how advanced Windows 95 and NT 4 were...

I prefer Linux text files... and I've always had to write down the modeline entry because my monitors were not in the db. With FreeBSD as well. But it's OK, because text is what we read.

Reply Parent Score: 2