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 227023
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Help Me
by rcsteiner on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 18:56 UTC 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