[OPE-L:1985] Re: [degression] Re: NT or Warp

Paul Zarembka (ecopaulz@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu)
Fri, 26 Apr 1996 09:58:08 -0700

[ show plain text ]

> Iwao:
> I can't stop myself from answering this question.
> Getting warped with OS/2 has pro and con.
> Pro:
> Warp is the most light OS as 32-bit for PC. There's bunch of native freewares,
> cheep sharewares and unix-like binaries.
> Con:
> Native 32-bit windoze applications do not work under Warp though 16-bit's
> (for win 3.1) can.
> There are not so many applications developed by major software houses.
> But the latter may be somewhat solved because IBM bought Lotus.
> BTW, I mostly use Warp.

I use Warp because initially I was looking for an operating system which
would do genuine multitasking with communications (probably the most
difficult part of an operating system's multitasking capabilities).
MS-Dos only had task swapping, only swapped to disk not memory (much slower)
and even that was abandoned. Dr-DOS swaps to memory and so is a better
task swapping (but not a multitasker--more than one task AT THE SAME
TIME). I tried Novel DOS 7 but never could get it to work reliably for
multitasking with communications (it's really convenient to keep
communications open and running while doing something else). I heard
enough of Windows 3.x crashes that I wasn't going to even attempt
installing Windows for multitasking with communications (I also never
liked the "look" of Windows, nor its consumption of resources for no
real gain in computing capabilities--Windows 3.x is placed on TOP of DOS,
it's not a new operating system). Windows 95 crashes just as much in 3.x
and actually is still based on DOS.

Warp is another operating system from ground up, which however allows the
user to also use DOS and Windows 3.x programs if they wish in addition to
native OS/2 programs. I can completely and confidently multitask
communications in OS/2 Warp and anything else. If a crash occurs, it
usually is only of that program, and doesn't require rebooting.

Windows 95 uses cooperative, not preemptive, multitasking, for Windows
3.x 16-bit program, while Warp uses only preemptive. Cooperative leads
to a structural weakness in which a crash in one program pulls down the
whole system. (However, one should not conclude that a cooperative
socialist project is doomed to crash as a result of this experience!)

The best communications program out there to communicate with a modem is
Hyperaccess for OS/2 (at least as far as I know, and I've tried a lot).
Windows' program, 3.x or 95, will not be as good (unless I missed
something out there). It's simple, yet very powerful--doing things you
would like a comm. program to do and many things you haven't even thought
of (like keeping a scrollback on disk, so when you turn off your computer
you will still have yesterday's comm. interactions right there in the
scroll back). I know a person who had to go to Windows 95 for other
reasons and regrets having to be stuck with a lower grade comm. program
than he had with Hyperaccess for OS/2 (incidentally, this is NOT the
Hyperaccess which comes free with Warp and is not very good, but rather
the commercial product).

Having written more than I expected, let me only add that I hate Microsoft's
corporate policies of crass commercialization of its products, including
using the Rolling Stones to advertize Windows 95. I could discuss a lot
more about Warp, but I think this is more than enough.

Finally, yes, Jerry, you are right. There are Marxist issues of
technology, merchandizing, etc., here.

Paul Z.