
                       CORRESPONDENCE BOARD (READ ONLY)
                                       
   
   
   The following are not necessarily in proper chronological order.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   From: JWHJ99A Frank Sousa Time: 7:25PM ET
   
   Stu, What versions of NT and OS/2 did you install? 
   
   FranK in NJ 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   From: NMVV00A Tom Martin Jr Time: 12:27AM ET
   
   Stu, I like what you're doing and you have my interest. 
   
   Looking forward to additional notes. I assume that you have
   
   also updated drivers for all operating systems if available.
   
   What operating system is your primary system (the one you 
   
   installed Boot Manager)? Obviously, it's not Win95. That's 
   
   one advantage of NT and OS2 over Win95. 
   
   I ran OS2 2.0 and 2.1, but did not like the 2 minutes plus 
   
   boot time on my 386 and amount of space it took from my 130 
   
   meg drive so about a year ago, I went to DOS/Win. For me, 
   
   OS2 was far superior, but WIN/DOS booted faster and used 
   
   less HD space. In August I bought a Pentium 75 with Win95. 
   
   My first impressions were very positive. In many ways it 
   
   was like OS/2 but in other ways it was easier to understand.
   
   I planned to keep Win95, but after 100+ crashes, files that 
   
   suddenly changed their names, and shortcuts which kept being
   
   disconnected I decided to try WARP. I also didn't like the 
   
   idea that Win95 is a short-termed OS which will go out of 
   
   popularity as soon as the P-6 becomes popular. I've been 
   
   very pleased with WARP and have decided to make it my OS of 
   
   choice--at least for now. 
   
   BTRW, the boot time was 5 seconds longer for my WARP than 
   
   for Win95 on my system. I consider that---a tie. 
   
   Tom in Centreville, VA 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   From: NMVV00A Tom Martin Jr Time: 8:27AM ET
   
   Stu, I don't kow if you want to go through the trouble of 
   
   downloading 8 disks of upgrades, but yesterday I installed 
   
   the Fixpack_10 for OS2 and not only does OS2 appear a little
   
   snappier, C&S Performance Plus shows about a 10-20% 
   
   improvement in performance. I've never heard anyone state 
   
   that the Fixpack improved performance--but it did for me. 
   
   
   
   Tom in Centreville, VA 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: JWHJ99A Frank Sousa Date: 11/4/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 8:49AM ET
   
   Frank, 
   
   The latest Warp available retail, blue spine with it's own 
   
   built in Windows code. NT likewise, is version 3.51 plus 
   
   the latest release of the Win95 shell. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/4/95 
   
   From: GCXW99A John Martin Time: 9:17AM ET
   
   Hi Stuart, as you know I have reviewed these configurations 
   
   before and currently reinstalled DOS/Windows on my system. 
   
   I will follow the future notes and compare with my 
   
   experience with the four OSs. BTW, the system that I tested
   
   on is 486DX2 66mhz with 64meg of system memory and two hard 
   
   drives 340 and 540meg and US Robitics Sportster 28.8 
   
   external modem. The summary of my review was OS/2 Warp and 
   
   Win NT were the most stable of the OSs. I found hardly any 
   
   difference between OS/2 Warp stability and NT, except when I
   
   tried to crash the two systems and I was more successful in 
   
   crashing OS/2 Warp than I was with NT. When comparing 
   
   Windows to Win95 again Win95 was by far the best in 
   
   stability and a vast improvement over Windows. I find 
   
   Windows the best solution for 4 to 6meg systems for single 
   
   desktop users. OS/2 Warp is the best solution for 8 to 64meg
   
   systems for single desktop users. I found Win95 less stable
   
   than OS/2 Warp and NT but I like the interface of Win95. NT 
   
   was the only OS that comes as a Server OS and I had no means
   
   to really compare the server qualities, so my results are 
   
   from a single enduser viewpoint. OS/2 Warp and NT are still
   
   my favorite OSs due to their stability and 
   
   multitasking/threading capabilities. Windows and Win95 did 
   
   not win in the stability area for me. User interface was 
   
   best executed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
   
   under OS/2 Warp and Win95 with OS/2 Warp having the best 
   
   function. However, Windows and Win95 were the easiest to 
   
   install when compared to OS/2 Warp and Windows NT. When it 
   
   comes to performance of DOS, Windows, Win95 and OS/2 
   
   applications. I found WFWG to best option for moderate 
   
   workloads for a mixture of DOS and Windows applications. In 
   
   heavy workloads I found OS/2 Warp to be the best performer 
   
   and the mixture of applications were DOS, Windows and OS/2 
   
   16 and 32. (Win95 performed well until the mixture of 
   
   operating all three formats DOS, Windows and Win32 
   
   applications and performance degraded and crashes became 
   
   more common) Stability is key in my requirements under heavy
   
   workloads and is one of the main reasons that I have a 
   
   strong preference for OS/2 Warp. I also found the value of 
   
   the OS/2 Warp package holding the best value from a consumer
   
   viewpoint. The IBM Bonus Pak was intended to show the value
   
   of native OS/2 applications and how SOM technology performs 
   
   to enhance productivity for the enduser. But, the fact is 
   
   with the package Internet connection, Wordprocessor, 
   
   Spreadsheet, Data base, Charting and Reporting, CompuServe 
   
   and much more is a wonderful value for the beginner getting 
   
   into computing. However, if your requirements move you to 
   
   running applications that OS/2 Warp does not support, then 
   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
   
   OS/2 will not be the best option for you. As in my case, my
   
   office migrated to OS/2 and the Lotus SmartSuite for OS/2, 
   
   so for me, it was the key reason I began to look at OS/2 
   
   Warp and to my surprise it was leap years ahead of Windows. 
   
   And now that I have use OS/2 Warp for almost a year now and 
   
   tested the other OS, Win95 and NT, OS/2 Warp remains the 
   
   best option for me. However, to my surprise I liked Win95 
   
   very much, but again it did not offer better stability or 
   
   user interface when it come to functional strength and ease 
   
   of use. Oh I forgot to mention that I have be using Object 
   
   Desktop for OS/2 Warp and I found it to enhance the desktop 
   
   experience and productivity. And it offers the information 
   
   and layout that I liked about Win95. Well, I hope to hear 
   
   more and as you review your findings and I will provide my 
   
   experience as compared with yours. As always the best in 
   
   computing in fun and work. John 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: NMVV00A Tom Martin Jr Date: 11/4/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 10:27AM ET
   
   Tom, 
   
   As far as I know, I have downloaded all the latest drivers 
   
   available for all the systems. I am using a third party 
   
   boot manager that resides on the logical C drive in the 
   
   primary partition along with Win95. 
   
   I have found the boot time for OS/2 to no longer be a 
   
   problem, perhaps Warp is better then it was before 
   
   with all the fixes or the extra RAM makes it faster, my 
   
   guess is probably both. That used to be one of my biggest 
   
   gripes with Warp was that it was so slow to boot and while 
   
   not as quick to boot as Win95 it is quicker than NT. With 
   
   regard to your crash problems with Win95; I've found that 
   
   all three systems are very stable once set up properly. 
   
   Warp seems to be the most sensitive to lock ups right now 
   
   on my system but that's because it can't run Windows full 
   
   screen without crashing yet. Susana on the OS/2 BB is 
   
   trying to come up with a solution for me. As far as Win95 
   
   being short termed; there are two ways to look at that and 
   
   IMO, both are positive. First if Win95 is merely a 
   
   transitional OS until everyone moves to NT, then Win95 
   
   serves a purpose by providing a much improved OS over 
   
   Win3.1, great backward compatibility, 32bit app capabilities
   
   and with the new interface coming for NT, upgrading to NT 
   
   will be virtually effortless when your hardware can support 
   
   the move. The second scenario is that Win95 matures into a 
   
   NT light product while NT remains the choice for networked 
   
   environments needed the extra security of file permissions, 
   
   etc. Either way, we all upgrade eventually so what's the 
   
   difference if you upgrade to Win98 or NT, if it works well 
   
   you'll be happy with it. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: XKBR05A Darrell Hancock Date: 11/4/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 10:27AM ET
   
   Darrell, 
   
   It does get a little confusing at times when Warp and Win95 
   
   and even NT take different approaches to doing the basics. 
   
   One way is not necessarily better than the other, Win95's 
   
   way seems to work better for me, but I'm sure that's just 
   
   because I'm more used to it. I have not figured out yet how 
   
   to get third button mouse support to work in NT yet and 
   
   OS/2 I understand absolutely doesn't support it and I'm a 
   
   little spoiled by having the middle button act as a double 
   
   click. I'm also guessing that people who are very used to 
   
   Warp probably exit out of a lot of programs inadvertently 
   
   when trying Win95. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: NMVV00A Tom Martin Jr Date: 11/4/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 10:45AM ET
   
   Tom, 
   
   About the Fixpack_10, do I need it? I have the latest 
   
   available Warp--retail wise, but I'm sure there have been 
   
   fixes since it's release. BTW, I remember reading a couple 
   
   of notes on the OS/2 BB about problems with the Fixpack_10, 
   
   I don't remember what they said but I do remember reading 
   
   that some people were advising NOT to use it. Can you shed 
   
   any light on this? 
   
   On the C & S Performance Plus, I mentioned earlier that I 
   
   have tried it with mixed results. The booklet that comes 
   
   with it is well written if a little basic and the utilities 
   
   and optimization features are generally first rate. The 
   
   no-brainer changes to the config.sys is great and the 
   
   monitoring abilities to see what effects it has are great 
   
   too. I was very impressed with the program except for one 
   
   tiny problem. The Optimizer would recommend many changes to 
   
   enhance my system and then implement them and then Simple 
   
   Count would measure the effect. So far all the many 
   
   changes, according to it's own measurements have never been 
   
   able to duplicate much less improve performance over the 
   
   default settings. It consistently shows that my original 
   
   setting gave me the best performance! 
   
   Please get back with me about the Fixpack, let me know if 
   
   you think I need it. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/4/95 
   
   From: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Time: 3:18PM ET
   
   I just installed Fixpack_10 last week and it seemed to go 
   
   well. I don't think it is included on any packaged WARP 
   
   version and should be given consideration. There are 
   
   various iterations of FP's that are not sanctioned for 
   
   indiscrimante installing, i.e. 12. 10 is sanctioned and is 
   
   touted for giving performance improvements. 
   
   BTW, MGA is a Matrox card? Did you get the latest OS/2 
   
   drivers. Are there any. Do they have a BBS? 
   
   Ralph 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: GCXW99A John Martin Date: 11/4/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 4:24PM ET
   
   John, 
   
   Yes, I remember when you were trying these out and I was 
   
   right, you liked Win95 but I knew you would stick with Warp 
   
   for now. Did you use NTFS with NT? How was the speed of NT 
   
   with 64MB (I'm jealous<G>)? 
   
   I'm trying not to form to many early conclusions but going 
   
   along with your comments I agree that NT while very 
   
   advanced in many ways, felt like a big backward step with 
   
   regards to the interface. After putting the Win95 interface 
   
   on NT I really felt like I had the best of everything, 
   
   except that some features aren't supported and it's still 
   
   has some beta quirks (the shell). I've already run into a 
   
   few reminders of what I had become disenchanted with Warp 
   
   the first time around. For instance, I wanted to do some 
   
   comparisons with Word and I knew that Word 7 would run 
   
   under Win95 and NT but not Warp so I got out my old Word 6 
   
   disks to install on Warp. The install went without a hitch 
   
   except that my disk were for Word 6.0a not 6.0c. The later 
   
   had many fixes and I had an update disk that updates it 
   
   from the A version to the C version. The update disk 
   
   couldn't find half the files and left me stuck with the A 
   
   version. I'm not saying this is Warp's fault, but there 
   
   always seems to be a gotcha with Warp and Windows apps 
   
   somewhere. Also every time I reinstall most anything from 
   
   the selective install menu I have to re-install my video 
   
   driver. The hardest part for me so far is file management, 
   
   everything seems so counter intuitive in Warp but maybe 
   
   that will go away after I reacquaint myself with Warp. With 
   
   NT I haven't found a program yet that crashes it although 
   
   some experimenting around with the Registry entries sure 
   
   did<G>. It seems to be able to withstand any non deliberate 
   
   program or user error and quickly allows you to close down 
   
   the offending program and move on. I was able to get over 
   
   35 copies of MS Word loaded on NT and stopped there since 
   
   there didn't seem to be any limit other than disk space for 
   
   the swap file. Right now, if someone asked me for a 
   
   recommendation on which OS to use I would say to stick with 
   
   Win3.1 or better yet WFWG if you have less than 8MB. If you 
   
   have 8 to 12 I would recommend Win95 or Warp, and Warp, 
   
   only if you already use OS/2 programs or have it in your 
   
   work environment. 16MB or more and I would maybe opt for NT 
   
   only if stability is your primary concern or your 
   
   networking demands are high. After the new shell becomes a 
   
   part of NT, that may be the way to go if you have 16MB or 
   
   more of RAM. You would then would have the best interface, 
   
   the most robust system and most all the new and old Windows 
   
   apps would run fine. BTW, I was able to get 3 button mouse 
   
   support in a limited way today with an edit in the NT 
   
   registry, do you know if OS/2 does or will ever support 
   
   this? 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: GCXW99A John Martin Date: 11/4/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 4:24PM ET
   
   John, 
   
   Yes, I remember when you were trying these out and I was 
   
   right, you liked Win95 but I knew you would stick with Warp 
   
   for now. Did you use NTFS with NT? How was the speed of NT 
   
   with 64MB (I'm jealous<G>)? 
   
   I'm trying not to form to many early conclusions but going 
   
   along with your comments I agree that NT while very 
   
   advanced in many ways, felt like a big backward step with 
   
   regards to the interface. After putting the Win95 interface 
   
   on NT I really felt like I had the best of everything, 
   
   except that some features aren't supported and it's still 
   
   has some beta quirks (the shell). I've already run into a 
   
   few reminders of what I had become disenchanted with Warp 
   
   the first time around. For instance, I wanted to do some 
   
   comparisons with Word and I knew that Word 7 would run 
   
   under Win95 and NT but not Warp so I got out my old Word 6 
   
   disks to install on Warp. The install went without a hitch 
   
   except that my disk were for Word 6.0a not 6.0c. The later 
   
   had many fixes and I had an update disk that updates it 
   
   from the A version to the C version. The update disk 
   
   couldn't find half the files and left me stuck with the A 
   
   version. I'm not saying this is Warp's fault, but there 
   
   always seems to be a gotcha with Warp and Windows apps 
   
   somewhere. Also every time I reinstall most anything from 
   
   the selective install menu I have to re-install my video 
   
   driver. The hardest part for me so far is file management, 
   
   everything seems so counter intuitive in Warp but maybe 
   
   that will go away after I reacquaint myself with Warp. With 
   
   NT I haven't found a program yet that crashes it although 
   
   some experimenting around with the Registry entries sure 
   
   did<G>. It seems to be able to withstand any non deliberate 
   
   program or user error and quickly allows you to close down 
   
   the offending program and move on. I was able to get over 
   
   35 copies of MS Word loaded on NT and stopped there since 
   
   there didn't seem to be any limit other than disk space for 
   
   the swap file. Right now, if someone asked me for a 
   
   recommendation on which OS to use I would say to stick with 
   
   Win3.1 or better yet WFWG if you have less than 8MB. If you 
   
   have 8 to 12 I would recommend Win95 or Warp, and Warp, 
   
   only if you already use OS/2 programs or have it in your 
   
   work environment. 16MB or more and I would maybe opt for NT 
   
   only if stability is your primary concern or your 
   
   networking demands are high. After the new shell becomes a 
   
   part of NT, that may be the way to go if you have 16MB or 
   
   more of RAM. You would then would have the best interface, 
   
   the most robust system and most all the new and old Windows 
   
   apps would run fine. BTW, I was able to get 3 button mouse 
   
   support in a limited way today with an edit in the NT 
   
   registry, do you know if OS/2 does or will ever support 
   
   this? 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/4/95 
   
   From: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Time: 11:36PM ET
   
   Did you get my Email re: Matrox drivers? Maybe it's old 
   
   stuff. 
   
   Don't be giving up on OS/2 just yet.<BG> By the time we're 
   
   done, you'll be shaving your head and running around the 
   
   airport evangelizing OS/2. 
   
   BTW, I wish I had the H/W and time to play around like 
   
   you? 
   
   Cheers, Ralph 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/5/95 
   
   From: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Time: 12:08AM ET
   
   I'm an independant.<G> 24X7, Actually an OC (obsessive 
   
   compulsive). 
   
   I think somewhere it is documented what APARS are fixed on 
   
   the FP. FP10 is claimed to give performance 
   
   improvements, which are usually an incentive to apply 
   
   them. 
   
   I wish everyone would adopt WARP, then I could get on with 
   
   my life and back to chasing/collecting clocks and watches. 
   
   Cheers, Ralph 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Date: 11/5/95 
   
   From: NMVV00A Tom Martin Jr Time: 12:29AM ET
   
   Stu, IBM releases both specific fixes and about every 3-4 
   
   months puts many of the fixes in a "fixpack" so a person can
   
   install all the fixes. Most fixpacks do not get officially 
   
   released to the public. I believe that only Fixpacks 3, 5 
   
   and 10 were officially released. Fixpack 5 includes all the
   
   fixes in 3 plus the addtional. FP_3 was about one disk, 
   
   FP_5 three disks if I remember, and FP_10 is 6 disks. 
   
   However, you must also download a two-disk Corrective 
   
   Service program which basically is the OS you boot from 
   
   floppy to install the fixes. The Fixpack simply copies new 
   
   files, programs, etc. in place of the old ones. I find it 
   
   interesting that with OS/2 Connect which was released in the
   
   Spring, it still contained the November 1994 basic code but 
   
   IBM also included Fixpack_5 so that the Fixpack could be run
   
   during installation. Yes, some people have had problems when
   
   it was released about one month ago, but I think that was a 
   
   minority. I downloaded a file from IBM which listed the 
   
   problems which FP_10 corrected--and there were over 1,000 
   
   corrections. Most were very specific to certain equipment 
   
   or software. I saw no mention of speed improvement, but 
   
   frankly didn't read every line. I saw no comments on the 
   
   board about speed imrovement. Maybe the improvements were 
   
   in Fixpack3. Maybe there were small improvement in each 
   
   Fixpack and since I only installed FP_10, I noticed a larger
   
   improvement. I can tell you that programs were snappier 
   
   after installing Fixpack_10. I also had trouble with CHKDSK
   
   prior to FP_10. It locked up at a certain memory address on
   
   my machine. Fixpack_10 fixed that problem. I recommend it.
   
   Tom in Centreville, VA 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   By the way, I hear that there is both a FP_11 and FP_12 
   
   being unofficalyy distributed and tested. I've heard that 
   
   FP-12 crashes many systems. With FP-10 being released about
   
   a month ago, I wonder if we'll ever have another official 
   
   release. Isn't WARP II scheduled for the first quarter of 
   
   1996? I know that that means June!? Maybe there will be 
   
   one more and at the same time we should see WARP II Beta. 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/5/95 
   
   From: MCNH16A Jon Judge Time: 3:37AM ET
   
   Stu, 
   
   I had a problem with full-screen sessions crashing until I 
   
   checked the Win-OS/2 settings and found that I was trying to
   
   run full-screens when I had "Separate Sessions" and 
   
   "windowsed sessions" checked. Is this the situation with 
   
   you? 
   
   Jonathan 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/5/95 
   
   From: MCNH16A Jon Judge Time: 3:37AM ET
   
   Stu, 
   
   There is a third-party mouse driver for warp that includes 3
   
   button support. I believe it is called RODENT. Look for it 
   
   on Hobbes and the OS/2 Shareware BBS. 
   
   Jonathan 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: NMVV00A Tom Martin Jr Date: 11/5/95 
   
   From: MCNH16A Jon Judge Time: 3:56AM ET
   
   Tom, 
   
   I believe Warp II is being cast for later in 1996. IBM is 
   
   still undecided how they are going to release their rewrite 
   
   of the midi subsystem to real-time. They may make it a 
   
   fixpack instead. GameSystem/2 is also something up in the 
   
   air. Granted, Gamesystem/2 will make Warp an amazing games 
   
   and multimedia platform-- I think that they are unconvinced 
   
   that people will pay $70 to play a native OS/2 Doom, though.
   
   :} 
   
   Jonathan 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/5/95 
   
   From: PCXT04B Paul Bary Time: 10:28AM ET
   
   Stu...Any hands on experience with Warp Connect?...I'd love 
   
   to share war stories with you on this product....after MANY 
   
   hours of tinkering trying to setup a stable peer to peer 
   
   and 3.12 setup (actually 4.1 Netware worked fine) I finally 
   
   blew it off my HD in favor of '95 which installed without a 
   
   hitch and set itself up to recognize all my connection needs
   
   and hasn't missed a beat. For a #2 product trying to reach 
   
   the top of the hill, IBM sure doesn't make Warp easy to 
   
   love..... 
   
   Paul 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Date: 11/5/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 4:04PM ET
   
   Ralph, 
   
   As per my E-mail response to you, yes I had it already but 
   
   thanks. Warp so far is unable to run winOS2 full screen 
   
   even with the standard VGA driver. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: NMVV00A Tom Martin Jr Date: 11/5/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 4:04PM ET
   
   Thanks Tom. Amy idea if FP_10 wouild help my no fullscreen 
   
   WinOS/2 problem? 
   
   >>I've heard that FP-12 crashes many systems.<< 
   
   Talk about an oxymoron-a fixpack that crashes your 
   
   system.<G> 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/5/95 
   
   From: DCMG08A Buster Flynn Time: 11:22PM ET
   
   >Thanks Tom. Amy idea if FP_10 wouild help my no fullscreen 
   
   >WinOS/2 problem? 
   
   > 
   
   >>I've heard that FP-12 crashes many systems.<< 
   
   > 
   
   >Talk about an oxymoron-a fixpack that crashes your 
   
   >system.<G> 
   
   That is kinda ironic isn't it? Actually, the fixpack 12 
   
   has not been officially released so it hasn't been tested 
   
   for problems w/ all systems. Here's a quick rundown on the 
   
   fixpacks. 
   
   1) Joe Blow has a problem with Warp and calls IBM tech. 
   
   2) IBM either tells him where the patch is or writes one 
   
   for him. 
   
   3) IBM collects these "fixes" into fixpacks. (BTW, 
   
   fixpacks are made up of "fixes" that have no other patch) 
   
   4) Next guy calls with the same problem as Joe Blow. 
   
   5) IBM sends him a copy of the fixpack instead of writing a 
   
   fix again. 
   
   6) After a fixpack has been tested enough, it is released 
   
   to the public. 
   
   sometimes, a person who is sent an unofficial release as a 
   
   fix for HIS computer will post in on the internet and it 
   
   gets around fast. Apparently, one of the first persons to 
   
   use fixpack #12 posted it in Usenet way before it had a 
   
   chance to be tested, and thus, causes major problems on 
   
   some systems. 
   
   As for #10, it does a few useful things to improve 
   
   performance. 1st, it makes the processor queue (sp?) more 
   
   efficient. 2nd, it provides a software patch for the 
   
   problems w/ the 2 PCI EIDE chipset. I'm not too technical 
   
   about it but CMD and another company make controller chips 
   
   for EIDE controllers (PCI), these chips have design flaws 
   
   that cause the controller to replace data in the cache 
   
   which in turn causes data corruption. 
   
   Buster 
   
   Team OS/2 
   
   Everyone needs to get WaRpEd sometime! 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: DCMG08A Buster Flynn Date: 11/5/95 
   
   From: NMVV00A Tom Martin Jr Time: 11:48PM ET
   
   Stu, I downloaded the fixpack (I know I could have done it 
   
   on (Service)) from the IBM BBS at 919-517-0001. The APAR 
   
   (bugs) fixes in Fixpack10 are listed in file XR_W010.RM1. 
   
   The instructions for installing Fixpack_10 are in file 
   
   XR_W010.RM1. You will need to download XR_W010.IDK, 
   
   XR_W010.2DK, ..... .6DK. plus Wkicker.zip. 
   
   I don't know if it will solve your problem. 
   
   Tom 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/6/95 
   
   From: XKBR05A Darrell Hancock Time: 7:31AM ET
   
   >>The hardest part for me so far is file 
   
   management,everything seems so counter intuitive in Warp<< 
   
   Hi Stu. Get yourself a copy of the shareware program called 
   
   FM/2, they call it the swiss army knife for Warp you'll see 
   
   why. 
   
   OS/2 The Originator not the Imitator 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/7/95 
   
   From: JWHJ99A Frank Sousa Time: 12:10AM ET
   
   Stu, You may want to download the NT 3.51 service pack 2. It
   
   DOES break the alpha 95 shell but it fixes 140 bugs in NT. 
   
   FranK in NJ 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: MCNH16A Jon Judge Date: 11/7/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 3:01PM ET
   
   Jon, 
   
   If I understand you correctly you are saying that when 
   
   running WinOS2 seamless in a separate session that 
   
   maximizing an app causes lockups. Sounds like you have one 
   
   problem I don't have. My problem is the opposite, I can run 
   
   seamless, separate or not and then maximize but I can't 
   
   start a full screen WinOS2 session. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/7/95 
   
   From: PCXT04B Paul Bary Time: 8:41PM ET
   
   <<The fact that you and I are communicating on-line means 
   
   that we are more computer literate than average and I'd hate
   
   to see someone try to install Warp without knowing how to 
   
   download drivers!>> 
   
   You got that right Stu...heck...I'm a CNE and do this stuff 
   
   for a living...BTW, after my OS/2 purge, my two newly 
   
   installed Win95 machines still haven't missed a beat. I am 
   
   worried about one thing though...the MS networking (both 
   
   peer and Netware) installed virtually automatically...this 
   
   could bode ill for my professional work load<G>... 
   
   Paul 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: JWHJ99A Frank Sousa Date: 11/7/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 11:18PM ET
   
   Frank, 
   
   I understand that I can remove the 95 shell before doing 
   
   the service pack and then put it back and I might do that, 
   
   but so far, other than the shell itself, I haven't run into 
   
   any bugs. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/7/95 
   
   From: FTXM26A Marianna Troisi Time: 11:45PM ET
   
   Stu- 
   
   Glad to see the learning lab! Have you checked your 
   
   Win-OS/2 settings as to whether you have the session set up 
   
   for standard or enhanced session? When I installed Warp I 
   
   found that few of my Windows apps ran full screen in 
   
   standard mode without locking up. When I changed to enhanced
   
   mode, no probs! If you still encounter probs, try 
   
   re-installing Win-Os2 support. Also, don't forget to change 
   
   your config.sys in OS/2 to change the line DOS=low,noumb to 
   
   DOS=high, umb if your dos apps need to utilize upper memory.
   
   It will save you from having to change this setting for each
   
   and every DOS app. Also- the fast load option for Win-OS/2 
   
   can cause probs for certain video drivers. Personally I 
   
   prefer separate sessions in Win-OS/2 for crash proofing. 
   
   Get your hands on Mike Kimes' File Manager 2 for OS/2 
   
   AWESOME file manager with full drag and drop. AND-if you see
   
   a utility called WatchCat 2.0, install it! It saves me from 
   
   rebooting when my shared Win-OS2 apps go nutty, like Access.
   
   A real lifesaver. Kind of an OS/2 version of DataSafe for 
   
   Windows....anyway--will be watching with great interest your
   
   experiences here. Appreciate your trouble and glad you 
   
   decided to do the cross platform trials! Good show ,....and 
   
   truce....-Mariann with the WARPed hands 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: FTXM26A Marianna Troisi Date: 11/8/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 4:48PM ET
   
   Hi Marianna, 
   
   The problem seems to be this: The Readme explains that the 
   
   default memory mapping of my video board doesn't work for 
   
   Warp running WinOS/2. It's not a memory excluding option, 
   
   via the settings panel, but jumpers that have to be changed 
   
   on the board. There are only 7 possible way to configure it 
   
   and none of the others work with Win95. So in order to run 
   
   Windows under Warp I wouldn't be able to run the other two 
   
   OS's Win95 and NT. I haven't given up yet but that's where 
   
   I'm at now. I am a little unhappy that Warp won't run with 
   
   the default settings like NT and Win95 do so easily. 
   
   >>>>> 
   
   >>It saves me from rebooting when my shared Win-OS2 apps go 
   
   nutty, like Access.<< 
   
   Access being a database might give you less problems if you 
   
   change the files= to 130 or more. I've found that Warp 
   
   doesn't allow enough files (for handles) for Windows based 
   
   databases as Goldmine wouldn't even run without changing 
   
   the default which I think was around 20. 
   
   Thanks for the other recommendations and I'll try to pick 
   
   up some of those utilities. 
   
   >>>> 
   
   >>Good show ,....and truce.<< 
   
   Yes certainly, but will you still love me if I still don't 
   
   like Warp?<G> 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/10/95 
   
   From: KSKD05A John Hoffler Time: 8:31PM ET
   
   >>each partition is formatted with the file system that is 
   
   supposed to perform the best with their respective operating
   
   system. Win95 uses VFAT (a type of FAT), OS/2 is installed 
   
   with HPFS and NT with NTFS.<< 
   
   NT will typically give you better performance on FAT, though
   
   you would then loose the security. I haven't seen any 
   
   benchmarks of NT on HPFS, but I would suppose it would be 
   
   faster than FAT, since OS/2 runs faster on HPFS than FAT. 
   
   If you have any 32-bit Windows benchmark programs you might 
   
   try it on each partition and tell us what you get. 
   
   Speaking of benchmarks, if you have Martin Heller's Wintune,
   
   you might be interested in Warptune. Wintune is Windows 
   
   Magazine's benchmark program and can be downloaded for free 
   
   from AOL (and probably other places). When Heller wrote the
   
   program, he published the majority of the source code in a 
   
   series of articles. I used that source code to make a 
   
   native OS/2 version of the Video tests and Disk performance 
   
   tests. 
   
   If you don't have Wintune, I can attach it and Warptune to 
   
   E-mail for you. This is the only way I know to run "the 
   
   same" benchmark on both Windows and OS/2. Running the 
   
   Wintune and Warptune under OS/2 will show quite convincingly
   
   how much of OS/2's performance is lost when you run only 
   
   Windows apps. 
   
   Also, now that you have Warp installed again, you can 
   
   download the (Service) BBS Reader from my Web site 
   
   (http://walden.mo.net/~hoffler). Jump to the BBS Reader 
   
   page to see some screen shots of the product and download 
   
   the latest beta. You can also download the command file 
   
   that automates unpacking the reader. 
   
   Let me know if you're interested in the benchmarks. Also, I
   
   recently switched computers and I think in the commotion I 
   
   forgot to upload some of my responses to this board. If you
   
   haven't seen any reponse to you question about SOM 
   
   performance let me know -- I upload it again. 
   
   John 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/10/95 
   
   From: KSKD05A John Hoffler Time: 8:31PM ET
   
   >>NT likewise, is version 3.51 plus the latest release of 
   
   the Win95 shell.<< 
   
   There is a fixpack for NT 3.51, but M$ says the fixpack 
   
   breaks the Win95 shell beta. They suggest you either ditch 
   
   the shell or live with the NT bugs. 
   
   John 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/10/95 
   
   From: KSKD05A John Hoffler Time: 8:31PM ET
   
   >>upgrading to NT will be virtually effortless when your 
   
   hardware can support the move.<< 
   
   You think there's going to be an upgrade to NT? Think about
   
   it -- first M$ announces that Win95 and NT will not, in 
   
   fact, be merged in the future. Then they start writing 
   
   Win95 apps (like the WebExplorer beta) that won't run on NT.
   
   Finally, the latest NT bug fix breaks the Win95 shell beta.
   
   Does this sound like the way M$ treats a strategic 
   
   platform? 
   
   There's no doubt in my mind that M$ has dumped NT on the 
   
   desktop. All this talk about making apps run on both Win95 
   
   and NT is just to add more work to M$'s ISV competitors. 
   
   Sounds alot like the way Bill G. handled OS/2. He announced
   
   that Windows was just a stop-gap to OS/2 and raised a bunch 
   
   of hype about how corporations were already stampeding to 
   
   OS/2 on the desktop. M$ even ported a few of their 
   
   productivity apps over to OS/2 1.x -- lame, slow versions of
   
   Excel and Word. Remind's me of Word and Excel for NT -- 
   
   excruciatingly slow. The leading ISV's, WordPerfect and 
   
   Lotus, fell for the trap, writing for the immature OS/2 
   
   instead of Windows (then throwing away that investment just 
   
   as OS/2 became viable). That left the Windows market wide 
   
   open for M$. 
   
   Here we are again. M$ has all their competition struggling 
   
   to support NT and Win95 while M$ writes for Win95 only. Any
   
   ISV CEO that can't see this trap coming is stupid! My only 
   
   question is whether M$ plans to keep NT as a server 
   
   operating system or dump the whole thing. I expect them to 
   
   keep it around as a server. OTOH, they'd be smart to buy 
   
   Novell and take over Netware. That's their only chance in 
   
   the server market. Although everyone surveyed by PC Week is
   
   planning to buy NT, these surveys don't seem to have 
   
   effected actual spending. NT market share has stagnated in 
   
   the low teens while IBM LAN Server (which had the same 
   
   market share as NT last year) has passed 20%. 
   
   Either way, don't hold your breath waiting for NT on the 
   
   desktop. And when it arrives you'll have to buy new 
   
   software. M$'s current actions indicate that its future 
   
   Win95 apps won't run on NT. How long do you think before 
   
   the other ISVs follow suite? From a programmers view Win95 
   
   and NT are VERY different -- who can afford to support both 
   
   platforms when M$ isn't even doing that? I guarantee NT 
   
   will be repositioned (again) to strictly a server OS by 
   
   Easter. 
   
   John 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/10/95 
   
   From: KSKD05A John Hoffler Time: 8:31PM ET
   
   >>The second scenario is that Win95 matures into a NT light 
   
   product while NT remains the choice for networked 
   
   environments needed the extra security of file permissions, 
   
   etc.<< 
   
   This is the more likely scenario, and the one M$ finally 
   
   admits they're going to follow. Now the problem remains 
   
   that M$'s solution requires different operating systems with
   
   different APIs on the client and the server. OS/2 runs the 
   
   same API on both client and server, putting it a major step 
   
   closer to the next computing paradigm -- true distributed 
   
   computing. In the well-connected future (which is sooner 
   
   than you may think), when everyone has ISDN connectivity to 
   
   the Internet, people will expect their PCs to run several 
   
   background tasks continuously without interfering with their
   
   word processors and spreadsheets. 
   
   E-mail and Phone-mail processes will have to run 
   
   continuously. Search engines will continuously scan select 
   
   Internet sites for late-breaking news stories. A pager 
   
   system will filter incoming e-mail and phone-mail for 
   
   keywords and page you if your criteria are met. A FTP 
   
   process will automatically download bug fixes for all your 
   
   software whenever it finds new files at designated FTP 
   
   sites. And of course none of this can interfere with 
   
   Quicken or your Tuesday-night 4-way DOOM session. 
   
   Unfortunately, Win95 doesn't make a very good server 
   
   platform. It's dependence on the 16-bit DOS and Windows 3.x
   
   kernels limit it's scalability, portability, and 
   
   performance. For example, Win95's peer networking is 40% 
   
   slower than both Warp Connect and NT (Warp Connect is 2% 
   
   faster than NT). M$'s refusal to implement any standard 
   
   they didn't create, like DCE, CORBA, and DMI, will soon come
   
   back to haunt them. All of these standards are already 
   
   implemented by the rest of the industry, especially Unix 
   
   vendors, and are thus Ready-for-Internet use. 
   
   DCE, which provides distributed file services, remote 
   
   procedure calls, distributed security, and other network 
   
   services, is implemented on all platforms from OS/2, through
   
   Unix, up through the mainframe. The proprietary security 
   
   scheme in Win95 and NT will lock them out from transparent 
   
   access to information on other platforms. 
   
   IBM and Tandem both implement DSOM on their mainframe 
   
   systems. Every major Unix vendor has a CORBA-compliant 
   
   object model that can interoperate with DSOM. Once again, 
   
   M$'s refusal to support this standard locks them out from 
   
   information access. 
   
   All the nerdly shortcomings that make M$ operating systems 
   
   poor network citizens will soon be generally recognized as 
   
   liabilities in the Internet-centric tomorrow. 
   
   John 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: KSKD05A John Hoffler Date: 11/11/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 1:44AM ET
   
   >>If you don't have Wintune, I can attach it and Warptune to
   
   E-mail for you.<< 
   
   Yes, thank you, I have an older version but would 
   
   appreciate the update and the Warp version. 
   
   >>Running the Wintune and Warptune under OS/2 will show 
   
   quite convincingly how much of OS/2's performance is lost 
   
   when you run only Windows apps.<< 
   
   No actually running the Windows apps is what convinced 
   
   me!<G> >>>>> 
   
   I will check ou your Web page and reader, there aren't 
   
   anybugs are there?<G> 
   
   >>Also, I recently switched computers and I think in the 
   
   commotion I forgot to upload some of my responses to this 
   
   board. If you haven't seen any reponse to you question 
   
   about SOM performance let me know -- I upload it again.<< 
   
   Actually I though you were on vacation, I haven't seen any 
   
   of your posts for a while. 
   
   >>There is a fixpack for NT 3.51, but M$ says the fixpack 
   
   breaks the Win95 shell beta. They suggest you either ditch 
   
   the shell or live with the NT bugs.<< 
   
   The latest I've heard is that you simply remove the shell 
   
   before using the fixpack and then put it back on. It 
   
   actually has a feature built in for doing this and I've 
   
   taken it off a couple of times. 
   
   >>I guarantee NT will be repositioned (again) to strictly a 
   
   server OS by Easter.<< 
   
   I'll bet against you on this one. Sounds like you're 
   
   putting to much credence in the anti MS BS. I'm very 
   
   impressed with how well NT runs most apps now and in the 
   
   future it should be better but I can see we're not going to 
   
   agree on this. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/11/95 
   
   From: FTXM26A Marianna Troisi Time: 9:39AM ET
   
   Well Stu-- 
   
   Don't know if its a matter of love, but at least you're 
   
   trying Warp! <VBG> You didn't mention the brand of video 
   
   card you're running or I missed it. What resolution are you 
   
   trying to run in again? Your increasing the files handles 
   
   for fatware such as Access is the correct Approach (pun 
   
   inteded!). 
   
   Will read the rest of the notes to ya and see what else 
   
   you're running into. BTW get a copy of Object Desktop for 
   
   OS/2 if you can- GREAT utility set for file launching, 
   
   archiving/extracting files, etc. -Marianna 
   
   To: FTXM26A Marianna Troisi Date: 11/11/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 3:00PM ET
   
   >>Don't know if its a matter of love, but at least you're 
   
   trying Warp! <VBG> << 
   
   I've always been attracted to women with Warped hands.<G> 
   
   The video card is a Matrox Impression Plus, but the problem 
   
   is that I need to change the jumpers to use different 
   
   memory mappings to enable WinOS2 fullscreen and I haven't 
   
   figured out yet how to get the other OS's to work with the 
   
   same (non-default) setting that Warp requires. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: FTXM26A Marianna Troisi Date: 11/11/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 3:00PM ET
   
   >>Don't know if its a matter of love, but at least you're 
   
   trying Warp! <VBG> << 
   
   I've always been attracted to women with Warped hands.<G> 
   
   The video card is a Matrox Impression Plus, but the problem 
   
   is that I need to change the jumpers to use different 
   
   memory mappings to enable WinOS2 fullscreen and I haven't 
   
   figured out yet how to get the other OS's to work with the 
   
   same (non-default) setting that Warp requires. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/11/95 
   
   From: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Time: 7:54PM ET
   
   In my more ambitious days, in your situation, I would 
   
   have either wired the jumpers to switches accessible to 
   
   allow remote access at the rear or done it more elegantly 
   
   electronically.<G> 
   
   Cheers, Ralph 
   
   To: KSKD05A John Hoffler Date: 11/13/95 
   
   From: TPBP56D Bill Carter Time: 6:00PM ET
   
   You have a tough time with the truth, don't you John. What 
   
   Microsoft says is to install the Service Pack before 
   
   installing the shell. If you already have the shell, it 
   
   takes less than 45 sec to uninstall it and about the same 
   
   time to reinstall it after installing the Service Pack. You
   
   seem to omit the fact that OS/2 requires you to reinstall 
   
   the Fixpacks any time you install a piece of hardware. 
   
   There are at least NINE Fixpacks for Warp now. Of course 
   
   you could just live with the many OS/2 bugs. - Bill 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: TPBP56D Bill Carter Date: 11/14/95 
   
   From: MCNH16A Jon Judge Time: 1:24AM ET
   
   Bill, 
   
   Please. The number of Fixpacks does not reflect on the 
   
   quality of the operating system, rather to the 
   
   responsibility of the company that released it. IBM closely 
   
   tracks bugs and releases both private fixpacks to solve the 
   
   problem and every fifth fixpack or so, a public fixpack to 
   
   upgrade everyone's system to prevent future problems. 
   
   Microsoft's policy on NT is encouraging, but it is certainly
   
   a change from the previous policy, which was to let the 
   
   problem perpetuate itself until it was unbearable, than 
   
   release a new version, or in the case of Windows 95, a 
   
   quarterly fixpack that requires the consumer to shell out 
   
   money to a computer store-- as if the customer should have 
   
   to pay *extra* for a bug-free operating system. 
   
   All operating systems have bugs, but responsible companies 
   
   respond to those promptly. 
   
   Jonathan 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: MCNH16A Jon Judge Date: 11/14/95 
   
   From: TPBP56D Bill Carter Time: 3:23PM ET
   
   "Quickly"? IBM still hasn't fixed the bugs reported in OS/2
    1. - Bill 
       
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/21/95 
   
   From: KSKD05A John Hoffler Time: 11:37PM ET
   
   >>>>Running the Wintune and Warptune under OS/2 will show 
   
   quite convincingly how much of OS/2's performance is lost 
   
   when you run only Windows apps.<< 
   
   No actually running the Windows apps is what convinced 
   
   me!<G> << 
   
   Check out Infoworld's OS comparison test. Possibly the most
   
   extensive cross-platform application suite benchmark 
   
   to-date. If you own a Pentium the choice is obvious. 
   
   Describe for OS/2 is 50% faster than Word for Win95, and 
   
   OnCmd is nearly 100% faster than Access. If you're on a 
   
   network, Warp's file transfers were 30% faster than Win95's.
   
   Thinking about running NT? Forget it! It's even slower 
   
   than Windows 95. Meanwhile, Pentium Pro benchmarks were 
   
   released last week showing that Warp really takes advantage 
   
   of Pentium Pro's 32-bit optimization. Performance 
   
   improvements of over 100% compared to 133MHz Pentiums leave 
   
   Win95 far far behind. Win95, as you can read anywhere, 
   
   shows almost no performance improvement running on Pentium 
   
   Pro. 
   
   >>The latest I've heard is that you simply remove the shell 
   
   before using the fixpack and then put it back on.<< 
   
   Thanks for the info. I'll try that. 
   
   >>I'm very impressed with how well NT runs most apps now and
   
   in the 
   
   future it should be better<< 
   
   I just wrote what I think of NT's performance. However, I 
   
   agree that its performance is about to get better. M$ just 
   
   released how it plans to move many NT services into the 
   
   kernel - in other words, compromising the microkernel 
   
   architecture they've been yelling about for so long. I for 
   
   one believe it's a good compromise, context switches were 
   
   just killing NT performance. Moving some of the most-used 
   
   services into the kernel is the only reasonable solution. 
   
   The bad news is that NT's current stability is due to its 
   
   uncompromising architecture. I'd be willing to give up some
   
   of that stability for more performance, but I'm not sure 
   
   current NT users will. After all, it will probably end up 
   
   with the same stability as OS/2, but still won't have the 
   
   performance since M$ won't have time to optimize it. 
   
   John 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/21/95 
   
   From: KSKD05A John Hoffler Time: 11:37PM ET
   
   >>Maybe 
   
   I'll actually go out and buy an OS/2 app or more likely it 
   
   will have to be mail order.<G><< 
   
   Turn you're web browser to www.athena.com to download a demo
   
   copy of Mesa2. It supports all of Lotus 123's @functions, 
   
   imports and exports Excel xls files, Quattro Pro for 
   
   Windows, and Lotus 123 wk4 files. Plus it supports 
   
   real-time data feeds from executables and runs a separate 
   
   thread for each open spreadsheet. All of this fits in about
   
   3MB of disk space! 
   
   Almost all of the custom spreadsheet applications I've 
   
   written (in Excel 3.0 & 4.0 and Lotus 4.0) involved 
   
   importing and parsing text files. I really appreciate the 
   
   fact that Mesa2 uses REXX as its macro language, because 
   
   REXX has all the file and string handling capability Windows
   
   users get from VB. Also, REXX allows my Mesa2 spreadsheets 
   
   to launch FTP transfers, and control HyperAccess sessions. 
   
   There is one big problem with Mesa2 -- the spreadsheet 
   
   refresh routines are not very well optimized. The whole 
   
   spreadsheet page refreshes every time a new cell is 
   
   selected. Large macro projects in Excel and Lotus usually 
   
   involve alot of cell selections. Changing your macro 
   
   programming style toward a more VBA style rather than the 
   
   old Excel macro style yields huge performance improvements. 
   
   You might also get a copy of Describe, the fastest word 
   
   processor you can buy. Plus, it detects as takes advantage 
   
   of voice-type speech recognition. As with other OS/2 apps, 
   
   Describe includes REXX extensions so you can build 
   
   cross-vendor custom apps. 
   
   John 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/21/95 
   
   From: KSKD05A John Hoffler Time: 11:37PM ET
   
   >>I have an older version but would appreciate the update 
   
   and the Warp version.<< 
   
   I'll put the Warp version on my web site this week. I have 
   
   a copy of the new Wintune, but my Warptune port used the 
   
   Wintune 1.0 source code that was published in Windows 
   
   Magazine. If you have Wintune 1.0 you should be able to 
   
   compare Warptune results to the Wintune disk and video 
   
   performance results. The video results will tell you if 
   
   your OS/2 video driver is any good. If you get better 
   
   results with the generic VGA driver than the accelerated 
   
   driver, you know something's wrong. 
   
   >>It seems to insist on finding files on the C drive whereas
   
   Warp is installed on my F drive. I tried editing the install
   
   file but the 
   
   commands must be hidden in the executable.<< 
   
   The Install command file is very quick and dirty. If you 
   
   don't want the executable to be in the current directory and
   
   the dll's to be in c:\os2\apps\dll then you should type the 
   
   directories you want when install.cmd prompts you. The 
   
   first prompt is for the executable directory. Put in any 
   
   directory you want. The second prompt is the diectory for 
   
   the dll's. You can type in f:\os2\apps\dll. 
   
   To change the location it looks for download files and where
   
   it places upload files and macros look at the Preferences 
   
   menu under Options. 
   
   Does this help? 
   
   John 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: KSKD05A John Hoffler Date: 11/22/95 
   
   From: SAKW02A James Ritter Time: 7:42AM ET
   
   <<Check out the Infowold OS tests<< 
   
   Your distorted message excerts (out of context) those parts 
   
   of the tests that support your position. You fail to mention
   
   that OS2 came in last after NT & Win95. OS2 was found 
   
   woefully laking in security, among other things. The tests 
   
   didn't mention the biggest drawback to OS2 (It won't run 99%
   
   opf new 32 bit applications). OS2 sales have dropped off the
   
   table. They lag far behind NT & Win 95. About all there are 
   
   are IBM pre-loads most of which are removed. OS2 is no 
   
   longer worth discussing, it is a nothing on the OS scene. 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: KSKD05A John Hoffler Date: 11/22/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 5:53PM ET
   
   John, 
   
   Sounds like some biased reporting here. InfoWorld is suspect
   
   in the first place when it comes to reporting on MS related 
   
   items. The fact that Describe or other specific OS/2 
   
   software is faster is meaningless if it's even accurate. 
   
   Faster at what for one and then we aren't comparing apples 
   
   to apples. The Windows Notepad is very fast compared to 
   
   either but that doesn't make it a great word processor just 
   
   something that has less features. MS Word is most probably a
   
   much bigger program and contains more functions. So far 
   
   I've been very pleased with the speed of NT and if we are 
   
   talking about a Pent Pro machine it will probably have 
   
   enough RAM to run NT. Win95 does show an improvement when 
   
   running 32bit apps but not to the extent that NT does. OS/2 
   
   probably would show very good improvement in speed as long 
   
   as you happy not to run any Windows apps esp. as Warp 
   
   doesn't do new Win95 apps and instead would be running 
   
   mostly older Windows 16 bit apps. Also with regards to NT, 
   
   I doubt if MS will do anything that will jeopardize the 
   
   robust reputation of NT. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: KSKD05A John Hoffler Date: 11/22/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 5:53PM ET
   
   I haven't heard to many good things about Mesa and you've 
   
   pretty much confirmed it. How long does it take you to get 
   
   REXX to roll over?<G> 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/22/95 
   
   From: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Time: 10:25PM ET
   
   '..instead would be running mostly older Windows 16 bit 
   
   apps....' 
   
   And past, present and future 32bit OS/2 apps.<G> 
   
   Ralph 
   
   To: SAKW02A James Ritter Date: 11/27/95 
   
   From: KSKD05A John Hoffler Time: 11:42PM ET
   
   >>Your distorted message excerts (out of context) those 
   
   parts 
   
   of the tests that support your position. 
   
   ...OS2 was found woefully laking in security, among other 
   
   things.<< 
   
   My message covered the performance tests. Since Stu and I 
   
   were talking about performance, that was the only part of 
   
   the article that applied. The security criteria they were 
   
   looking at was the ability to set up seperate desktops for 
   
   local users. If that's a priority for you, there are any 
   
   number of inexpensive OS/2 add-ons to accomplish that, 
   
   including KidProof/2. 
   
   Infoworld gave no credit to OS/2 for its excellent network 
   
   security, though "How we tested" clearly states that they 
   
   were supposedly simulating users logging into the 
   
   workstation in a peer-to-peer environment. Win95 and NT 
   
   were both judged on their network security, but Warp was 
   
   judged purely on its local security. 
   
   Unlike Win95, Warp Connect offers both Share Level and User 
   
   Level security. When using User Level security, Warp 
   
   Connect offers exactly the same level of security provided 
   
   by NT Server and IBM LAN Server -- right down to the file 
   
   level. Infoworld testers apparently thought REXX was the 
   
   only way to administer Warp. Not true. New users can be 
   
   created using REXX, the command line, or the graphical UPM 
   
   utility. Resource sharing and access control can be 
   
   administered through REXX, the command line, the Sharing and
   
   Connecting utility, or directly from the desktop by 
   
   right-clicking on a resource (folder or printer) and 
   
   choosing "Share" or "Manage Access" from the pop-up menu. 
   
   Who's the idiot who said networking wasn't integrated into 
   
   Warp's desktop? 
   
   Warp Connect's audit log stores information about how and 
   
   when resources are used, as well as information about the 
   
   userIDs and passwords used with them. Of course you get to 
   
   choose what to audit. For example, you may only want to log
   
   failed attempts to access a particular resource. 
   
   Speaking of diagnostics tools (System Administration) Warp 
   
   Connect logs nearly everything, while Win95 logs nothing. 
   
   Infoworld mentioned Pulse as if that were the extent of 
   
   Warp's diagnostics. How about the network error log, which 
   
   Win95 doesn't supply (and I can tell you from experience 
   
   that's a problem)? How about rmview, which shows you every 
   
   IO port, memory address, DMA channel, and interrupt in use 
   
   on your system? How about pstat.exe, which shows every 
   
   program running on the system which its process ID, the 
   
   thread ID of all its threads, all the DLLs, semaphores, and 
   
   shared memory it's using, and its priority? How about 
   
   netstat.exe, which provides a complete history of your 
   
   network card's activity? 
   
   >>The tests didn't mention the biggest drawback to OS2 (It 
   
   won't run 99% of new 32 bit applications).<< 
   
   An interesting statement, given that OS/2 was the only OS 
   
   for which they could collect an entirely 32-bit test suite! 
   
   Every month since August new OS/2 apps have outnumbered 
   
   Win95 and NT apps. 88 32-bit OS/2 apps shipped this month 
   
   alone! I started a subject for you to post new Win95 apps, 
   
   but it seems you were just bluffing all along. 
   
   >>OS2 sales have dropped off the table. They lag far behind 
   
   NT & Win 95.<< 
   
   Not only is OS/2 selling fine, but the first month of 
   
   Win95's release Warp set a sales record. According to IDC, 
   
   M$ expects 1995 sales of NT to be about 500,000. Warp sells
   
   that many copies EACH MONTH. Win95 outsells Warp 3-to-1, 
   
   but most of those "sales" are OEM preloads. Win95's retails
   
   are currently EQUAL to Warp's -- a little over 100,000 per 
   
   week. 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/27/95 
   
   From: KSKD05A John Hoffler Time: 11:42PM ET
   
   >>The fact that Describe or other specific OS/2 software is 
   
   faster is meaningless if it's even accurate.<< 
   
   You criteria for judging how meaningful a particular test is
   
   seems to depend on which operating system did better on the 
   
   test. You've spent the past 15 months complaining about 
   
   Warp's performance running Windows apps, and now that we've 
   
   proven native OS/2 apps can give you twice the performance 
   
   of Win95 apps, performance is no longer relevant???? 
   
   >>MS Word is most probably a much bigger program and 
   
   contains more functions.<< 
   
   Like Word, Describe is a full-featured word processor. In 
   
   fact, I still haven't figured out how to make frames in Word
   
   that automatically resize when they fill up. Also, Describe
   
   is the only word processor that lets you flow text from one 
   
   frame to another of your choice. 
   
   >>So far I've been very pleased with the speed of NT and if 
   
   we are 
   
   talking about a Pent Pro machine it will probably have 
   
   enough RAM to run NT. OS/2 probably would show very good 
   
   improvement in speed as long as you happy not to run any 
   
   Windows apps<< 
   
   I run NT on 24MB. If that's not enough, NT will just have 
   
   to wait. Warp's performance improvement on the P6 is 
   
   already documented -- up to 121% when running native apps 
   
   such as ColorWorks or OnCmd. Since Warp is the only OS that
   
   has a 32-bit app for every category tested by InfoWorld, 
   
   it's Win95 and NT, not Warp, that holds you back to 16-bit 
   
   apps. 
   
   John 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/28/95 
   
   From: KSKD05A John Hoffler Time: 12:00AM ET
   
   >>With Win95 you just create a shortcut to the WEB site and 
   
   click on it.<< 
   
   Warp provides a URL template with all the same capabilities 
   
   you mention for Win95, including the ability to e-mail sites
   
   to someone. I was just using WebExplorer as an example of a
   
   program that accepts command-line arguments. If you don't 
   
   like the site arguments, you can also specify various ini 
   
   files -- for example you can have one copy of Webexplorer 
   
   that doesn't load graphics and another that does. 
   
   >>TCP/IP is available when you setup your networking 
   
   environment options and FTP works through the WEB browser.<<
   
   FTP in the Web browser in for download only and doesn't let 
   
   you select multiple files or directories for download. 
   
   Win95 also supplies a text-based FTP program. Warp supplies
   
   FTP downloads through the WebExplorer, a text-based FTP 
   
   program, and a graphical, drag-n-drop FTP program. 
   
   John 
   
   To: KSKD05A John Hoffler Date: 11/28/95 
   
   From: SAKW02A James Ritter Time: 9:11AM ET
   
   You can make any of the long winded excuses for Warp that 
   
   you want, but that fact remains, in this test and every 
   
   other one (including Stuarts') Warp brings up the rear. I 
   
   don't think it is a bad operating system (if all your 
   
   applications are obsolete and you don't care to upgrade 
   
   them) but it is not in the same league with NT or WIN95. 
   
   Your sales figures can not be substantaied. (Service) business
   
   news stated that NT outsold Warp in every month since April.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: KSKD05A John Hoffler Date: 11/28/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 1:00PM ET
   
   John, 
   
   With regards to your side conversation with James R; I 
   
   would like to mention that you have used the article to 
   
   support some of your claims but at the same time, for other 
   
   reasons have shown that the authors are inept in their 
   
   understanding of Warp and perhaps their evaluating 
   
   abilities. I'd say this fits into the cliche area of "you 
   
   can't have your cake and eat it too." 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: KSKD05A John Hoffler Date: 11/28/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 1:00PM ET
   
   >>You criteria for judging how meaningful a particular test 
   
   is seems to depend on which operating system did better on 
   
   the test.<< 
   
   Not at all. Let me remind you that I was the one who said 
   
   that even if a test made Win95 look better than Warp it 
   
   doesn't mean anything if the test is flawed. I have always 
   
   advocated overall usability tests since there are too many 
   
   uncontrollable factors when comparing applications even if 
   
   they are the same app written for different OS's. You 
   
   are probably aware that Win95 trounced Warp recently on 
   
   just this type of testing. BTW, how many MB's does Describe 
   
   occupy compared to the 30 or so Word does? 
   
   >>In fact, I still haven't figured out how to make frames 
   
   in Word that automatically resize when they fill up.<< 
   
   I don't remember how Word 6.0 worked but this is the 
   
   default behavior for Word 7.0. 
   
   >>Warp's performance improvement on the P6 is 
   
   already documented -- up to 121% when running native apps 
   
   such as ColorWorks or OnCmd.<< 
   
   >>> 
   
   Yes but what is the average for most apps? Also what is 
   
   the performance hit when running 16 bit Windows apps 
   
   compared with Win95 when running newer 32bit apps both on 
   
   the P6. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/28/95 
   
   From: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Time: 11:21PM ET
   
   'Also what is the performance hit when running 16 bit 
   
   Windows apps compared with Win95 when running newer 32bit 
   
   apps both on the P6.' 
   
   I'm trying to understand the question. 
   
   Are you asking to compare WARP running 16bit Windows apps 
   
   to WIN95 running native 32bit WIN95 apps. Huh? 
   
   How about WARP and WIN95 running the same 16 bit 
   
   WIN apps. How about WARP and WIN95 running native 32 bit 
   
   apps. Ralph 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Date: 11/29/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 4:43PM ET
   
   >>I'm trying to understand the question.<< 
   
   What I'm saying is this: For many people, when comparing 
   
   Warp with Win95, an important feature is how well they run 
   
   Windows software. This was being discussed in the context 
   
   of running Warp or Win95 on a Pentium Pro. Since Warp is 
   
   more closely a fully 32bit OS while Win95 is not but Win95 
   
   runs 32bit Windows apps while Warp runs only older 16 bit 
   
   Windows apps (in general), I'm questioning which scenario 
   
   would have the most detrimental effect on performance. I'm 
   
   guessing that Win95 would come out ahead since it starts 
   
   off by running Windows apps faster in the first place and 
   
   there is less 16 bit code being run by the OS then by the 
   
   app itself. While Warp would clearly benefit the most when 
   
   using native apps on both OS's at that point you would also 
   
   have to consider NT which would have no disadvantages at 
   
   all, unless you consider not being able to run OS/2 
   
   software a disadvantage, which I don't. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/29/95 
   
   From: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Time: 9:16PM ET
   
   ' since it starts off by running Windows apps faster in 
   
   the first place and..' 
   
   Wait a second. Where was that conceded? That might be 
   
   true running the Window apps full screen in WINOS2. I'm 
   
   still waiting for the comparisons running WINOS2 seamless. 
   
   'For many people...,important feature is how well they run 
   
   Windows software...' 
   
   Until I wanted to see the WWW, I didn't run any window 
   
   apps. That's when my problems started. First P*, then BBNM 
   
   and then PEMC. They are the only ones I run. BBNM has been 
   
   fairly stabilized lately. <G> 
   
   I know you're just kidding on your proposed scenario of 
   
   testing the P6. Actually I run older 8 bit programs and 
   
   newer 32 bit programs.<G> 
   
   Ralph 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/30/95 
   
   From: MCNH16A Jon Judge Time: 1:08AM ET
   
   Stu, 
   
   I personally think Win95's supposed ability to run Win16 
   
   apps faster will be of no relevance with the Pentium Pro, as
   
   the gain in performance it will give to OS/2 itself should 
   
   provide a solid boost in how it runs the Win16 applications.
   
   Besides, by then I doubt Win16 apps will be that much of a 
   
   priority. 
   
   Things are a bit fuzzy on how Win95 will benefit running 
   
   Win95 applications. The implication I received was that 
   
   Win95 wouldn't benefit at all, even running Win95 32-bit 
   
   applications. Arguably, then NT would be a much better 
   
   choice, something computer companies seem to agree with as 
   
   the big boys are all poised to offer NT exclusively with 
   
   their Pentium Pro desktops. Then again, if you use OS/2 
   
   you'll get the same benefit with different applications, 
   
   although I think a lot of companies will eventually take 
   
   advantage of IBM's tools to port their applications. As far 
   
   as native applications go, both camps will benefit greatly. 
   
   Jonathan 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   p.s. incidentally, IBM was flashing pictures of the Merlin 
   
   interface last week. Must be pretty impressive as the 
   
   insiders on Compuserve are very excited. On an etymological 
   
   note, someone pointed out the appropriateness of the code 
   
   name by recalling White's The Once and Future King, in which
   
   the figure Merlin was a sorceror of incredible power who 
   
   traveled backwards in time to help others. <g> 
   
   Jonathan 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Date: 11/30/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 8:37AM ET
   
   >>since it starts off by running Windows apps faster in 
   
   the first place and.....Where was that conceded? << 
   
   I read directly from MS's propaganda brochure.<G> 
   
   >>I'm still waiting for the comparisons running WINOS2 
   
   seamless.<< 
   
   Since I'm unable to run full screen WINOS2 sessions, ALL my 
   
   previously reported results WERE running WINOS2 seamless 
   
   and Win95 came out faster than Warp and in most cases so 
   
   did NT. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: MCNH16A Jon Judge Date: 11/30/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 4:40PM ET
   
   Jon, 
   
   I think that it is more likely to have a larger affect on 
   
   Warp when running Win 16 apps. The reason is that the 
   
   entire app is 16 bit and so is the emulation code it runs 
   
   on. 
   
   >>Besides, by then I doubt Win16 apps will be that much of a
   
   priority.<< 
   
   OS/2 users will have to choose between OS/2 apps, older 
   
   Windows apps or re-ported newer Windows apps if they ever 
   
   become a reality. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/30/95 
   
   From: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Time: 9:33PM ET
   
   'OS/2 users will have to choose between OS/2 apps, older 
   
   Windows apps or re-ported newer Windows apps if they ever 
   
   become a reality.' 
   
   Where will they begin, with over 3000 OS2 apps out there.<G>
   
   Good thing they are not limited by WIN95 application 
   
   availability. 
   
   Ralph 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Date: 12/1/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 11:40AM ET
   
   >>Where will they begin, with over 3000 OS2 apps out 
   
   there.<G> << 
   
   If the quality matched the quantity IBM wouldn't have 
   
   bothered to try and run Windows apps or for that matter try 
   
   to offer porting tools now for the Win95 apps. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 12/2/95 
   
   From: GCXW99A John Martin Time: 10:34AM ET
   
   Hi Stuart, I have summarized the application variety for 
   
   many of my friends and the bottom line is simple. If you 
   
   want the most available support of applications the format 
   
   is Windows/DOS. If you want the most stable OS systems to 
   
   run these applications OS/2 Warp and NT are the best Intel 
   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
   
   processor base to use. Now, for all those OS/2 Warp or Win95
   
   users who want to talk about their application variety and 
   
   quality both can boast of applications that offer something 
   
   better that the current DOS or Windows format. I have my 
   
   main applications now all on OS/2 Format except for (Service).
   
   I use Lotus SmartSuite for OS/2, AmiPro, Freelance and 123. 
   
   I have IBM Internet Connection for all my internet tools. My
   
   utilities are from Soft Touch Systems, FileStar, UniMaint 
   
   and Gamma Tech. My Fax program is FaxWork for OS/2 and my 
   
   backup and recovery is Sytos Premium for OS/2 and PowerChute
   
   for OS/2 is the UPS/Power management system software I use. 
   
   My IBM mainframe communications package is Passport for OS/2
   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
   
   and there are many more that I am now using. The only 
   
   reason I have migrated to these programs is better stability
   
   and performance overall when these programs are working 
   
   together. The only reason for me to comment here is that 
   
   only platform today that offers the single enduser the best 
   
   variety to applications is DOS/Windows. The best in 
   
   stability is OS/2 Warp and Win95, in the case of the single 
   
   user NT does not offer a very effective OS from this point 
   
   of view, unless you are a power user then OS/2 Warp and NT 
   
   are the only systems of choice. I see no reason for Win95 
   
   users to suffer at all because the still have the 
   
   DOS/Windows applications and the new Win95 apps to use. I do
   
   not see any concerns with OS/2 Warp users having access to 
   
   DOS/Windows applications and new OS/2 apps. For me today 
   
   OS/2 Warp is a more mature and stable OS when compared to 
   
   Win95 and when compared to NT which I found to be more 
   
   robust than OS/2 Warp and stable from a OS point of view, 
   
   failed in the usability of its user interface, poor system 
   
   resource management and the worst of the three when it came 
   
   to DOS/Windows application compatibility. So, for today, 
   
   OS/2 Warp offers the best OS solution for my needs and 
   
   requirements. Again, in summary application variety is not 
   
   an issue today for any of these platforms, however as of yet
   
   there is not a single application that I need today that 
   
   cannot be supported with OS/2 Warp. The applications is 
   
   supported from Windows or DOS or OS/2 itself. I have many 
   
   Windows apps like Street Atlas and MapNGo that I use all the
   
   time and (Service) is another. Simple said depending on ones
   
   needs any of these OS can provide good results. I remain 
   
   happy with my experience and results with OS/2 Warp when 
   
   compared to NT and Win95 and OS/2 Warp provides the best OS 
   
   balance of features, functions, system performance and 
   
   stability. I know this in not new story for me, but again 
   
   there is not enough change that I have seen in applications 
   
   or upgrades to NT or Win95 to change any of my basic 
   
   consideration of OS/2 Warp offering the best solution to all
   
   my computer needs when compared to the other options. Well,
   
   that is my story and the best in computing in fun and work. 
   
   John 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: All Date: 11/11/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 12:57AM ET
   
   Here's my latest experiment. I'm going to save some time by 
   
   just giving the overall results instead of exact figures. I 
   
   wanted to test the ability of the different OS's with 
   
   regards to multi-tasking. This is the basic scenario. I 
   
   opened Word, and some other apps and had Word run a Wizard, 
   
   like create a calendar, had a database app re-indexing 
   
   itself, another database app running a performance test, 
   
   click to sign on to (Service) and start a large directory 
   
   (35MB) being copied. Unlike what I've heard about Warp, 
   
   Win95 was the fastest followed by NT and Warp wasn't much 
   
   slower. Now lets look at running apps in separate memory 
   
   space so that they are protected from each other, i.e. when 
   
   one crashes, theoretically the others are unaffected. In 
   
   the real world this protection is a definite plus but not 
   
   bullet proof. OK, now I try the same experiment but with 
   
   the separate memory spaces that affords the most protection 
   
   which is something that Warp always had over the old 
   
   Windows and still does when running 16bit apps. Win95 
   
   currently runs all the new 32bit apps in protected mode but 
   
   the older 16 bit apps it is not able to do so. Furthermore 
   
   a bad 16 bit app can bring down the whole system as some 
   
   shared parts of Win95 are 16 bit. So for the rest of this 
   
   experiment I'm going to concentrate on Warp and NT as Win95 
   
   would probably be the winner, in speed, if running just 
   
   32bit Windows apps but this is a mix. Also let me point out 
   
   that most of the applications used for these experiments 
   
   were Windows apps so these results are valid ONLY when 
   
   comparing the ability of the different OS's to run Windows 
   
   apps. I'm sure that Warp would fair much better using all 
   
   native apps but since Windows apps are so prevalent this 
   
   experiment hopefully has value for many people who like 
   
   myself own primarily Windows applications and OS/2 apps 
   
   won't run on Windows or NT for the most part. OK, same 
   
   sequence of apps, Word, database etc. Warp handled 
   
   everything fine and BTW was better than Win95 at not 
   
   letting (Service) take over the processor when it signs on, 
   
   up until the last step when I went to copy the large 
   
   directory. Everything froze. Warp did allow me to call up a 
   
   list of running (frozen) programs and exit them one at a 
   
   time, but that was all I could do other than move the 
   
   mouse. Same thing in NT but no problems at all and the 
   
   speed was much better than Warp was before it had crashed. 
   
   My theory is that NT runs Windows apps quite naturally 
   
   while Warp in order to run a Windows app in protected mode 
   
   has to load more code than does NT and the extra overhead 
   
   kills it. Before any of you Warp supporters shoot me for 
   
   reporting these results, try it yourself. Load 4 or 5 
   
   Windows apps in separate sessions and have two or more 
   
   doing something, then go to the Window's File Manger and 
   
   copy a large directory, it locks. My conclusion is this; 
   
   for best performance and good stability running a normal to 
   
   heavy amount of Windows apps go with Win95. If stability is 
   
   a major concern and you run a lot of 16 bit apps and some 
   
   OS/2 apps go with Warp and if stability is paramount and 
   
   you don't play many games go with NT if you have enough 
   
   memory. 
   
   Let me end this with some positive statements about 
   
   OS/2. I mentioned the other day that I liked the "work 
   
   place folders" that OS/2 has and also the "shadows" are 
   
   better than Window's shortcuts. Additionally, OS/2 is more 
   
   object oriented and I can see some benefits to this as 
   
   everything can have its settings adjusted and also through 
   
   a file's attributes you can give it properties that have no 
   
   parallel in the Windows environment. While not as user 
   
   friendly as Win95, Warp does have a rich amount of 
   
   customization that allows you to tailor your work 
   
   environment in more than one way for different tasks. Maybe 
   
   I'll actually go out and buy an OS/2 app or more likely it 
   
   will have to be mail order.<G> 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/11/95 
   
   From: EEGK48A Michael Presley Time: 9:39AM ET
   
   >>OS/2 is more object oriented and I can see some benefits 
   
   to this as everything can have its settings adjusted...>> 
   
   This is both a plus and a minus. For instance, there is a 
   
   neat little pong type Win game called JezzBall--I'm sure 
   
   many of you are familiar with it. In the Win OS/2 default 
   
   setting the game runs too slow, however by tweaking the 
   
   numerous settings one can eventually have the game run as 
   
   smooth as in a native 3.x session. Unfortunately, the 
   
   average cat (the one who really should have bought a Mac) 
   
   is not going to spend alot of trial and error time with 20 
   
   or 30 individual settings. There is a point where 
   
   flexability becomes anarchy. For me it is great because I 
   
   like to tinker; on the other hand, most of my colleagues 
   
   just want things to work correctly the FIRST time. 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/11/95 
   
   From: FTXM26A Marianna Troisi Time: 10:28AM ET
   
   Hi folks! 
   
   Don't sell Warp short as I understand IBM is modifying the
   
   serial keyboard queue that "freezes" Warp when a misbehaved 
   
   app crashes. Also, loading up the necessary overhead when 
   
   running a Win-OS2 session inevitably impacts system 
   
   performance, but again IBM is addressing this issue for the 
   
   next Warp upgrade. It will be interesting to see how 
   
   everything plays out when a few brave ISV's use IBM's 
   
   porting utility for the "new" Win32 API's and OS/2's as well
   
   to have an app with the same features ported to Win '95, NT 
   
   & OS/2. Right now you have OS/2 running with one hand tied 
   
   behind its back (loading 16-bit Windows apps) but that's OK,
   
   cos that's where the market is. Right now, it remains the 
   
   only OS that runs 16/32 bit platform's apps except the 
   
   Gatestapo's new Win32 apps. But based on what I've seen with
   
   those apps running M$ Office for Win '95, I'm not missing 
   
   anything. 
   
   This 'war' is far from being over, despite all the 
   
   misinformation and BS from ALL camps. As for me putting 
   
   features/performance in an auto simile, Win '95 is like a 
   
   GEO, NT is like a Caddy Brougham and Warp is a Lexus sedan. 
   
   And like cars, whatever suits you best with the features
   
   you want is the OS you'll drive (price not withstanding) -M 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: EEGK48A Michael Presley Date: 11/11/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 3:00PM ET
   
   >>Unfortunately, the average cat (the one who really should 
   
   have bought a Mac)is not going to spend alot of trial and 
   
   error time with 20 or 30 individual settings.<< 
   
   Great point, Michael. It does tend towards overkill. That's 
   
   why I've said that Win95 has the most compromises but still 
   
   tends to hit the sweet spot for most users. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/11/95 
   
   From: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Time: 5:16PM ET
   
   Didn't you try the BonusPak apps? HyperAccess, IAK, 
   
   CIS,...WORKS,... 
   
   Something I happened to notice the other night, I was 
   
   moving applications from the D: drive to the C: and I just 
   
   opened the corresponding drive folders and dragged and 
   
   dropped the particular application. It reset the settings 
   
   to point to the right drive and working directory 
   
   automatically. It was an OS/2 program, SYTOS, a tape 
   
   backup/restore app. 
   
   You know I never ran my WIN apps full screen and 
   
   wondered why you did. I tried it and didn't notice any 
   
   performance improvements. I like to minimize the Win Apps 
   
   to the minimize window, which I open on startup, or you 
   
   could minimize to the desktop. It seems less wieldy that 
   
   way. 
   
   Cheers, Ralph - Warped 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Date: 11/11/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 11:12PM ET
   
   >>Didn't you try the BonusPak apps? HyperAccess, IAK, 
   
   CIS,...WORKS,...<< 
   
   Yes but these are not in the same league as MS Office nor 
   
   should they be. 
   
   >>You know I never ran my WIN apps full screen and 
   
   wondered why you did. I tried it and didn't notice any 
   
   performance improvements.<< 
   
   Then why I am trying so hard to be able to do so. I was 
   
   under the impression that Windows apps ran faster full 
   
   screen in Warp. No? 
   
   BTW, I am writing this on the (Service) BB Manager software 
   
   from within Warp. A few observations: I opened the folder 
   
   from MS works to try the word processor and it takes much 
   
   longer for folders to open under Warp. Then I launched a 
   
   "document" template and it took almost as long to load up 
   
   as Word did and considerably longer than Word does under 
   
   Windows and this is a small app. Next I noticed that the 
   
   program I'm using is somewhat distorted by the large 
   
   borders and menu bars and the dialog boxes on all the 
   
   Windows programs are much larger than when run in native 
   
   Windows. The scroll feature works normally but at maybe 20% 
   
   of the speed it does in Windows. If someone was to only use 
   
   Windows apps under OS/2 I could see where they might 
   
   erroneously think that the apps themselves aren't very good 
   
   when it's the way the OS distorts them. To top it off, I 
   
   run this app in a separate session and every once in a 
   
   while it completely freezes. Do you use the BB Manager 
   
   software? When is the next version of Warp coming out? 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/13/95 
   
   From: XKBR05A Darrell Hancock Time: 7:13AM ET
   
   Hi Stuart. 
   
   Well admitedly most of this stuff is way out of my 
   
   league but it sure is interesting, and who knows I might 
   
   learn something. I doubt I can help with your Win OS2 not 
   
   running in full screen but I would like to say this much, 
   
   that on four different machines using all versions since 
   
   2.0, windows programs have always run much faster 
   
   fullscreen from program manager, then seamless in a window 
   
   Here is a neat Web site (I believe the best)for OS2, 
   
   with links to just about everything OS2 has to offer, 
   
   including David Barnes homepage and some of his favorite 
   
   shareware for Warp. If you haven't checked out this site 
   
   you should http://www.cyberblue.com,. Well thanks for the 
   
   great topic Stu, if I keep reading this stuff I might 
   
   actually start understanding it, what a scary thought<VBG> 
   
   (OS/2 The Originator not the Imitator) Darrell 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/13/95 
   
   From: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Time: 6:00PM ET
   
   My point was to try some OS/2 apps without an outlay of 
   
   cash. Also you might want to explore the power of 
   
   SOM. 
   
   This is interesting. If I do a dir on my D: root 
   
   directory in an OS/2 Window VM, it takes 6 seconds, if I do 
   
   it in a Full-Screen OS/2 VM, it takes about half, 3 
   
   seconds. If I open a full screen WIN0S2 session and go in 
   
   to file manager and scroll the same directory it about 12 
   
   seconds. If I open a Windowed WINOS2 session and do the 
   
   same thing it takes about 6 seconds. Hmmm, interesting. I 
   
   like navigating with , the tasklist, minimized window 
   
   viewer or clicking a visible part of the window on the 
   
   desktop. 
   
   I'd be interested how your test with Works did in a 
   
   Windowed WINOS2 session. Did you put up the FIXPAK? 
   
   I'm running the BBNM/W right now. I freeze up every now and 
   
   then. I'm still trying to define the problem so I can 
   
   report it. 
   
   Next Warp? Don't know. 
   
   Cheers, Ralph 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/14/95 
   
   From: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Time: 8:05PM ET
   
   Work's word processor and spread sheet can demonstrate/ 
   
   utilize it. Also, if you drag a application folder 
   
   from one drive to another or even one folder to 
   
   another, the settings automatically get updated with 
   
   the new pathing information. That might only work with OS/2 
   
   apps. I'll have to play around. You're making me stretch. I 
   
   usually just operate in my own little rut. 
   
   The Fixpak wasn't that big a deal. The old ones were. They 
   
   were essentially reinstalling OS/2. 
   
   The 'strange results' only surprised me because I had never 
   
   done them before and would have been wrong, if I 
   
   had predicted how they would perform. I have'nt noticed the 
   
   inconsistencies you're suggesting. 
   
   Today I started running BBNM in it's own session and 
   
   jury is still out. The bug is sort of strange. BBNM 
   
   screen locks up, I can still get at other things and/or 
   
   kill the BBNM session. The two downsides to killing the 
   
   session is the database needs to be repaired and because I 
   
   wasn't operating in a separate session, it would take down 
   
   the other WINOS2 sessions. i.e. PEMC. Hopefully running a 
   
   BBNM separate session, will cure or mitigate the 
   
   problem. 
   
   Cheers, Ralph 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Date: 11/15/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 12:06AM ET
   
   >>Work's word processor and spread sheet can demonstrate/ 
   
   utilize it.<< 
   
   For instance? 
   
   >>if you drag a application folder from one drive to 
   
   another or even one folder to another, the settings 
   
   automatically get updated with the new pathing 
   
   information.<< 
   
   Yes, this is one area that Warp is no doubt better than 
   
   the competition. >>> 
   
   You'll find that running the BBN in it's own session is the 
   
   only smart way to run it but it still will freeze for no 
   
   apparent reason and often requires re-indexing. It not a 
   
   bad reflection on Warp it's a very buggy app but much 
   
   better than not using it at all. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: DCMG08A Buster Flynn Date: 11/21/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 12:55AM ET
   
   Buster, 
   
   What I was surprised about was how slow the native small 
   
   apps were to load, not just Windows apps. The app in 
   
   question was the word processor that comes with the Bonus 
   
   Pack. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/28/95 
   
   From: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Time: 9:13PM ET
   
   Quote of me<G>, 
   
   'This is interesting. If I do a dir on my D: root 
   
   directory in an OS/2 Window VM, it takes 6 seconds, if I do 
   
   it in a Full-Screen OS/2 VM, it takes about half, 3 
   
   seconds. If I open a full screen WIN0S2 session and go in 
   
   to file manager and scroll the same directory it about 12 
   
   seconds. If I open a Windowed WINOS2 session and do the 
   
   same thing it takes about 6 seconds. Hmmm, interesting. 
   
   I was wondering, did you ever go back and retry OS/2 
   
   sessions Fullscreen for performance and Window applications 
   
   seamless (windowed) for performance. How did they measure 
   
   out? 
   
   Ralph 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Date: 11/29/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 10:00AM ET
   
   I still can't run WinOS2 in full screen. There are some 
   
   very knowledgeable people working on the problem including 
   
   someone who has technicians recreating my setup but still 
   
   no answers. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/29/95 
   
   From: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Time: 2:20PM ET
   
   How did the Window apps run seamless? I haven't found 
   
   anyone that willingly runs the WIN apps full screen. I know 
   
   someone will probably assert that that is the only way to 
   
   run. I think you'll find the WIN apps perform better in the 
   
   seamless(not fullscreen) mode. Conversely, you will want 
   
   to run DOS apps full screen for best performance. 
   
   Ralph 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Date: 11/29/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 10:52PM ET
   
   >>I haven't found anyone that willingly runs the WIN apps 
   
   full screen. I know someone will probably assert that that 
   
   is the only way to run. I think you'll find the WIN apps 
   
   perform better in the seamless(not fullscreen) mode.<< 
   
   I can't say you're wrong, but what you are saying is 
   
   contrary to the advice all the other OS/2 users have given 
   
   me with regards to the Win apps. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 11/30/95 
   
   From: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Time: 12:45AM ET
   
   Try it and let me know. It's easy enough to do. 
   
   Anyone out there have an opinion? 
   
   Cheers, ralph 
   
   To: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Date: 11/30/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 4:40PM ET
   
   >>Try it and let me know.<< 
   
   I would if I could. 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 12/1/95 
   
   From: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Time: 11:31PM ET
   
   Looking through my 'OS/2 WARP Unleashed' book, it suggests 
   
   that in version 2 the full screen sessions performed 
   
   better. In version 3 , the jury is out and they recommend, 
   
   'why take chances', run full screen. I find it more to my 
   
   liking, running seamless. I never ran any Windows programs 
   
   until I got into this (Service)/BBNM/PEMC thing. It's not 
   
   pleasant.<G> I am pretty stable with BBNM now. One quirky 
   
   thing is that I have to shut down BBNM every now and then 
   
   to force the swap file to resize down. Still catering to my 
   
   tight partition.<G> 
   
   Ralph 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Date: 12/10/95 
   
   From: XKBR05A Darrell Hancock Time: 4:49PM ET
   
   Hi Ralph 
   
   Just wondering if you might know the name of the book 
   
   that includes the Describe CD. I read in OS/2 magazine some 
   
   time back that there was an OS/2 book that included a full 
   
   version of Describe for OS/2, Win 95 and Win NT for about 
   
   half the price of the version for OS/2 alone. Well now I 
   
   can't find the darn magazine. I think it was called 
   
   Voyager or something like that, it's supposed to be the 
   
   full versions supported by Describe. If my memory serves me 
   
   correctly, OS2 mag said the only difference between the 
   
   version in the book and the other one was that the book 
   
   version didn't include manuals but otherwise they were 
   
   identical and fully supported by Describe. The book version 
   
   also had the added bonus of the windows versions. 
   
   OS/2 The Originator not the Imitator 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: All Date: 12/2/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 8:55AM ET
   
   I'm now with a new Internet provider, the last one was kind 
   
   enough to give me a refund. This one is working out much 
   
   better as the access line is not ever busy whereas the 
   
   other one was busy all the time. They also supplied me with 
   
   more information, so even though they didn't offer any OS/2 
   
   support, I was able to figure out what all the settings 
   
   were. I haven't figured out how to get it to work under NT 
   
   just yet. In general I was very pleased with the straight 
   
   forward approach that Warp offers to hook up your Internet 
   
   access. It wasn't quite a "Wizard" but it was very clear 
   
   and well documented. The phone connect takes a while to 
   
   hook up but once connected everything Internet related 
   
   worked well. There is an icon that takes you an IBM site 
   
   that allows you to download the latest Internet related 
   
   software. It worked quite well and did everything with out 
   
   any input from the user. BTW, somebody, Ralph maybe, once 
   
   admonished MS for allowing a file to be executed 
   
   automatically upon downloading due to virus worries and I 
   
   wanted to point out that this is exactly what IBM does but 
   
   without even an option to just save it instead. Personally 
   
   I don't think it's a problem as I doubt if either MS or IBM 
   
   would send us infected software. The latest Internet 
   
   software provided by IBM is OK but not up to the standard 
   
   of other vendors. The Web browser is fairly good but the 
   
   News Reader sucks and the Mail reader is passable. All and 
   
   all, since everything comes free with the Bonus Pak I would 
   
   have to rate this as a very good value and surprisingly 
   
   user friendly. I'd like to see IBM implement a similar 
   
   download strategy for their FixPacks if possible. 
   
   -Stu
   
   stu@vivid.net 12/2/95 8:44AM ET 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 12/5/95 
   
   From: KSKD05A John Hoffler Time: 10:56PM ET
   
   >>>>Warp's performance improvement on the P6 is 
   
   already documented -- up to 121% when running native apps 
   
   such as ColorWorks or OnCmd.<< 
   
   >>> 
   
   Yes but what is the average for most apps?<< 
   
   The average was about 70%. Way above the performance 
   
   offered by Windows and Win95. 
   
   >>Also what is the performance hit when running 16 bit 
   
   Windows apps 
   
   compared with Win95 when running newer 32bit apps both on 
   
   the P6.<< 
   
   I don't know, but PowerMacs run new PowerMac software much 
   
   faster than Win95 runs old Mac software under emulation. 
   
   Sound like a stupid comparison? So's yours. Since Win95 
   
   shipped, there have been over twice as many OS/2 app 
   
   releases and native Win95 releases. (I've posted over 200 
   
   OS/2 releases right here on P* over the past 4 months. 88 
   
   this month alone. Meanwhile, I've also made Win95 lists 
   
   that I kept to myself. Less than 90 Win95 apps have shipped
   
   so far. If you disagree, produce a list with more. So far,
   
   I seem to be the only one who's counted.). In Infoworld's 
   
   test, OS/2 was the only OS for which they could find a 
   
   32-bit app for all categories. You need to get in touch 
   
   with the fact that 16-bit performance is only an issue for 
   
   Win95 users, not Warp users. 
   
   >>I think that it is more likely to have a larger affect on 
   
   Warp when running Win 16 apps. The reason is that the entire
   
   app is 16 bit and so is the emulation code it runs on.<< 
   
   That reminds me, Warp currently runs Win32s apps faster than
   
   any other platform because it supports the apps with an OS/2
   
   virtual device driver instead of running M$'s Win32s VxD. 
   
   IBM's virtual divice driver is simply faster than M$'s VxD. 
   
   The P6 will no doubt open that lead even further. 
   
   John 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: KSKD05A John Hoffler Date: 12/6/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 3:45PM ET
   
   John, 
   
   While I commend your list making ability, I simply don't 
   
   care to play that game anymore than "I can hit my head 
   
   harder than you"<G> Many of the apps on your list are not 
   
   what most people think about when they think of mainstream 
   
   apps. Mainstream apps are like the one's that are in the 
   
   major Suites. BTW, don't you as an OS/2 booster find it 
   
   annoying that IBM's subsidiary, Lotus, is cranking out 
   
   Win95 32bit suites while continuing to delay the OS/2 
   
   versions? Do you honestly feel like IBM is committed to the 
   
   desktop or simply hoping to take a fair share of the server 
   
   market? Their PC division seems to be betting on Windows 
   
   not Warp. 
   
   Stu Schwartz stu@vivid.net 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 12/10/95 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   From: XKBR05A Darrell Hancock Time: 4:49PM ET
   
   >> BTW, don't you as an OS/2 booster find it annoying that 
   
   IBM's subsidiary, Lotus, is cranking out Win95 32bit suites 
   
   while continuing to delay the OS/2 versions?<< 
   
   YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES!!!!!!! 
   
   Just got a new brochure for the Aptiva line which boasted 
   
   about running Win 95 and didn't even mention Warp. I for 
   
   one would like to stick with OS/2 but Im finding it hard 
   
   to support a product that IBM itself seems to be 
   
   abandoning. I can't understand why at Comp USA one Aptiva 
   
   with Win 95 seemed so fast while the other one with Warp 
   
   was a DOG. It sure seems like IBM is giving up on the home 
   
   market just when it seemed they might be making some 
   
   headway. My local computer store now has an entire aisle 
   
   dedicated to OS/2 software, Stardock is continuing to crank 
   
   out native OS2 titles, but IBM's own subsidiary can't even 
   
   get out an OS2 version and the PC company seems bent on 
   
   pushing Win 95. I personally talked at least six people 
   
   into switching to Warp and Im beginning to feel like I may 
   
   have done them a disservice. Sorry guys I guess Im ranting 
   
   here, I don't think IBM could sell ice water to people in 
   
   hell. 
   
   Darrell 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: XKBR05A Darrell Hancock Date: 12/10/95 
   
   From: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Time: 7:16PM ET
   
   What were the model numbers of the Aptivas. Though I've 
   
   heard that the WARP install on the Aptivas is a dog. It's 
   
   recommended to reinstall by some. The M** series Aptivas 
   
   vary from P75 to P133 and 8 meg vs 16 meg. OK cache doesn't 
   
   help either. 
   
   Cheers, Ralph 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: XKBR05A Darrell Hancock Date: 12/10/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 11:08PM ET
   
   Darrell, 
   
   I know what you mean, at my local Comp USA I asked if they 
   
   had any computers with Warp on them. He said no they 
   
   didn't. Looking over his shoulder I saw the now familiar 
   
   Warp GUI running on an Aptiva, he really just didn't know. 
   
   Personally, and I don't expect to get a lot of agreement on 
   
   this, I think that IBM does not plan on abandoning OS/2 but 
   
   they don't plan on pursuing the consumer market or even the 
   
   desktop market. There is no advantage for them to admit 
   
   this at this point. On the speed difference, again I 
   
   don't expect agreement here, I think that a machine running 
   
   OS/2 with FAT that has not been optimized and with 8MB of 
   
   RAM just doesn't come close to the performance of Win95 
   
   right out of the box on the same machine. 
   
   -Stu
   
   Schwartz stu@vivid.net 
   
   http://www2.vivid.net/~stu/ 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 12/11/95 
   
   From: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Time: 9:34AM ET
   
   Radio Shack is no better. I was horrified<G> by the sales 
   
   people there, for their disdain of OS2. Called it the 
   
   old operating system available on the M50 and suggested 
   
   that I should look at the new OS WIN95 ont the M51/M53. 
   
   They obviously didn't know who they were talking to, so 
   
   after I busted the place up......that's another story. 
   
   Ralph - WARP militia 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: BMXH51A Ralph Ferone Date: 12/11/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 10:43PM ET
   
   Ralph, 
   
   If you really want to get back at Radio Shack, try to get 
   
   IBM to buy them.<G> 
   
   -Stu
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Schwartz stu@vivid.net 
   
   http://www2.vivid.net/~stu/ 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 12/24/95 
   
   From: FYVP85A Robert Osborn Time: 2:48AM ET
   
   Actually the fact that OS/2 versions are later than the 
   
   Win95 versions does not annoy me. That is the result of a 
   
   decision made by Lotus prior to the IBM purchase. 
   
   What makes me happy is the news that Lotus has created a 
   
   special team to "add" special OS/2-only features to the 
   
   "common" 32 bit code base of the Smartsuite. Sort of 
   
   highlights the superset nature of OS/2 and it is nice that 
   
   we will be getting something other than a limited warmed 
   
   over Windows set of features. 
   
   Getting sort of tough picking suites these days. Office 
   
   has the marketshare, but our group meeting the other day 
   
   was dominated by complaints on the shortcomings of 
   
   Office for collaborative and template documents. 
   
   As slick as Word and Excel are they are no longer on the 
   
   cutting edge. 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 12/24/95 
   
   From: FYVP85A Robert Osborn Time: 2:48AM ET
   
   Actually the fact that OS/2 versions are later than the 
   
   Win95 versions does not annoy me. That is the result of a 
   
   decision made by Lotus prior to the IBM purchase. 
   
   What makes me happy is the news that Lotus has created a 
   
   special team to "add" special OS/2-only features to the 
   
   "common" 32 bit code base of the Smartsuite. Sort of 
   
   highlights the superset nature of OS/2 and it is nice that 
   
   we will be getting something other than a limited warmed 
   
   over Windows set of features. 
   
   Getting sort of tough picking suites these days. Office 
   
   has the marketshare, but our group meeting the other day 
   
   was dominated by complaints on the shortcomings of 
   
   Office for collaborative and template documents. 
   
   As slick as Word and Excel are they are no longer on the 
   
   cutting edge. 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 12/24/95 
   
   From: FYVP85A Robert Osborn Time: 2:48AM ET
   
   >>Do you honestly feel like IBM is committed to the 
   
   desktop or simply hoping to take a fair share of the server 
   
   market? Their PC division seems to be betting on Windows.<< 
   
   I guess it is pretty easy to confuse focusing on 
   
   connecting with everybody instead of only connecting 
   
   with Windows users.<g> 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 12/5/95 
   
   From: KSKD05A John Hoffler Time: 10:56PM ET
   
   >>you have used the article to support some of your claims 
   
   but at the same time, for other reasons have shown that the 
   
   authors are inept in their understanding of Warp and perhaps
   
   their evaluating abilities.<< 
   
   As you imply, I am very particular about explaining which 
   
   portions of an article I agree or disagree with. And I try 
   
   to fully explain any technical issues that I feel were 
   
   misrepresented. Am I not explaining these issues? Isn't 
   
   that better than simply posting my opinion of the general 
   
   quality of the article? What have I added to the 
   
   conversation by simply saying, "Don't believe PC Week" or 
   
   "Don't listen to Ritter"? 
   
   I use these OS debates as a context in which to present 
   
   information on various computing issues. I don't think 
   
   you've had many opportunities to refute the accuracy of my 
   
   information, have you? We simply disagree on the relative 
   
   importance of various tid-bits of info -- priorities. For 
   
   example, I'm willing to switch application vendors, and am 
   
   interested in the best native performance I can get on 
   
   various platforms. You are loyal to certain vendors and 
   
   products, and are only interested in the performance of 
   
   those products on all platforms. Priorities. 
   
   >>Let me remind you that I was the one who said that even if
   
   a test made Win95 look better than Warp it doesn't mean 
   
   anything if the test is flawed.<< 
   
   But you haven't explained what's wrong with the test. Until
   
   then, all you have is sour grapes. 
   
   >>BTW, how many MB's does Describe 
   
   occupy compared to the 30 or so Word does?<< 
   
   Describe takes about 22 MB for a full install. 
   
   John 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   To: KSKD05A John Hoffler Date: 12/6/95 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Time: 3:45PM ET
   
   John, 
   
   I didn't mean to imply that you are deliberately deceiving 
   
   us, just pointing out that the source you were referring to 
   
   to bolster your argument is the same source that you 
   
   showed lacked credibility. 
   
   Stu Schwartz stu@vivid.net 
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 12/21/95 
   
   From: KSKD05A John Hoffler Time: 11:08PM ET
   
   >>I didn't mean to imply that you are deliberately deceiving
   
   us, just pointing out that the source you were referring to 
   
   to bolster your argument is the same source that you showed 
   
   lacked credibility.<< 
   
   I'm afraid I didn't get my point across. I read these 
   
   articles without regard to the credibility of the publisher 
   
   (or lack thereof). I believe only what can be proven. And 
   
   I disbelieve only what I can disprove. So the point is that
   
   I take all articles on a fact-by-fact basis. 
   
   John 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Stuart Schwartz Date: 12/21/95 
   
   From: KSKD05A John Hoffler Time: 11:08PM ET
   
   >>Many of the apps on your list are not what most people 
   
   think about when they think of mainstream apps. Mainstream 
   
   apps are like the one's that are in the major Suites.<< 
   
   OTOH, few of the Win95 apps would count as mainstream 
   
   either. M$ has produced a full line of Win95 products 
   
   (surprise!), but that's only one of each type of 
   
   application. I've posted the release of three word 
   
   processors, two spreadsheets, two graphics programs, one 
   
   desktop publisher, three databases, two money-management 
   
   programs, several comm programs... well, you get the idea 
   
   (wouldn't want to make another list, now would I?). 
   
   A fair number of Win95 apps I counted were TCP/IP stacks. 
   
   Seems Infoworld isn't the first to realize Win95's network 
   
   stack leaves something to be desired. A number of network 
   
   management vendors updated their products to include Win95 
   
   clients -- not very mainstream in my book, plus they support
   
   all clients. 
   
   >>Do you honestly feel like IBM is committed to the desktop 
   
   or simply hoping to take a fair share of the server market? 
   
   Their PC division seems to be betting on Windows not Warp.<<
   
   Now we know why PC division keeps losing money <g>. The 
   
   U.S. Navy just bought 400,000 copies of Warp. I assure 
   
   these are not all servers. OS/2's development budget now 
   
   and for the next three years is three times that of OS/400 
   
   and 4 times that of AIX. When it comes to putting its money
   
   where its mouth is, I'd say IBM is definately backing OS/2. 
   
   John 
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   [1]Return To Home Page
