Path: gmdzi!unido!fauern!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!
samsung!umich!vela!rdthomps
From: rdtho...@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Robert D. Thompson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <7475@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
Date: 23 Jun 91 22:06:32 GMT
Reply-To: rdtho...@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Robert D. Thompson)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI
Lines: 24
People,
I need help. If someone would be so kind as to answer
these questions for me, I would really appreciate it,
1. Does the OS/2 2.0 Package from IBM include everything
(i.e. the same things) as the OS/2 2.0 SDK from
Microsoft ???
2. Does, or WHEN, will OS/2 2.0 Support Windows 3.0 ???
3. When will OS/2 2.0 be released to the public (In other
words, when can I sell software that I have written
for OS/2 2.0) ???
4. SHOULD I SPEND THE $$$ ON THE OS/2 2.0 SDK FROM MICROSOFT ???
Thanks in advance for any help.
Regards |(8>
---
Robert
rdtho...@vela.acs.oakland.edu
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!mtxinu!rtech!ingres!seg
From: s...@ingres.com (scott e garfinkle)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jun26.180912.26533@ingres.Ingres.COM>
Date: 26 Jun 91 18:09:12 GMT
References: <7475@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
Organization: Ask Computer Systems, Ingres Products Division
Lines: 32
In article <7...@vela.acs.oakland.edu> rdtho...@vela.acs.oakland.edu
(Robert D. Thompson) writes:
> 1. Does the OS/2 2.0 Package from IBM include everything
> (i.e. the same things) as the OS/2 2.0 SDK from
> Microsoft ???
No. The package I got from IBM does not include any of the toolkit build from
IBM (i.e. the libs, online programmer's reference, header files, etc.) or the
Microsoft C386 compiler that I got with the MS SDK. The base OS is the same
in both packages, though.
> 2. Does, or WHEN, will OS/2 2.0 Support Windows 3.0 ???
Does not in 6.123. I think it will, mostly, in the next "pre-release" due
out in a month or so. Definitely will, though not necessarily with 386-enhanced
functionality, for General Availability.
> 3. When will OS/2 2.0 be released to the public (In other
> words, when can I sell software that I have written
> for OS/2 2.0) ???
IBM still says "4th quarter of 1991." On the other hand, your customers may
be getting the Beta code...?
> 4. SHOULD I SPEND THE $$$ ON THE OS/2 2.0 SDK FROM MICROSOFT ???
I think that if you can wait a month or two, you'll probably do better with
the IBM Software Development Kit, which will include a brand new IBM C
compiler (rumor says it's evolved from the AS/400 *hot* C compiler) and
other good stuff. It will probably be a lot less than $2400. A *real*
lot less if you qualify for the Developer's Assistance Program; if you
are planning on writing software for sale to run on OS/2, you almost certainly
qualify. Call (407) 982-6408 to ask.
-scott e. garfinkle
Standard Disclaimer (i.e. my opinions are my own, etc. Also, I have no
connection to IBM.)
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!bywater!arnor!yktvmv!larrys
From: lar...@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul1.115735.28810@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 1 Jul 91 05:55:39 GMT
References: <1991Jun26.180912.26533@ingres.Ingres.COM>
Sender: larrys@yktvmv
Reply-To: lar...@watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Research
Lines: 21
News-Software: NewsKit 1.2 - LaMail
Nntp-Posting-Host: ibmman2
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
In <1991Jun26.180912.26...@ingres.Ingres.COM>, s...@ingres.com (scott e garfinkle)
writes:
>I think that if you can wait a month or two, you'll probably do better with
>the IBM Software Development Kit, which will include a brand new IBM C
>compiler (rumor says it's evolved from the AS/400 *hot* C compiler) and
From what I understand, the new compiler was started as a project by an
IBMer in Toronto (and was, originally, an OS/2 compiler, although some
of the "new stuff" - like DAG optimizations, etc. - could have been
taken from the AS/400 compiler), before it was "picked up" as a
development project.
Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LAR...@YKTVMV.BITNET
OS/2 Applications and Tools lar...@ibmman.watson.ibm.com
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center lar...@eng.clemson.edu
Yorktown Heights, NY
Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my
own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a
reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too
seriously.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!bonnie.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!
csri.toronto.edu.toronto.edu!wayne
From: wa...@csri.toronto.edu.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul13.021919.26862@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: 13 Jul 91 06:19:20 GMT
References: <7475@vela.acs.oakland.edu> <46@medicode.UUCP>
Lines: 6
OS/2 2.0 *will* support running Windows programs in standard mode; OS/2 1.x
could only run them in the DOS box in real mode.
What package is this that MS sells that allows you to run Windows programs
under OS/2? (again, you don't need any special package to run them in
real mode.)
Path: gmdzi!unido!fauern!NewsServ!rommel
From: rom...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul14.103935.8473@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
Date: 14 Jul 91 10:39:35 GMT
References: <7475@vela.acs.oakland.edu> <46@medicode.UUCP>
<1991Jul13.000435.1111@novell.com>
Sender: n...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (News System)
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Lines: 20
To clarify: there indeed is a MS product to run Windows programs under
OS/2 but it is for 1.3 - it is called WLO and I tested a pre-release. I
was told that it is already released. But until now I did not get an
answer for MS Germany on my question for availability. I was told via
phone by the "Windows Product Manager" that it is available and he gave
me a FAX number for further questions on pricing etc. I have sent a FAX
there but never got an answer (what elso do you expect from Microsoft?)
WLO does not allow to run unmodified Windows programs but you have to
relink the programs. The resulting binaries can be run under OS/2 1.3 as
well as under Windows 3.0 without modification (I have tested this with
the WRITE and PBRUSH versions that came with the demo).
But 2.0 is said to be able to run plain Windows 3.0 programs.
Kai Uwe Rommel
/* Kai Uwe Rommel, Munich ----- rom...@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de */
DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be. -Russell Williams
Path: gmdzi!unido!fauern!NewsServ!rommel
From: rom...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul15.222807.20199@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
Date: 15 Jul 91 22:28:07 GMT
References: <46@medicode.UUCP> <1991Jul14.153634.2929@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
<1991Jul14.185240.12820@mmm.serc.3m.com>
Sender: n...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (News System)
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Lines: 13
In an earlier follow-up I wrote about WLO and complained about not
getting a response from MS. Just today I got a pre-release 0.9 version
of it from MS and a letter saying that 1.0 will released in August.
So I have to correct that it is not yet released but will be soon.
From what I have seen until now I would say it is a bit slow but it
works.
Kai Uwe Rommel
/* Kai Uwe Rommel, Munich ----- rom...@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de */
DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be. -Russell Williams
Path: gmdzi!unido!unidui!math.fu-berlin.de!fauern!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!microsoft!johnhall
From: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <73653@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jul 91 20:21:52 GMT
References: <7475@vela.acs.oakland.edu> <46@medicode.UUCP>
<1991Jul13.021919.26862@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 62
In article wa...@csri.toronto.edu.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes:
| OS/2 2.0 *will* support running Windows programs in standard mode; OS/2 1.x
| could only run them in the DOS box in real mode.
This support requires modifications to the windows source, which
IBM is working on now. You won't be able to buy MS Windows and
run in standard mode. I don't know if IBM will introduce a
performance penalty with their modifications.
| What package is this that MS sells that allows you to run Windows programs
| under OS/2? (again, you don't need any special package to run them in
| real mode.)
MS sells WLO (Windows Libraries for OS/2) which is currently in
production and is being distributed to our 1,000+ beta customers.
WLO is a developer tool, and requires someone to relink their
application. This process can be as short as a few hours, or
as long as you wish (depending on how dirty the app was). The
end result is a *.exe file that will run unmodified on Windows,
or that will run on OS/2 in the presence of the WLO dll's.
Compuserve has a copy of the dll's and the Windows applets
for people to look at and try. Yes that includes write,
terminal, and paintbrush. You can use them yourself but
you can't distribute them.
Application changes are necessary in some cases. For
example, you must use Dos3Call() and not perform an
interupt directly.
The WLO team is quite proud of the limited number of
changes a WLO app requires. Examples:
o Window apps perform many operations by position
rather than ID. Since OS/2 1.x only allows operations
by position WLO can't tell the difference between two
items with the same ID.
o 0xFFFF is an error condition in PM, so it isn't polite
to use that value as an ID. (Many Seperators
have 0xffff as the ID.). In fact, the windows sdk
discourages the use of ID's from 0xf000 to 0xffff.
It pays to respect that.
o When a submenu drops in Windows, the app gets a
INITMENUPOPUP message and can change the menu
to be dropped on the fly. OS/2 GP's in this
case, so you have to do things differently.
It isn't a big problem.
Most changes should be as simple as these.
Current versions of OS/2 2.0 are not completely compatible
with prior versions of OS/2. IBM is supposed to make
sure it is compatible, but some WLO'd PM apps do not
run on OS/2 2.0. (They ran when MS gave OS/2 2.0 to IBM).
--
-------------------------
My comments are my own. They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!bywater!scifi!watson!arnor!yktvmv!larrys
From: lar...@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul18.205848.18785@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 18 Jul 91 14:55:55 GMT
References: <73653@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: larrys@yktvmv
Reply-To: lar...@watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Watson OS/2 Applications and Tools
Lines: 71
News-Software: NewsKit 1.2 - LaMail
Nntp-Posting-Host: ibmman2
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
In <73...@microsoft.UUCP>, johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL) writes:
>
>In article wa...@csri.toronto.edu.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes:
>| OS/2 2.0 *will* support running Windows programs in standard mode; OS/2 1.x
>| could only run them in the DOS box in real mode.
>
>This support requires modifications to the windows source, which
>IBM is working on now. You won't be able to buy MS Windows and
>run in standard mode. I don't know if IBM will introduce a
>performance penalty with their modifications.
I assume you mean the Windows 3.0 source code, since I saw unmodified
binaries of Windows applications running under OS/2 2.0. If twice as
fast is a performance penalty, I'd sure hate to see what you think good
performance is. ;)
>| What package is this that MS sells that allows you to run Windows programs
>| under OS/2? (again, you don't need any special package to run them in
>| real mode.)
>
>MS sells WLO (Windows Libraries for OS/2) which is currently in
>production and is being distributed to our 1,000+ beta customers.
>
>WLO is a developer tool, and requires someone to relink their
>application. This process can be as short as a few hours, or
>as long as you wish (depending on how dirty the app was). The
>end result is a *.exe file that will run unmodified on Windows,
>or that will run on OS/2 in the presence of the WLO dll's.
>
>Compuserve has a copy of the dll's and the Windows applets
>for people to look at and try. Yes that includes write,
>terminal, and paintbrush. You can use them yourself but
>you can't distribute them.
>
>Application changes are necessary in some cases. For
>example, you must use Dos3Call() and not perform an
>interupt directly.
>
>The WLO team is quite proud of the limited number of
>changes a WLO app requires. Examples:
> o Window apps perform many operations by position
> rather than ID. Since OS/2 1.x only allows operations
> by position WLO can't tell the difference between two
> items with the same ID.
> o 0xFFFF is an error condition in PM, so it isn't polite
> to use that value as an ID. (Many Seperators
> have 0xffff as the ID.). In fact, the windows sdk
> discourages the use of ID's from 0xf000 to 0xffff.
> It pays to respect that.
> o When a submenu drops in Windows, the app gets a
> INITMENUPOPUP message and can change the menu
> to be dropped on the fly. OS/2 GP's in this
> case, so you have to do things differently.
> It isn't a big problem.
>
>Most changes should be as simple as these.
>
>Current versions of OS/2 2.0 are not completely compatible
>with prior versions of OS/2. IBM is supposed to make
>sure it is compatible, but some WLO'd PM apps do not
>run on OS/2 2.0. (They ran when MS gave OS/2 2.0 to IBM).
BUT YOU WON'T NEED WLO TO RUN WINDOWS APPLICATIONS!!!!!!!!
AAAARGH!!!!!!!!! I'm gonna SCREAM the next time I have to say that, or
that OS/2 2.0 will run Windows in STANDARD MODE!!!!
Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LAR...@YKTVMV.BITNET
OS/2 Applications and Tools lar...@ibmman.watson.ibm.com
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center lar...@eng.clemson.edu
Yorktown Heights, NY
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!microsoft!johnhall
From: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <73568@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 15 Jul 91 17:49:33 GMT
References: <7475@vela.acs.oakland.edu> <46@medicode.UUCP>
<1991Jul13.000435.1111@novell.com> <1991Jul14.103935.8473@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
Reply-To: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 32
In article <1991Jul14.103935.8...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> you write:
|
| To clarify: there indeed is a MS product to run Windows programs under
| OS/2 but it is for 1.3 - it is called WLO and I tested a pre-release.
OS/2 1.21 thru 1.31.
| I was told that it is already released.
It is in manufacturing now.
| I have sent a FAX there but never got an answer
Email me with your phone number and other information.
The price should be $150, and I will make sure you can get
a copy as soon as possible.
| But 2.0 is said to be able to run plain Windows 3.0 programs.
Believe it when you see it.
--
-------------------------
My comments are my own. They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
--
-------------------------
My comments are my own. They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
Path: gmdzi!unido!ira.uka.de!smurf.sub.org!nadia!fealon
From: fea...@nadia.stgt.sub.org (Frank Fuchs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul21.184024.7675@nadia.stgt.sub.org>
Date: 21 Jul 91 18:40:24 GMT
References: <46@medicode.UUCP> <1991Jul13.000435.1111@novell.com>
<1991Jul14.103935.8473@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
Organization: Stuttgart Net Systems, FRG
Lines: 31
In article <1991Jul14.103935.8...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
rom...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
>
>To clarify: there indeed is a MS product to run Windows programs under
>OS/2 but it is for 1.3 - it is called WLO and I tested a pre-release. I
>was told that it is already released. But until now I did not get an
>answer for MS Germany on my question for availability. I was told via
>phone by the "Windows Product Manager" that it is available and he gave
>me a FAX number for further questions on pricing etc. I have sent a FAX
>there but never got an answer (what elso do you expect from Microsoft?)
>WLO does not allow to run unmodified Windows programs but you have to
>relink the programs. The resulting binaries can be run under OS/2 1.3 as
>well as under Windows 3.0 without modification (I have tested this with
>the WRITE and PBRUSH versions that came with the demo).
>
>But 2.0 is said to be able to run plain Windows 3.0 programs.
>
>Kai Uwe Rommel
>
Availability of WLO: WLO 0.9 is already available and as stated correctly
above, you have to relink your apps. WLO 1.0 is available since this week
(according to Mitch Wolfson, Platform Marketing Manager at Microsoft).
WLO 1.0 will run your apps unmodified - it's an interface (via DLL)
between the Windows apps and the OS/2 Kernel/PM. But, IBM will not
include this WLO into OS/2 2.0 (they claim performance problems, but I
think it also has to do with the 'war' going on and Micrografx supplying
the 'tools', PM-code, DD's and a migration path from Windows DD's to OS/2
DD's - IBM is currently building in true Windows code into their OS/2 2.0)
So long, Frank
--
Fealon, a.k.a. Frank Fuchs (Foxware), fea...@nadia.stgt.sub.org
Path: gmdzi!unido!math.fu-berlin.de!rusmv1!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!midway!quads.uchicago.edu!sip1
From: s...@quads.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul22.004602.18867@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 22 Jul 91 00:46:02 GMT
Sender: n...@midway.uchicago.edu (NewsMistress)
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 12
>Availability of WLO: WLO 0.9 is already available and as stated correctly
>above, you have to relink your apps. WLO 1.0 is available since this week
>(according to Mitch Wolfson, Platform Marketing Manager at Microsoft).
>WLO 1.0 will run your apps unmodified - it's an interface (via DLL)
>between the Windows apps and the OS/2 Kernel/PM. But, IBM will not
Am I correct in assuming that WLO 1.0 will allow one to run Windows
applications, _unmodified_, under OS/2 1.3? Do you have any availability/
pricing information?
T.F.S.
Timothy F. Sipples s...@quads.uchicago.edu
Path: gmdzi!unido!ira.uka.de!smurf.sub.org!nadia!fealon
From: fea...@nadia.stgt.sub.org (Frank Fuchs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul22.124058.22931@nadia.stgt.sub.org>
Date: 22 Jul 91 12:40:58 GMT
References: <1991Jul22.004602.18867@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Stuttgart Net Systems, FRG
Lines: 22
In article <1991Jul22.004602.18...@midway.uchicago.edu> s...@quads.uchicago.edu
(Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>
>Am I correct in assuming that WLO 1.0 will allow one to run Windows
>applications, _unmodified_, under OS/2 1.3? Do you have any availability/
>pricing information?
>
>T.F.S.
>Timothy F. Sipples s...@quads.uchicago.edu
As stated earlier WLO 1.0 should be available right now. Alas, I don't have
any pricing information and I fear that prices may vary very much, especially
for different countries.
WLO 1.0 is expected to run your apps _unmodified_ under OS/2 1.2/1.3, but so
far I cannot verify this - if it will be available thru our user group I'll
be sure results of testing by end users/programmers will flow in. I'll keep
you updated (it may take some time). Right now I'm not very interested in
WLO because my main focus is OS/2 and as stated earlier, there will be another
Windows interface in OS/2 2.0.
Stay tuned
--
Fealon, a.k.a. Frank Fuchs (Foxware), fea...@nadia.stgt.sub.org
Path: gmdzi!unido!fauern!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
rpi!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!midway!quads.uchicago.edu!sip1
From: s...@quads.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul23.032048.2320@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 23 Jul 91 03:20:48 GMT
Sender: n...@midway.uchicago.edu (NewsMistress)
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 27
>As stated earlier WLO 1.0 should be available right now. Alas, I don't have
>any pricing information and I fear that prices may vary very much, especially
>for different countries.
>WLO 1.0 is expected to run your apps _unmodified_ under OS/2 1.2/1.3, but so
>far I cannot verify this - if it will be available thru our user group I'll
>be sure results of testing by end users/programmers will flow in. I'll keep
>you updated (it may take some time). Right now I'm not very interested in
>WLO because my main focus is OS/2 and as stated earlier, there will be another
>Windows interface in OS/2 2.0.
Aside from a performance hit, though, OS/2 1.3 with WLO nearly matches the
functionality of OS/2 2.0. I was under the impression that WLO would allow
developers to relink Windows applications into the OS/2 1.x environment.
Apparently it goes farther than that.
Which is a significant development. That means 80286-class machines can
reliably multitask Windows and OS/2 applications. OS/2 2.0 will, of course,
add solid multitasking of DOS applications on top of that, but only on
80386 machines.
I look forward to hearing your reports. I wasn't too impressed with WLO
0.9 -- the applets and 0.9 managed to bring down the Desktop Manager.
It was most curious -- the only icons left were DOS and Print Manager!
Try shutting down with that! :-)
T.F.S.
Timothy F. Sipples s...@quads.uchicago.edu
Path: gmdzi!unido!fauern!NewsServ!rommel
From: rom...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul22.233337.23087@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
Date: 22 Jul 91 23:33:37 GMT
References: <1991Jul22.004602.18867@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: n...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (News System)
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Lines: 15
In article <1991Jul22.004602.18...@midway.uchicago.edu> s...@quads.uchicago.edu
(Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>Am I correct in assuming that WLO 1.0 will allow one to run Windows
>applications, _unmodified_, under OS/2 1.3? Do you have any availability/
>pricing information?
No. WLO 1.0 will allow you to *build* applications that run unmodified
under both the OS/2 1.3 and Windows 3.0 environments. Existing Windows 3.0
applications will not run under OS/2 1.3 (unless they get
changed/recompiled/relinked for/with WLO 1.0 with newer relases).
Kai Uwe Rommel
/* Kai Uwe Rommel, Munich ----- rom...@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de */
DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be. -Russell Williams
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!utgpu!barry
From: ba...@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Barry Lay)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul23.152408.29546@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Date: 23 Jul 91 15:24:08 GMT
References: <1991Jul23.032048.2320@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Lines: 12
This is probably a very naive question, but I am wondering if existing
applications couldn't be relinked with the WLO to make them available
within OS/2. I am more familiar with the IBM mainframe enviroments where
it is quite feasible to relink a program to change certain modules. It
is not necessary to have source or even the object modules; there is sufficient
information in the load module to fix all of the calls. I suppose that if
functions are rolled into the same code segment then the calling address
could be resolved at link time, but most Windows calls are external aren't
they? I don't understand why you can't take an existing .EXE file and make
it run under OS/2 (albeit slowly) by wrapping it in some interfacing code.
Barry
Path: gmdzi!unido!unidui!math.fu-berlin.de!fauern!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
samsung!olivea!protoa!uunet!bywater!arnor!news
From: marg...@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul24.184144.19311@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 24 Jul 91 18:41:44 GMT
Sender: n...@watson.ibm.com (NNTP News Poster)
Reply-To: marg...@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Lines: 14
Nntp-Posting-Host: lamail
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
In <1991Jul23.152408.29...@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> ba...@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
(Barry Lay) writes:
> This is probably a very naive question, but I am wondering if existing
> applications couldn't be relinked with the WLO to make them available
> within OS/2.
Existing applications will run *unchanged* under OS/2 2.0. No need for WLO,
relinking, or any other kludge.
> I don't understand why you can't take an existing .EXE file and make
> it run under OS/2 (albeit slowly) by wrapping it in some interfacing code.
It will run *faster* under OS/2 2.0 than under Windows.
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (bitnet), marg...@watson.IBM.com (csnet)
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!utgpu!barry
From: ba...@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Barry Lay)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul25.142612.11344@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Date: 25 Jul 91 14:26:12 GMT
References: <1991Jul24.184144.19311@watson.ibm.com>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Lines: 12
In article <1991Jul24.184144.19...@watson.ibm.com> marg...@watson.ibm.com writes:
# Existing applications will run *unchanged* under OS/2 2.0. No need for WLO,
# relinking, or any other kludge.
#
# It will run *faster* under OS/2 2.0 than under Windows.
#
# Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (bitnet), marg...@watson.IBM.com (csnet)
I know all of this. What I want is to run Windows stuff under OS/2 1.3. I
plan to convert my home machine shortly and 2.0 isn't available yet.
Barry
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu!wayne
From: wa...@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul26.003327.22345@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: 26 Jul 91 04:33:27 GMT
References: <1991Jul24.184144.19311@watson.ibm.com>
<1991Jul25.142612.11344@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Lines: 12
ba...@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Barry Lay) writes:
>I know all of this. What I want is to run Windows stuff under OS/2 1.3. I
>plan to convert my home machine shortly and 2.0 isn't available yet.
Under OS/2 1.x, you can run only one DOS box, and in that DOS box you can
run Windows 3.0 in Real Mode. Not fantastic, but if you absolutely need
to run one (or just maybe two) applications under Windows and you also
want OS/2 "Right Now", it's possible.
I'm not sure if the DOS box under OS/2 1.3 supports EMS or XMS. I know
it didn't under OS/2 1.2. If it supports EMS Windows can run in "large
frame EMS mode", which is not bad.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!microsoft!johnhall
From: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <73761@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 23 Jul 91 22:31:01 GMT
References: <73653@microsoft.UUCP> <1991Jul18.205848.18785@watson.ibm.com>
Reply-To: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 18
In article lar...@watson.ibm.com writes:
| BUT YOU WON'T NEED WLO TO RUN WINDOWS APPLICATIONS!!!!!!!!
| AAAARGH!!!!!!!!! I'm gonna SCREAM the next time I have to say that, or
| that OS/2 2.0 will run Windows in STANDARD MODE!!!!
This pissing contest (it did! it will! vs did not! I doubt it!)
should be resolved, according to IBM, within the next few
weeks (Oct 1 is about 10 weeks away, isn't that the release date?).
I therefore withdraw from this topic and will wait for the
shipping product.
None of my statements were sanctioned by MS.
--
-------------------------
My comments are my own. They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!bywater!arnor!yktvmv!larrys
From: lar...@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul29.113258.7006@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 29 Jul 91 05:30:25 GMT
References: <73761@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: larrys@yktvmv
Reply-To: lar...@watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Research
Lines: 22
News-Software: NewsKit 1.2 - LaMail
Nntp-Posting-Host: ibmman2
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
In <73...@microsoft.UUCP>, johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL) writes:
>
>This pissing contest (it did! it will! vs did not! I doubt it!)
>should be resolved, according to IBM, within the next few
>weeks (Oct 1 is about 10 weeks away, isn't that the release date?).
>
>I therefore withdraw from this topic and will wait for the
>shipping product.
IBM has not announced the release date of OS/2 2.0; the closest thing I
have heard is 4th quarter 1991.
Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LAR...@YKTVMV.BITNET
OS/2 Applications and Tools lar...@ibmman.watson.ibm.com
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center lar...@eng.clemson.edu
Yorktown Heights, NY
Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my
own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a
reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too
seriously.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!microsoft!johnhall
From: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <73883@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jul 91 20:00:37 GMT
References: <1991Jul23.032048.2320@midway.uchicago.edu>
Reply-To: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 22
In article s...@quads.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
| I look forward to hearing your reports. I wasn't too impressed with WLO
| 0.9 -- the applets and 0.9 managed to bring down the Desktop Manager.
| It was most curious -- the only icons left were DOS and Print Manager!
| Try shutting down with that! :-)
WLO 1.0 is not only more robust, but drawing speed is about
2 or 3 times faster than 0.9.
Compuserve has the new applets relinked for WLO 1.0 available
(Yes, that includes Write) and I would encourage you to take
a second look. The system is quite a bit more robust, too.
As for crashing PM to the state where only DOS and Print Manager
are available, it turns out that this is ridiculously easy to
do.
--
-------------------------
My comments are my own. They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!
news-server.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu!wayne
From: wa...@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul29.223554.11594@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: 30 Jul 91 02:35:54 GMT
References: <1991Jul23.032048.2320@midway.uchicago.edu> <73883@microsoft.UUCP>
Lines: 27
johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL) writes:
>As for crashing PM to the state where only DOS and Print Manager
>are available, it turns out that this is ridiculously easy to
>do.
Oh, come now, John. Define "ridiculously easy". You mean as easy as it
is to crash Windows 3.0, even in 386 "enhanced" mode?
Once you've found a way to do it, sure, it's "easy". (Ask a mathematician:
any conjecture that follows directly from a proved theorem is defined as
"trivial", but that doesn't mean it's "easy" for someone who doesn't know
the theorem.) I've used OS/2 1.1, 1.2, and now Beta 2.0. Had you asked
me what I thought of OS/2 1.2 when I was using it about a year ago as
a co-op at IBM, I would've drawn a deep breath, turned red, and started
screaming a list of things that I absolutely hated about OS/2 1.2. Among
that list you would *not* have found "unstable Operating System." (BTW,
most of the things I hated in OS/2 1.2 have been fixed in 2.0, so that
even though I hated 1.2 so much that I transfered to an AIX dept, I
now have 2.0 installed *at home*, in place of a 386 Unix I was planning
to install.)
Anyway, none of OS/2 1.1, 1.2, or 2.0 that I've used have been unstable;
I've used and programmed under PM and Windows, and I'd say PM is at
least an order of magnitude more stable than Windows.
People in papier mache houses with pretty, shiny steel floors and bails of
hay stacked all round shouldn't throw flint rocks, John.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!midway!quads.uchicago.edu!sip1
From: s...@quads.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul30.015231.27536@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 30 Jul 91 01:52:31 GMT
References: <1991Jul23.032048.2320@midway.uchicago.edu> <73883@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: n...@midway.uchicago.edu (NewsMistress)
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 27
In article <73...@microsoft.UUCP> johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL) writes:
>WLO 1.0 is not only more robust, but drawing speed is about
>2 or 3 times faster than 0.9.
>
>Compuserve has the new applets relinked for WLO 1.0 available
>(Yes, that includes Write) and I would encourage you to take
>a second look. The system is quite a bit more robust, too.
I think I will take a second look. Does anyone know of an FTP site where
these are available?
>As for crashing PM to the state where only DOS and Print Manager
>are available, it turns out that this is ridiculously easy to
>do.
Do you have any specific ideas on how to do this (from a user standpoint)
so that I may try and avoid it?
>My comments are my own. They are independent and unrelated to the
>views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
I see.
Thanks.
T.F.S.
Timothy F. Sipples s...@quads.uchicago.edu
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!bywater!arnor!yktvmv!larrys
From: lar...@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul30.162148.5811@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 30 Jul 91 10:17:34 GMT
References: <73883@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: larrys@yktvmv
Reply-To: lar...@watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Research
Lines: 23
News-Software: NewsKit 1.2 - LaMail
Nntp-Posting-Host: ibmman2
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
Oh, I can't resist. I feel like a chocaholic walking by a candy store.
In <73...@microsoft.UUCP>, johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL) writes:
>
>As for crashing PM to the state where only DOS and Print Manager
>are available, it turns out that this is ridiculously easy to
>do.
Gee, I must be real stupid, then, since I've never had this happen in the
3 years that I've used OS/2.
Comment on my intelligence at your own risk. ;) (Snarfle snarfle)
Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LAR...@YKTVMV.BITNET
OS/2 Applications and Tools lar...@ibmman.watson.ibm.com
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center lar...@eng.clemson.edu
Yorktown Heights, NY
Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my
own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a
reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too
seriously.
Path: gmdzi!unido!unidui!math.fu-berlin.de!mailgzrz!opal!fauern!ira.uka.de!
sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!midway!
quads.uchicago.edu!sip1
From: s...@quads.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Jul30.194842.5180@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 30 Jul 91 19:48:42 GMT
References: <73883@microsoft.UUCP> <1991Jul30.162148.5811@watson.ibm.com>
Sender: n...@midway.uchicago.edu (NewsMistress)
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 34
In article <1991Jul30.162148.5...@watson.ibm.com> lar...@watson.ibm.com writes:
>Oh, I can't resist. I feel like a chocaholic walking by a candy store.
>
>In <73...@microsoft.UUCP>, johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL) writes:
>>
>>As for crashing PM to the state where only DOS and Print Manager
>>are available, it turns out that this is ridiculously easy to
>>do.
>
>Gee, I must be real stupid, then, since I've never had this happen in the
>3 years that I've used OS/2.
>
>Comment on my intelligence at your own risk. ;) (Snarfle snarfle)
>
>Cheers,
>Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LAR...@YKTVMV.BITNET
Just to remind everyone: this thread began with my observation that
(Microsoft) WLO 0.9 (in all fairness, a beta release) was extremely
unstable and that I was looking forward to the 1.0 release. (Microsoft)
WLO 0.9 managed to bring my system to the point where I had two icons/windows
left on the PM screen: DOS and the Print Manager.
I have been unable to duplicate this happening. But then again I haven't
run (Microsoft) WLO 0.9 again.
No operating system can protect against every buggy program, although
I hasten to add that OS/2 does a pretty darn good job. It may be easy to
crash the most advanced mainframe operating system with bad code, but that
certainly doesn't mean we toss out the operating system. Usually it
means we toss out the bad code. And sometimes the programmer. :-)
T.F.S.
Timothy F. Sipples s...@quads.uchicago.edu
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!microsoft!johnhall
From: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <74121@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 11 Aug 91 00:31:17 GMT
References: <73883@microsoft.UUCP> <1991Jul30.162148.5811@watson.ibm.com>
Reply-To: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 24
In article lar...@watson.ibm.com writes:
| In <73...@microsoft.UUCP>, johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL) writes:
| >
| >As for crashing PM to the state where only DOS and Print Manager
| >are available, it turns out that this is ridiculously easy to
| >do.
|
| Gee, I must be real stupid, then, since I've never had this happen in the
| 3 years that I've used OS/2.
You have been programming in PM for three years and never done
this?
I have done it a lot of times in the past two years. It does
not take a programming mistake to cause. [Mistake
defined as: the doc didn't say you couldn't, and you had
a reason for doing it].
--
-------------------------
My comments are my own. They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!microsoft!johnhall
From: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <74123@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 11 Aug 91 01:29:06 GMT
References: <73883@microsoft.UUCP> <1991Jul30.162148.5811@watson.ibm.com>
<1991Jul30.194842.5180@midway.uchicago.edu>
Reply-To: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 34
In article s...@quads.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
| No operating system can protect against every buggy program, although
| I hasten to add that OS/2 does a pretty darn good job. It may be easy to
| crash the most advanced mainframe operating system with bad code, but that
| certainly doesn't mean we toss out the operating system. Usually it
| means we toss out the bad code. And sometimes the programmer. :-)
When something calls itself a 'real' operating system I expect
certain things. Amoung those things is a requirement that it
be nearly impossible for a user level program to bring the
system down or render it inoperable.
An advanced mainframe OS that was easy to crash with bad code
*should and would* be tossed out. An advanced mainframe OS
is built to be resistant to knowledgeable attack, let alone
innocent error.
Most users look at (OS/2 and PM) as a package. If PM crashes,
the system is unusable. A 'pretty darn good job' compared to
what? Since OS/2 is supposed to be a real OS the proper
comparison is with DecWindows/VMS, Apollo, HP, Sun/News,
and anything running X. All of these claim to be real
OS's, and all run windowing environments. All of these
systems are older than OS/2 and PM. They are targeted
at the same class of machines. It would be reasonable
for a customer to require OS/2 be as robust as these
environments.
--
-------------------------
My comments are my own. They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
Path: gmdzi!unido!fauern!NewsServ!rommel
From: rom...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Aug11.075348.13472@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
Date: 11 Aug 91 07:53:48 GMT
References: <1991Jul30.162148.5811@watson.ibm.com>
<1991Jul30.194842.5180@midway.uchicago.edu> <74123@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: n...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (News System)
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Lines: 54
In article <74...@microsoft.UUCP> johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL) writes:
>When something calls itself a 'real' operating system I expect
>certain things. Amoung those things is a requirement that it
>be nearly impossible for a user level program to bring the
>system down or render it inoperable.
>
>Most users look at (OS/2 and PM) as a package. If PM crashes,
>the system is unusable. A 'pretty darn good job' compared to
>what? Since OS/2 is supposed to be a real OS the proper
>comparison is with DecWindows/VMS, Apollo, HP, Sun/News,
>and anything running X. All of these claim to be real
>OS's, and all run windowing environments. All of these
>systems are older than OS/2 and PM. They are targeted
>at the same class of machines. It would be reasonable
>for a customer to require OS/2 be as robust as these
>environments.
Come on, I have the feeling that you wan't us to turn away from the non
existent stability of MS-Windows by making us believe of some kind of
instability of PM which you suggest artificially here. I don't like it
that MS people who become frustrated by the current market development
and the decisions of their leaders, try this. MS is angry that there
seems to be a chance that OS/2 becomes a success (this has not yet
proved) just when they turned away from it and their code is now owned
by IBM (nobody is flaming MS for delivering bad code but only for wrong
market decisions and strategies).
Yes, I have also been able to crash PM during the past, and it's just
easy - BUT: I have only been able to do it with CodeView, a program that
has IOPL and was written by Microsoft itself, so please be careful with
your statements ...
And the fact that CV can do this lies in the design of PM, of beeing
message-driven but having preemptive multitasking. If CV stops a PM
program at the wrong point, PM hangs. This is due to the fact that CV is
itself a client of the base OS. Under Windows, CV simply and brutally
stops Windows and in fact debugs the whole system, so it cannot hang on
a breakpoint in an important message (because there is no system-enforced
time limit on message-handling as under OS/2, I mean the box saying:
"Program not responding to system messages ...").
But all these things cannot hide the fact that OS/2 is about an order of
magnitude more stable than Windows 3.0 is.
Please don't take this as a personal attack against you. You have
contributed much useful information to us in this news group during the
last time but your last few articles are just not objective.
Kai Uwe Rommel
/* Kai Uwe Rommel, Munich ----- rom...@informatik.tu-muenchen.de */
DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be. -Russell Williams
Path: gmdzi!unido!ira.uka.de!fauern!NewsServ!rommel
From: rom...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Aug11.080224.13574@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
Date: 11 Aug 91 08:02:24 GMT
References: <1991Jul30.194842.5180@midway.uchicago.edu> <74123@microsoft.UUCP>
<1991Aug11.075348.13472@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
Sender: n...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (News System)
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Lines: 32
In article <1991Aug11.075348.13...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
rom...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
(that was me)
>In article <74...@microsoft.UUCP> johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL) writes:
>>what? Since OS/2 is supposed to be a real OS the proper
>>comparison is with DecWindows/VMS, Apollo, HP, Sun/News,
>>and anything running X. All of these claim to be real
>>OS's, and all run windowing environments. All of these
>>systems are older than OS/2 and PM. They are targeted
>>at the same class of machines. It would be reasonable
>>for a customer to require OS/2 be as robust as these
>>environments.
...
>But all these things cannot hide the fact that OS/2 is about an order of
>magnitude more stable than Windows 3.0 is.
And I forgot this: I have tested SCO Unix on a '386 some time ago and I
often work with DECstation's (MIPS CPU) and Ultrix, X11R4. Both systems
have their daily problems too (and there are a lot of people at the
university dedicated to maintaining them !) and crash perhaps every
other day (may be not that often, but definitely more often than my home
OS/2 system does, which also runs about 8 hours a day most of the time
and on which I often do development work).
Conclusion: OS/2 can easily compete with workstation OS's on reliability
and stability.
Kai Uwe Rommel
/* Kai Uwe Rommel, Munich ----- rom...@informatik.tu-muenchen.de */
DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be. -Russell Williams
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!bywater!arnor!news
From: marg...@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Aug11.173028.8828@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 11 Aug 91 17:30:28 GMT
Sender: n...@watson.ibm.com (NNTP News Poster)
Reply-To: marg...@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Lines: 13
Nntp-Posting-Host: waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
In <74...@microsoft.UUCP> johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL) writes:
> Since OS/2 is supposed to be a real OS the proper
> comparison is with DecWindows/VMS, Apollo, HP, Sun/News,
> and anything running X. All of these claim to be real
> OS's, and all run windowing environments.
Are you claiming that all those operating systems are immune to being crashed
by a user program written by a knowledgeable system programmer trying to crash
the system? Immune to being crashed by a buggy systems debugger running with
privileges (like Microsoft's Codeview)? If so, I think you're wrong. If not,
what's your point? (Besides trying to spread FUD.)
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI at YKTVMV (bitnet), marg...@watson.IBM.com (csnet)
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!bywater!arnor!yktvmv!larrys
From: lar...@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Aug12.135647.1741@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 12 Aug 91 07:49:14 GMT
References: <74121@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: larrys@yktvmv
Reply-To: lar...@watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Watson OS/2 Applications and Tools
Lines: 29
News-Software: NewsKit 1.2 - LaMail
Nntp-Posting-Host: ibmman2
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
In <74...@microsoft.UUCP>, johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL) writes:
>
>In article lar...@watson.ibm.com writes:
>| In <73...@microsoft.UUCP>, johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL) writes:
>| >
>| >As for crashing PM to the state where only DOS and Print Manager
>| >are available, it turns out that this is ridiculously easy to
>| >do.
>|
>| Gee, I must be real stupid, then, since I've never had this happen in the
>| 3 years that I've used OS/2.
>
>You have been programming in PM for three years and never done
>this?
>
>I have done it a lot of times in the past two years. It does
>not take a programming mistake to cause. [Mistake
>defined as: the doc didn't say you couldn't, and you had
>a reason for doing it].
Maybe it's because my PM programs are sufficiently well-written to not
crash and burn? :) (I couldn't resist this. Just kidding,
John!!!!!!!!!)
Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LAR...@YKTVMV.BITNET
OS/2 Applications and Tools lar...@ibmman.watson.ibm.com
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center lar...@eng.clemson.edu
Yorktown Heights, NY
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!bywater!arnor!yktvmv!larrys
From: lar...@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <1991Aug12.140534.2512@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 12 Aug 91 07:51:50 GMT
References: <74123@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: larrys@yktvmv
Reply-To: lar...@watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Watson OS/2 Applications and Tools
Lines: 43
News-Software: NewsKit 1.2 - LaMail
Nntp-Posting-Host: ibmman2
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
In <74...@microsoft.UUCP>, johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL) writes:
>When something calls itself a 'real' operating system I expect
>certain things. Amoung those things is a requirement that it
>be nearly impossible for a user level program to bring the
>system down or render it inoperable.
>
>An advanced mainframe OS that was easy to crash with bad code
>*should and would* be tossed out. An advanced mainframe OS
>is built to be resistant to knowledgeable attack, let alone
>innocent error.
(Sigh) How come USENET is always behind by about 4 days from our internal
conferences...
This is being/has been hashed out inside IBM. The comment that was made
by a former VM systems programmer was that VM can be brought down quite
easily by overloading the spooler (can you say CHRISTMA EXEC?), yet VM
has been and continues to be a VERY popular mainframe operating system.
So, since VM hasn't been tossed out, even though (according to you) it
"*should and would* be", I'm going to take the rest of your comments with
a grain of salt.
Note that when the DevIOCTLs to the system device drivers are document
(in the "Device Drivers and I/O Subsystems" manual), it makes it quite
easy to trash the system. Or how about the "PSTAT" command that shows
what shared memory is currently allocated allowing me to write a simple
program which does a DosGetShrSeg and trash the system. It is no wonder
that Steve Balmer (sp?) was able to trash OS/2 2.0. However, I find it
no surprise that he would not leave the machine or give the source code
to the application he demonstrated.
If, as a programmer, you have any sense at all, you won't go writing
applications that do blind DosDevIOCTLs or write to shared segments you
have no business writing to, unless you have lost your marbles...
...Hey! That's a novel thought! :)
Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LAR...@YKTVMV.BITNET
OS/2 Applications and Tools lar...@ibmman.watson.ibm.com
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center lar...@eng.clemson.edu
Yorktown Heights, NY
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!microsoft!johnhall
From: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <74150@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 12 Aug 91 23:52:51 GMT
References: <1991Jul30.194842.5180@midway.uchicago.edu> <74123@microsoft.UUCP>
<1991Aug11.075348.13472@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
<1991Aug11.080224.13574@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
Reply-To: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 19
In article rom...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
| >In article johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL) writes:
| >>It would be reasonable
| >>for a customer to require OS/2 be as robust as these
| >>environments.
| And I forgot this: I have tested SCO Unix on a '386 some time ago and I
| often work with DECstation's (MIPS CPU) and Ultrix, X11R4.
| Conclusion: OS/2 can easily compete with workstation OS's on reliability
| and stability.
That is the standard OS/2 should be held to. Honest people
may differ on how well it meets that standard. Perhaps
my experience with X11 systems was insufficient to teach me
how to bring it down.
--
-------------------------
My comments are my own. They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!microsoft!johnhall
From: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <74148@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 12 Aug 91 23:47:07 GMT
References: <1991Jul30.162148.5811@watson.ibm.com>
<1991Jul30.194842.5180@midway.uchicago.edu> <74123@microsoft.UUCP>
<1991Aug11.075348.13472@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
Reply-To: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 45
In article rom...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
| In article johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL) writes:
| >When something calls itself a 'real' operating system I expect
| >certain things. Amoung those things is a requirement that it
| >be nearly impossible for a user level program to bring the
| >system down or render it inoperable.
| Come on, I have the feeling that you wan't us to turn away from the non
| existent stability of MS-Windows by making us believe of some kind of
| instability of PM which you suggest artificially here.
I do not wish to hide the stability problems of Windows. From a
computer science standpoint, I expect more out of OS/2 && PM than
I do out of Dos && Windows. The former claims to be a 'real'
OS and the latter never did. When Win32 && NT become available
a direct comparison would be appropriate.
| I don't like it that MS people who become frustrated by
| the current market development and the decisions of their
| leaders, try this.
I am not frustrated by MS's direction. They have everything
right from my perspective, and the stock hit an all-time high
today.
| Yes, I have also been able to crash PM during the past, and it's just
| easy - BUT: I have only been able to do it with CodeView, a program that
| has IOPL and was written by Microsoft itself, so please be careful with
| your statements ...
Play around with inter-process messages and message queue
serialization.
| And the fact that CV can do this lies in the design of PM, of beeing
| message-driven but having preemptive multitasking. If CV stops a PM
| program at the wrong point, PM hangs.
Other systems are message driven and don't have this problem. One
of the biggest advantages to Win32 will be the elimination of this
problem.
--
-------------------------
My comments are my own. They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!microsoft!johnhall
From: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Message-ID: <74151@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 13 Aug 91 00:02:07 GMT
References: <1991Aug11.173028.8828@watson.ibm.com>
Reply-To: johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 24
In article marg...@watson.IBM.com writes:
| In <74...@microsoft.UUCP> johnh...@microsoft.UUCP (John HALL) writes:
| > Since OS/2 is supposed to be a real OS the proper
| > comparison is with DecWindows/VMS, Apollo, HP, Sun/News,
| > and anything running X. All of these claim to be real
| > OS's, and all run windowing environments.
|
| Are you claiming that all those operating systems are immune to being crashed
| by a user program written by a knowledgeable system programmer trying to crash
| the system? Immune to being crashed by a buggy systems debugger running with
| privileges (like Microsoft's Codeview)? If so, I think you're wrong. If not,
| what's your point? (Besides trying to spread FUD.)
My experience is that those systems are more resiliant. I admit
that different people have different experiences and viewpoints.
I would choose the adjective 'less susceptible' rather than
'immune'.
--
-------------------------
My comments are my own. They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.