Development, round II

From: Hotze <photze_at_batelco.com.bh>
Date: Sat Jan 31 11:06:21 1998

>>Warp Connect was _not_ OS/2 4.0, it was still 3.x as was Merlin (I
>>haven't bought it yet, the local stores no longer bother with IBM at
>>all and I don't mail order software). OS/2 2.x was _just_ OS/2, the
>OK - I stand corrected. BTW Fry's in the SF bay area has been selling
>OS/2 4.0 for quite a while.
Yes, but there is OS/2 Warp 4.0 Connect (or Connect 4.0), which has even
more internet functions.
>>name Warp arrived with 3.0. I don't know what rumour mill came up
>>with the "Borg" name, but it's total bullshit -- OS/2 predates that
>>Trek concept by several years.
>That too is what I thought (I don't follow Trek things at all).
The Borg were introduced in a single episode in 1988 or 1989.
>!> *for the curious: system requirements on the box for Warp 3.0 were
listed as
>!> "Intel 386 SX-compatible of higher; 4 MB minimum of RAM" (<- widely
regarded
>!> as a joke among OS/2 users who knew that 8 MB RAM was a minimally
configured
>!> system).
>!Runs better than Windows 3.1 on a 386/25 with 4 Meg RAM. I assume
>!the above quote was pasted from from somewhere, because you've never
>!used it (OS/2) yourself. Remember, Windows 95 supposedly can run on a
>!4MB system, says my package.
>I ran OS/2 v. 2 on a friends system (and helped him with the memory upgrade
>from 16 to 32 meg). I also ran the Rexx gopher server on version 3 (Warp)
>on a system with 16 Megs of RAM. I never ran Windows 3.1 or Windows 95
>on either machine so I cannot make a direct comparison (Win NT 3.51 was
>running on the latter machine long enough to allow setting up the OS/2
>installation). We also played around with the Voice control on a beta
>release of Merlin (thanks for reminding me of the code name) but that
machine
>was eventually pressed into service running NT (I never saw it after that).
>The advice of "you should have more than 4 MB RAM" was taken from my friend
>(who is still quite the OS/2 zealot) and I thought that I had read it in
the
>paperback version of the OS/2 FAQ as well - but I could easily be mistaken
>about that latter source. I am quite glad to hear that your performance
>was so good with only 4 MB - great OS isn't it?
Actually, OS/2 is pretty good. The only problem is the price: $200 for a
standard package. I think that the 4MB thing comes from a VERY BASIC
INSTALL.
    Now, if I could see the OS/2 Warp Server with Windows NT 4.0 (or 5.0!)
support, and the OS/2 Warp with Windows 95 (or 98) support, and have a 10%
or better performance increase, that would probably get some heads turned,
to say the least.
    Another great thing is 4.0's *standard* voice support. That (should)
make(s) it popular in the disabled market.
    Ciao,

Tim D. Hotze
Received on Sat Jan 31 1998 - 11:06:21 GMT