eComStation 1.1 Entry Edition Review 176
Gentu writes "OSNews reviews the latest incarnation of the legendary OS/2, eComStation 1.1 Entry Edition. The product was released less than a month ago, after a 1.5 years gap of the original 1.0 eCS version. The Serenity Systems guy seems to have overhaul the installation procedure, but not always with the best results."
You know youv'e made it (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You know youv'e made it (Score:1)
Remember desktop.com? (Score:2)
Uh (Score:1, Funny)
Yea, let me get in line.
Re:Uh (Score:2, Flamebait)
Apple seems to be doing okay on that business model. [apple.com] Unless all that stuff I read about on slashdot about BSD being dead wasn't true.
Nostalgia (Score:5, Interesting)
I installed eCS recently to revel in the computing bliss that was OS/2, only to find out that what was cool 8 years ago, isn't all that cool anymore. Oh well.
Re:Nostalgia (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's quite fair to change your opinion that it was "a really great OS" based on trying it 8 years later and finding it lacking.
Show me *any* OS that doesn't get updated or supported with new drivers for 8 years and still offers a user-friendly and pleasing experience when it's installed on modern hardware!
If anything, I think it's a testament to the quality put into OS/2 that people do still run it (on older hardware) in production environments, and at least a few people cared enough about it to try to keep it alive (as e/Comstation).
Ultimately though, this product was dead as soon as IBM declared it so. They only half-heartedly tried to get 3rd. parties to support the thing, even in its heyday. (IBM was trying to walk a thin line between pushing OS/2 and kissing Microsoft's butt. They still sold a lot of IBM servers with Windows NT workstation or server pre-loaded on them, don't forget!) Most vendors were probably somewhat happy to hear of OS/2's demise. One less thing to have to keep developing drivers for.....
Re:Nostalgia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nostalgia (Score:1)
Re:Nostalgia (Score:2)
But for me Linux had its advantages over it, being actively developed, more tighly integrated with internet, more flexible in general, and free (as a beer and as a bird). Would
Re:Nostalgia (Score:2)
Look at those Screen Shots! (Score:5, Funny)
Ring.... Ring....
Hello?
This is 1991.... we'd like our Icons back.
Anyways... it *is* good to see OS/2 suport. I imagin that there are a few compaines that are very happy to use OS/2 and have the ability to keep deploying it - they probably have a lot of software that woulden't work on anything else.
That's one of the best features of Free Software - you don't *have* to upgreade if you don't want to - you can keep deploying to your heart's content.
Can you even *pay* Mirocosoft to sell you a copy of Win 3.11 ? You can't - they *force* you stay on the upgrade treadmill.
Re:Look at those Screen Shots! (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, you can. I can download Windows 3.11 and even Windows 3.12 (Asian language thing, I think) with my MSDN subscription. I still have clients with Windows 3.1 in use where it just isn't feasable to upgrade. Getting support for it on the other hand...
Re:Look at those Screen Shots! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Look at those Screen Shots! (Score:2)
Only if you sign up with one of theircoporate contracts. A retail copy of Windows XP can't be downgraded to Windows 3.11.
We actually asked them to let us use Office 2000 with a Office XP licence, and they told us to sign a licencing contract or piss off. Our next upgrade will be to OpenOffice 1.2 (when that comes out in a year or two.)
well i'll be damned. (Score:1)
on the other hand, feeling sorry for microsoft???? i feel guilty for feeling sorry that i ripped off microsoft for a little. hm. *wonders how much money it would take to get on this list..*
Seriously. File Manager! Adobe Type Manager! (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Look at those Screen Shots! (Score:1)
Re:Look at those Screen Shots! (Score:1)
Re:Look at those Screen Shots! (Score:1)
You can't - they *force* you stay on the upgrade treadmill.
Yes, by holding Microsoft Gun to your head.
Re:Look at those Screen Shots! (Score:1)
Hello?
This is 1991.... we'd like our Icons back.
Hmmm, ok, I love linux and the bsds, I use them almost exclusively for day to day work - i even finally wiped out my win partition - but you gotta admit, those icons aren't so different from those offered by popular window managers that run on the operating systems most favored by the crowd around here.
Re:Look at those Screen Shots! (Score:2)
Give Mandrake 9.1 a try and install it with the "Galaxy" theme unde KDE. It's darn nice - I've had a few office people come by and wonder what it was.
(It's been darn stable for a desktop OS - but I still would recomend *BSD for servers...)
OS2.. erm.. (Score:1)
might be a nice little OS for old computers but we have linux for that.. dunno what these ppl are trying to do..
Re:OS2.. erm.. (Score:2)
If IBM released OS/2 as open source, both Windows AND linux would rapidly become hobby software.
Re:OS2.. erm.. (Score:1)
I'll be honest I'll go to my scrap pile and build me a box and Install OS/2 and OpenWatcom immediatly if it goes open source, but my laptop would stay linux and my servers would remain OpenBSD. And lets be honest with all the GNU tools already available for Warp my box would quickly become a unix box with a propietary GUI.
Re:OS2.. erm.. (Score:2)
I wouldn't worry too much about Bill making IBM quit, either... The Armonk boys made more money in the 60's and 70's than Microsoft will probably ever make. I think.
Re:OS2.. erm.. (Score:2)
I don't think your trying to start a flame war here, but I definatly think Linux has moved beyond niche/hobby OS. I'd hardly call the server market and the embedded market niches, and if so no more than the desktop market. I guess its a matter of opinion when a niche becomes a major market segment.
I don't think OS/2 becoming Open source would send make a big dent in the windows marketshare. Sure its a great OS, but so is OSX, Beos and a default SuSE install. Ap
Can't and Won't (Score:2)
True. Part of the 16-bit OS/2 1.x was done by MS. (Score:1)
More to the point, the major selling points of OS/2 (the Virtual DOS Machines, WinOS2 support, and the WorkPlace Shell) were IBM contributions (Microsoft wrote Windows 3.1, but IBM made it run as a DMPI client, tweaked the video to run seamlessls on the PM desktop, etc.)
Stupid name (Score:3, Flamebait)
Re:Stupid name (Score:2)
Hmm... advertisement on top says "OS/2 3.0 for 12 bucks." I'd love a hobbyist-priced OS/2 package (I'd throw 20 bucks at it for the latest version, but last I looked, the actual packages available are ~USD 200)
Legacy Sailor Moon Apps?! (Score:2, Funny)
Oops..I forgot this is slashdot..
Yeah! (Score:3, Funny)
Oh wait. You say VMWare won't run OS/2. That's right...
Re:Yeah! (Score:3, Informative)
Anyhow, I am running OS/2 Warp 4 on VirtualPC no problem here.
WMWare *had* a beta version which ran OS/2... (Score:1)
But VirtualPC does run on OS/2 (Score:2)
Re:But VirtualPC does run on OS/2 (Score:2)
There is much scientific software that runs on OS/2, and it would be just too slow to use in an emulated CPU. VMWare is almost as fast as your host CPU is. It's really quite impressive.
Is that true of the x86 version as well? (Score:1)
Not all CPU emulation in software is too slow to be useful, BTW. For a good example of that, see Executor here: [ardi.com]
Re:Is that true of the x86 version as well? (Score:2)
BSD? (Score:2)
tough install? No problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
A difficult/buggy install should not hold this software back if it's worth using. I had the same problem with win2k once. Damn thing's fdisk just would not work right. I only wasted two hours on known good hardware before I gave up and installed Red Hat on it. Vendors and OEMs can get the help they need, obviously.
OS/2 users should move down the upgrade train for this one. Those screens shots are beautiful. Nice and clean, ah. Ease of use. Did 1.0 even have Mozilla? That alone would justify the cost for your users. I imagine that this will run on the same old hardware too, whereas windblows whatever will only install on the latest and greatest and you might as well jump to free software at that rate.
Me, I'll just stick with free software that I can fix. Who'da thunk it? "Easy to use software" is not as easy to install as supposedly difficult software. I can get the same good clean looks from OLVWM, but I prefer the beauty of Window Maker. Debian's hardware compatibility is just as good or better, and what other OS can you get to run reasonably on a P90 with 24 MB of RAM these days? Then again, I don't have any OS/2 softare sitting around besides two ancient compilers I got from a dumpster.
Re:tough install? No problem. (Score:2)
A difficult/buggy install should not hold this software back if it's worth using
My biggest bitch and Love against OS/2 has always been that its too hardware dependent. If you have crappy ram for instance (or a mix of different speeds) your install will always crap out. Once it installs though it's rock solid.
Enjoy,
Re:tough install? No problem. (Score:2)
What's your more elaborated opinion on this? I've heard so many reviews, and so many opinions on how Linux is so hard to install, etc., etc. But it's not like you turn on your computer, install an OS, use it, shut down, and have to restart the entire routine all over again. I find that a truly great OS is one that doesn't necessarily accentuate the ease of install -- once it's installed, it's installed for good.
It doesn't
Re:tough install? No problem. (Score:2)
What's Microsoft's excuse?
other reviews and links (Score:2, Informative)
has a nice review of eComStation 1.1
It has been years since I've visited the os2ezine. I be the the slashdotting does them good! I doubt an os/2 site has gotten this much traffic since....wait..its err os/2 nevermind.
OS/2 Taught me what a true OS was to be. (Score:5, Interesting)
I could rip the gui off and install a 3rd party shell manager, i could install a command line shell/task switcher, i could extend the desktop, i could replace system objects and i could use modular file systems and much much more. It was just a "theme" or hack, it was extending the framework.. something unique even to this day!
Sure back in the 2.0 and 2.11 days running Windows Apps was an extra bonus, but i didn't bother with it other then saying "cool".
I was too busy bugging Mustang software to port wildcat! pro over, after they failed i jumped ship to PcBoard 15 and then eventually adopted synchronet all of which ran beautifully under OS/2 and still let me play my Sierra Games, surf the web and listen to my S3M's, MOD's and watch my future crew demos and chat online..
OS/2 Replaced DESQview 386 & Qemm as a stable and very nice MULTITASKING os. I was sure as hell glad when i finally got a CDROM as pushing floppies during install sucked ass. I had to upgrade to 16 megs of memory, but back then that was alot cheaper then pilling up multiple computers and running netware!!
But the golden era started when OS/2 Connect Came out. OS/2 connect taught me what networking was about. OS/2 connect gave me my first run into the world of TCP/IP, Netbios, and netware (had to install the OS/2 netware client to join up with my other machines for playing Doom!) I was able to run my BBS and have a 19.2 modem connection to the internet and it all worked through the magic SIO comm driver replacements. Runnning DOS doors, IRC chats, Usenet gateways and UUCP feeds, i was the baddest 15 year old running an BBS/ISP.
Not to mention i was a part of TeamOS/2, getting free shirts, visiting conferences and getting published in books! Remember those OS/2 unleashed books? I'm there
Everything started to peak at OS/2 warp 3.0.. for a while there was even 3rd party software at the store. Object desktop was showing the power of object oriented desktop and the gui/workplace shell and days were looking good.
Then came... OS/2 Warp 4.0 with its 179.00+ upgrade and 299.00 base fee.. NT 4.0 was now out and pushing for...uhm.. FREE on any PC you bought that day.. basically putting the nail in the coffin.
I ran OS/2 warp 4.0 for a while longer and then switched to Linux and NT myself.. Linux was finally coming of age and after being the first BBS in houston to offer linux for download i (12 floppies mang) i chose to convert myself.
BBS Scene died, had to spend more time in school, got a job and ended up working my way up through the internet world and now work as an oracle guru..
funny how OS/2 started it all for me. Nice to see some of that still alive. Visit OS2.org and say high! There is even a port of Wine to run windows apps emulated/native on OS/2 and much much more..
amazingly, driver support is still doing well. IBM *STILL* sells OS/2.. its just called "WorkPlace OS" now.
Re:OS/2 Taught me what a true OS was to be. (Score:2)
And how is this different from GNU/Linux or *BSD?
One diff: OS/2 existed in workable form in 1992. (Score:1)
OS/2 was also almost completely backwards-compatible to the DOS and Windows systems of the time (and that it was directly) intended to replace), providing a level of functionality that Linux still can't realistically provide even with DOSEMU, Wine, and friends...
Re:One diff: OS/2 existed in workable form in 1992 (Score:2)
Agreed, but you talked about today as well.
First, IBM has the PC-DOS and MS W16 source code. Second, GNU/Linux is intended to be POSIX, not MS-W32 compatible. Third, GNU/Linux made the option for robustness; backwards compatibility with MS-DOS and MS-Win has seriously damaged IBM OS/2 and MS-WNT.
Re:One diff: OS/2 existed in workable form in 1992 (Score:1)
> has seriously damaged IBM OS/2 and MS-WNT.
How so? An OS/2 VDM has many more settings than the stripped-down functionality found in WinNT, and an OS/2 VDM can be locked down to the point where the software running inside a VDM process can have very little adverse impact on the rest of the system.
If one wants to enable direct access to things like the soundcard, etc., one can do so, but one has to *explicitly* enable that in the VDM's settings.
In oth
Re:One diff: OS/2 existed in workable form in 1992 (Score:2)
In one word, complexity.
In free software POSIX systems, Wine and DOSEMU are separate projects, contained far away from the basic system. And POSIX evolved along years, with a nice design that took security, performance, resources consumption, extensibility, network and multiuser capabilities into account. Not only the MS Win, IBM OS/2 and MS-DOS family of systems, being derived from CP/M, never saw such thoroughout engineering, growing slowly by accretion, it made things worse by backward
Re:BTW, Linux *could* implement OS/2 VDMs... (Score:2)
Isn't Plex86 or VMWare what you want?
Anyway, for me this is historical. The only thing I am lacking from the proprietary world is a little bit of polish and a Flash Player. Everything else I can have in my GNU iBo
OS X is close (Score:2)
Being a former BBS Sysop as well as a former OS/2 user (they kind of go hand in hand) I feel your pain.
Lately I've been using Mac OS X and I totally love it. There are, of course, some differences such as usable 2-button mouse vs. 1-button mouse. However, for the most part I feel the same spirit that IBM put into OS/2, Apple has put into Mac OS X. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that OS X derives directly from NeXT. Another factor is that OS/2 always was like a really powerful MacOS (classi
REXX support? (Score:1)
I remember the Amiga had a version of this too... ARexx! Very useful back in the day.
Re:REXX support? (Score:1)
Re:REXX support? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:REXX support? (Score:1)
About the Amiga...well IBM traded the REXX for some of the AmigaOS GUI stuff.
Ported to Linux quite a while ago (Score:1)
among other platforms.
Check it out here [sourceforge.net]
Here is another good link [rexxla.org] if you're sufficiently interested.
REXX trivia... (Score:2)
The Amiga got it's REXX implementation from IBM in trade for the Workbench architecture. Yes, that means that Presentation Manager is a decendent of Workbench...
I've often wondered if OS/2's struggle to survive is a result of it getting touched with the Amiga curse?
Lacking one major feature (Score:1, Insightful)
This is useless to me without support for IPv6. I bet it has decent support for MCA adapters at least.
THIS (Score:5, Interesting)
WTF is it so damned hard for the Open Source community to come up with something like the WPS, which is arguably the most efficient interface in existence...and it ran FINE on a 486 with 8MB of ram???
Nautilus? Give me a fscking break!
Re:THIS (Score:3)
There is a reason X is being forked. Xf86 is the worst X implementation on the market. Its really really bad. Go look under last weeks news for the unix haters manual story? Read the X section of the Unix Haters manual? shudder.
Believe it or not commercial and proprietary versions of X can run in 8 megs of ram without a problem with true type and anti-aligned fonts.
Xf86 takes 16 megs of ram to handle these newer fonts while other version can do it with 1 meg. pathetic
Re:THIS (Score:2)
If your market only includes SGI's X server and XFree86, this might be a true statement.
They certainly can't ALL do that. SGI, Sun, and SCO don't ship new X servers that can do that, so I'm sort of curious which ones you're talking about.
Re:THIS (Score:1)
Re:THIS (Score:1)
A quick list of possible WPS advantages... (Score:2, Informative)
* Individual icons or groups of icons can be Locked to the desktop (becoming immune from future Arrange actions) and Unlocked for later moving.
* Each desktop shadow (shortcut/alias) has an item in its context menu called "Locate Paren
Oh, the nostalgia... (Score:2, Interesting)
Even now that I have happily switched over to Linux and KDE, I find that there's one feature t
*Sigh* (Score:1)
NR/2 (Score:2)
Re:NR/2 (Score:1)
NR/2 Was pertty horrible, didn't support message threading and had a number of other problems
...and one of the best offline newsreaders (Yarn). (Score:1)
Who installs that OS? (Score:3, Interesting)
Its amazing how a corparate OS was reviewed by the reviewer. At one point, I expected he would bitch about "game" support etc.
Wake up guys. That is NOT an OS to use at home. Allthough it can be used, its not the purpose of it.
Its name "eCom" lights a clue? Its for e-commerce etc. Well, read this "spec" and decide yourself how bad it was reviewed.
http://www.ecomstation.com/product_inf
I am a win2k professional user, I don't even think to migrate to that OS, since its not RIGHT for my user profile. But it doesn't give me right to say "its dead". I'd sound funny to IT pros, thats all. Sorry to say (I know this post will be at -1 or something, so nvm), Novell isn't right for home too. So, if you don't see it running on your friends house, it doesn't mean "its dead" too.
Also "Don't install to mission critical machines since it disables dual boot"? Oh give me a break... That guy is paid to review?
anyway, -1 me now...
OS/2 undying like Apple (Score:2)
I wonder who would fork out for an OS/2 for his desktop, beside the old users with critical apps that wont run elsewhere. The features page is filled with marketing blabber and doesnt have anything a measly Windows 95 on a 486 dx4 cant do. Sure the Internet Java and XML are the future, and they can be supported by a 386 with 8 MB ram too(with Linux).
Certain people obviously do spend for OS/2... I wonder what those critical apps are, I could make money building Linux/BSD/win32 app upgrades there.
Let sleeping dogs lie. You all Think WPS was Nice? (Score:1)
Please.
I wrote Object Desktop for OS/2. Yes, *that* Object Desktop. And let me tell you that the Workplace Shell programming interface was the biggest piece of shit I've ever dealt with, before, during, after.....you-name-it.
Since then, so-called object-oriented programming practices have been studied, docu
End users != Programmers. (Score:1)
Look... Even though the WPS has some very ugly implementation details (heck, even my relative layman's brain can identify some serious flaws), it still possessed a number of features that the OS/2 end user could take advantage of and which haven't been seen on most other GUIs.
Some haven't been reimplemented on *any* other desktop UI's, at least that I'm aware of.
Additionally, and regardless of the underlying cruft, some of that useful functionality existed mainly because of the object-
Re:End users != Programmers. (Score:1)
To your point, for the cost of some of that flexibility, we have:
- massive leakage of object handle mappings to non-existent files
- leading to massive OS2.INI bloat
- leading to massive support costs by ISVs that deal with the WPS
- leading to "lose my number" responses from IBM to those ISVs
Just one instance, of course, of the many flaws the of *implementation* of their flawed design (which was OOP in the m
Re:End users != Programmers. (Score:1)
Oh, and while I'm bitter about the rude IBM exit from the OS/2 landscape, I did get a nice house out of the deal. It's just....shoulda been a mansion!
nice try but... review has some problems (Score:2)
Some basic things I'd expect in a review like this would be how versions have progressed, including what was in the last few versions of OS/2, how the features compare, the significance of the improvements, etc. It'd be nice to know if paying $200 for eComStation is smarter than paying x amount of dollars for
Who buys OS/2? (Score:1)
Re:Who buys this? (Score:2)
Well, hobbyists, for one. OS/2 has what looks to me like a very small but hardcore following. Obviously, it being non-free makes it much less interesting for the general geek population to try out, but supposing you got hooked back when OS/2 was a contender, eComStation must be a godsend. I know Chris Wright [ubersoft.net] seemed euphoric back when it first came out.
Re:Who buys this? (Score:1)
I mean, come ON! The article says that it has support for Java, OS/2, Windows 3.1 and DOS applications
I've been looking for something that could run my Windows 3.1 apps for ages!
Re:Who buys this? (Score:1)
Re:Who buys this? (Score:1)
I know up until very recently DieBold was a big user of OS/2. What would you rather have running your ATM, Windows or OS/2? As to why they haven't picked up free software, I'm not really sure.
The bank I work for is still running OS/2 on it's ATMs. Although they do occasionally threaten to "upgrade" them to Windows.
Now that I think about it, I can't remember the last time they needed to be restarted. It may be a butt-ugly os but it does work damn good.
Re:Who buys this? (Score:1)
It's Diebold.
Diebold has been shipping OS/2 on it's ATMs since for more than ten years. It is a workhorse of an OS, a true 32 bit multitasking OS stable enough for an ATM. Most ATMs in the US still run OS/2. A little less than half in Europe still run on OS/2 (the rest are mix of DOS, WinNT)
Diebold now sells WinXP as well, depending on customer needs.
Before OS/2, the ATMs ran on an OS by Intel called RMX, a unix-like OS.
DOS legacy can make OS/2 a good choice (Score:5, Informative)
And nothing (not even DOS) runs DOS stuff as well as OS/2. I ran OS/2 from 1994 to 2002 for running that stuff (editing with Edix, compiling with Clipper and linking with Blinker, testing the resulting app), and OS/2 couldn't be beat. Windows is slower (you can easliy "feel" the difference between Windows and OS/2 on the same machine) and a lot flakier. And don't even get me started on Linux+DosEmu, which is what I use for that part of my job now (DosEmu is "good enough" but it sucks).
If maintaining those DOS apps were enough work to keep me busy fulltime, then I would still be running OS/2 today, because it's the best tool for that niche.
The problem is that it's a pretty small niche. Other OSes are capable of doing the job (just not as well) so if you also need to do "mainstream" stuff as part of your job, then it probably becomes worthwhile to run Windows or Linux and just put up with the inferior performance. (That's what I did.)
Re:DOS legacy can make OS/2 a good choice (Score:2)
Does this apply to DOS games?
Those are pretty much the only thing most of us want to run today which NT and Linux give us problems with. Old DOS productivity applications tend not to do wonky things with the hardware which cause them not to work.
Re:DOS legacy can make OS/2 a good choice (Score:1)
Re:DOS legacy can make OS/2 a good choice (Score:1)
This is particularly true for DOS games. There are few that I have not been able to get to work great under eCS. I have at times had to get elaborate with the VDM setup but it is a rare gave that cannot be made to work. . .
Re:DOS legacy can make OS/2 a good choice (Score:1)
Re:Who buys this? (Score:4, Informative)
Not entirely true - I know of several large banks and financial institutions that are still running it on the desktop for custom applications.
They love the stuff. Can't talk 'em into migrating for anything.
Re:Who buys this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Native SNA connecticity doesn't hurt either.
Re:Who buys this? (Score:2)
Re:Who buys this? (Score:1)
Re:Who buys this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Who buys this? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they're ancient, that means they have no apparent need to upgrade.
"I would be very supprised if any drivers for modern hardware are included."
Um... what kind of "modern hardware" would you need to put on a reliable server? IEEE 1394 controller? AGP graphics? If it works and does what it's supposed to, why "fix" it?
"It seems weird to use the old os2api's and the only software for os/2 is java enabled or maybe some ports of OSS."
If the software continues to work and do what it is supposed to, why do you need it to run "new" apps? Hell, unlike all of its competitors, OS/2 Warp 4 hasn't even reached its EOL yet.
"I would pick FreeBSD or Linux over this thank you."
Because why let your employer rely on IBM and their ilk to maintain the software when you can lock yourself into the position instead? Nothing like job security, hm? After all, I don't see you suggesting a commercial flavor of *nix there...
Re:Who buys this? (Score:2)
If ye have stable systems running DOS or OS/2 or Windows 3.1 or Linux, the replacing of the software is a minimal expense to data conversion. This is what really limits Microsoft's price expansion.
It takes me about two to three hours to bring a new or reformatted box up to some sort of usable form. On the other hand, to get my home-grown data to work might take several hours. Why?
Because the batch files
Re:So is this payback? (Score:2)
Re:So is this payback? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Wow, OS/2... (Score:1)
Re:SIQ (Score:1)
So, where do you hide your comp.os.os2.advocacy scars?