Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Operating Systems IBM

EComStation 2.0 GA To Be Released May 14 133

Posted by timothy
from the be-first-in-line dept.
martiniturbide writes "After a long delay, eComStation 2.0 GA will finally become reality. It will be released in time to be presented at the Warpstock Europe 2010 event which will be held in Trier, Germany, from May 14 to 16. We consider eComStation 2.0 to be the biggest overhaul of OS/2 so far. Together with a team of both hired and volunteer developers, we have extended the functionality, removed limitations, updated hardware support as far as possible, and resolved close to 1000 issues that had been reported since the release of eComStation 1.2R. The new eComStation 2.0 GA is the result of several years of combined efforts and investments."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EComStation 2.0 GA To Be Released May 14

Comments Filter:
  • Finally! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 24, 2010 @06:52PM (#31969948)

    I'll be able to format floppies again without slowing down the rest of my work.

  • by Third Position (1725934) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @06:57PM (#31969974)

    Perhaps this is the real story behind IBM's alleged relaunch of OS2? [slashdot.org]

    • Not entirely.
    • by StephenM_Sparrowhawk (913477) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @07:17PM (#31970116)
      OS/2 is still used quite extensively in Australia by banking institutions, who claim it is still more reliable than the Windows equivalents. Much of the critical banking infrastructure reliant on OS/2 has since been ported to Linux (Mostly running atop RHEL.) The combination of high stability. the very configurable and flexible workplace shell with REXX IPC, at a time when the NT kernel was still being sorted ensured rapid uptake and penetration in some vertical markets. Like the AmigaOS it was very economical of system resources and had a very consistent UI. There are still lessons in the Workplace Shell (OS/2) and Intuition (Amiga) for both KDE and GNOME. Window managers with some of the WS features for Linux http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_Shell [wikipedia.org] and related http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS7822082064.html [desktoplinux.com]
      • by sznupi (719324)

        Wasn't there even some cross-pollination between Amiga and OS/2? (IBM licensing REXX in exchange of some GUI tech, something liek that)

        • Wasn't there even some cross-pollination between Amiga and OS/2? (IBM licensing REXX in exchange of some GUI tech, something liek that)

          Yes. There are details on some of the OS/2 information pages.

      • by zmollusc (763634) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @02:12AM (#31971962)

        Heh. OS/2 on 300MHz and 32Mb ram makes for a more responsive Automatic Teller Machine than the later 2GHz 512Mb burdened with XP. The rest of the whole ATM was identical so you know it was doing the same job.
        Also, it took 15 minutes to install, against the XP's 2-3 hours.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by zmollusc (763634)

          P.s. if some idiot power cycled it while booting, OS/2 survived, XP died and had to be re-installed.

          • by zmollusc (763634)

            What? Troll? I speak from first-hand experience.
            The install floppies I used were grey. Let's see if this is modded Troll, too.

          • by Rysc (136391) *

            I've power cycled XP boxes during all stages of boot and never had to reinstall as a result. Your story doesn't hold up.

        • by drsmithy (35869)

          Heh. OS/2 on 300MHz and 32Mb ram makes for a more responsive Automatic Teller Machine than the later 2GHz 512Mb burdened with XP. The rest of the whole ATM was identical so you know it was doing the same job.

          The application was identical on both ? What was it written in ?

          Also, it took 15 minutes to install, against the XP's 2-3 hours.

          Well, that's just incompetence. There's no reason an automated install on known hardware shoudl take that long.

          • by zmollusc (763634)

            Although the software app was different, the screen, keypad, card reader, receipt printer and money handling hardware were all the same, as was the data transfer and validation backend. Thus my assertion that the OS/2 units booted faster and were more responsive in operation doing the same job.

            • by drsmithy (35869)

              Although the software app was different, the screen, keypad, card reader, receipt printer and money handling hardware were all the same, as was the data transfer and validation backend. Thus my assertion that the OS/2 units booted faster and were more responsive in operation doing the same job.

              So, you ignore probably the single most significant component relating to interactive responsiveness ? Nice job.

              • by zmollusc (763634)

                Yeah, silly me. I was expecting the multi-billion-dollar global corporation that the 'significant component' was written for would employ reasonably competent coders for _both_ projects, what with it dealing with cash financial transactions in remote, unsupervised locations and all. Apologies.

    • by drolli (522659)

      I am waiting since over 10 years that IBM takes the best out of OS/2 and puts it on the top of Linux or another Unix. Gnome, KDE, and Windows are still missing some features available in OS/2. The only thing rivaling the consistency of the GUI may be the Apple desktop.

  • I loved OS/2 back in the old days, it was rock solid and took advantage of the hardware you gave it ( both for servers and workstations ), but this is 2010, is there still a market?

    • by Chris Mattern (191822) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @07:14PM (#31970098)

      this is 2010, is there still a market?

      Short answer, no.

      Long answer, nooooooooooooooooooooo.

      • by RobertM1968 (951074) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @07:23PM (#31970164) Homepage Journal

        Wrong. Short answer, yes. Long answer, definitely yes.

        There are still a lot of large companies out there using OS/2 installs who are attempting to replace aging hardware without having to have all their specialized software ported to something else. One such company is a Fortune 50-ish (it's in the 50-55 range) company that has a massive OS/2 install to this very day.

        Do you have any idea how many specialized pieces of equipment out there are controlled by OS/2? Or the MASSIVE cost involved in having the software ported to Windows or Linux? Or the large amounts of time testing the stuff because it cant EVER fail while running? I, on the other hand, have some idea about that sort of thing... there are lots of such setups.

        People dont hear about those types of setups, or even know about them, because they aren't desktop clients where some 9-5'er is running Word or whatever on it. They are systems that sit quietly in the background and run entire production lines, run automated machinery, run power plants, run transit systems, run elevators and so on.

        In addition, there are new companies that are using OS/2 for specialized apps or as servers that have gotten fed up with Windows, and find the various fragmented releases of Linux to be too daunting. I know... I install eCS boxes at a few of them. And, they couldnt be happier. I install em... come every few months to clean em (of dust and stuff) and otherwise no one ever touches them. They never had that type of a positive experience on their Windows server/app server boxes.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Chris Mattern (191822)

          That's not a market. It's an installed base. There may be a handful of people out there interested in buying new OS/2. No more.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Bing Tsher E (943915)

            That's true, but there are only a handful of people out there interested in buying new Windows.

            It's the installed base that forces the issue.

            • That's true, but there are only a handful of people out there interested in buying new Windows.

              That is so ridiculously untrue that I am left almost speechless. 90% of the people who buy a new PC buy new Windows along with it.

              • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                by poopdeville (841677)

                Do you think any/many of them actually want a new version of Windows? Short answer: no. In fact, every new release is a gamble for Microsoft. If they change things too much, users might as well switch to Mac OS X, or Linux, for all their retained knowledge will be worth.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Nadaka (224565)

                And most of those people don't care what OS comes on their new computer as long as they can figure out how to get to google and play farmville.

                How many people out there are explicitly buying windows 7? Hardly anyone.

            • That's true, but there are only a handful of people out there interested in buying new Windows.

              It's the installed base that forces the issue.

              Unless it's a rebel base.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by RobertM1968 (951074)

            No, it's not (just) an installed base. It's a market - as in those who are tired of Windows and the need to get a ton of hardware to throw at a task to handle it well, who then switch to something better. That market grows the installed base of whatever their alternative choice is (whether MacOSX, Linux, or eComStation).

            It would be an installed base if they were running OS/2 and decided to keep running OS/2.

            • Ooops... thought your response was attached to a different post of mine. My response should have been:

              Yes, it's an installed base. BUT, it's also a market. It's those who need to procure new operating systems to run on new hardware who choose (due to their needs) an updated version of OS/2 over the expense and headache of switching to another operating system.

        • by nurb432 (527695)

          I was in a rather large OS/2 shop at one point and just before I moved on they migrated everything to windows. ( blah ) This was in the late 90's. our facility had about 1000 machines running it, and there were several hundred facilities. We also had a bunch of machines running dos as print servers, all on PC/Net. ( bonus points if you figure out who i worked for :) ).

          They were PS/2 machines so there was a bit of a hurdle for the custom micro channel cards, but they did it.

          I would have assumed by now most

        • by Unoti (731964)
          There may be a market, but it's most definitely a dying market.

          ...fed up with Windows, and find the various fragmented releases of Linux to be too daunting...

          The vibrant Linux community, with all of its options, daunting, while the OS/2 community which died like a decade ago before BeOS was even around, looks better? If your shit needs OS/2 to run, that is what we call obsolete. Port it to Linux. If that's too daunting, find a vendor that sells stuff made some time in the last ten or 15 years.

          • by RobertM1968 (951074) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @08:27PM (#31970522) Homepage Journal

            There may be a market, but it's most definitely a dying market.

            ...fed up with Windows, and find the various fragmented releases of Linux to be too daunting...

            The vibrant Linux community, with all of its options, daunting, while the OS/2 community which died like a decade ago before BeOS was even around, looks better? If your shit needs OS/2 to run, that is what we call obsolete. Port it to Linux. If that's too daunting, find a vendor that sells stuff made some time in the last ten or 15 years.

            Ummm... what version of Linux do you select to run a bunch of specialized hardware? What GUI? What development toolkit(s)? Who will write the drivers necessary? What happens if the current OS/2 apps are simply WPS extensions for which Linux has absolutely NO equivalent? Or even simply just true OS/2 GUI apps?

            On top of that, the OS/2 API hasnt really changed. No need to select one of... how many? APIs/toolkits used by the various Linux implentations/dev tools.

            Gotta remember, porting a Linux app to OS/2 is "pretty easy" (Apache, PHP, MySQL, VLC, KMP, mPlayer/mEncoder, FFMPEG, Squid, Rsycn, ISC Bind, Scribus, Quassel, Postgres, GutenPrint, CUPS, Ghostscript, cURL, Python, Subversion, GCC, Cmake, GNU Core Utils, bzip, wGet, Perl, OpenLDAP, STunnel, Tar, VirtualBox - and those are only a FEW of the ports maintained by ONE OR TWO people - and a small list of the total Linux to OS/2 ports (GUI and non-GUI).

            Porting an OS/2 GUI app to Linux? If it's a true OS/2 app that utilizes the WPS, it's near impossible to totally impossible. Most of these older specialized apps for the types of systems I was discussing fit that category.

            I'd call that daunting. Wouldn't you?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            There are people who use what works, and there are people who hawk tech for the sake of it. I don't bitch that my house is 100s of years old, or that the trees at the back of my garden are decades old, or that some of my furniture was built in Empire Asia, or that the workhorse car is a decade old, or that my landline telephone is 15 years old, or that my mouse is 8 years old, or that some of the medications in my cabinet were formulated half a century ago or that the general coverage receiver on my desk wa

          • IBM released OS/2 Warp 4 in 1996, just two years before the release of BeOS R3 for Intel, and OS/2 likely had a larger market share than BeOS for the majority of BeOS' lifespan.

            Both are unlikely candidates for reawakening, in my opinion, but of the two products, only OS/2 was able to give Windows a realistic run for its money.

            BeOS is nice technology, but it had neither the user base nor the application mix to make a serious dent in Windows. OS/2 had both, as well as the added advantage of being able to run

        • by terjeber (856226)

          I know of several of those, I even replaced a disk on a PDP-11 in the mid '90s for a system like that. I would recommend people make the investment in moving on though.

          This, btw, is one of the very, very important reasons that so many business apps are written in Java. Not only is the Java environment, with a significant margin, the most useful environment for developing LOB apps, it is also reasonably future proof as operating systems come and go.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by afidel (530433)
            Dude, most of the java code I've run into isn't even future proof to the next subversion of java. It's seriously a significantly larger headache for us than going from Office 2000->2003->2010 or XP->Win7.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by terjeber (856226)

              You have clearly never seen a Java app then. I have moved a very large LOB app through Java from 1999 through 2006, no major issues. This means that either you have done something very odd, or your competence level simply isn't what it should be.

              • by drinkypoo (153816)

                I've lost track of the number of Java-based packages I've installed that have installed their own JRE, and furthermore, which fail if run under a more recent JRE. What's your angle in spewing this irrelevance?

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by terjeber (856226)

                  My angle? Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that it is MORE DIFFICULT to port a LOB app written in Java from one OS to another than it is to port one that is written in C or C++ or CICS/Cobol or Delphi or something like that? Really?

                  • by drinkypoo (153816)

                    As far as I can tell, people seem to have approximately equal amounts of difficulty writing portable Java code and portable C code. It's distressing how many times I've been unable to run some simple web applet on my latest machine, but gone back and had it work on my most antiquated. And I think literally every large Java app I've ever installed (that is, not through my Linux distribution's package manager) has come with its own JRE, and every time I've tried exploring a later JRE have had some kind of pro

                    • by terjeber (856226)

                      Clearly, some people apparently have some problems writing portable Java code, but LOB apps today are usually based on some sort of app server, and the app servers are easily cross-platform, making the LOB app cross-platform. For larger LOB apps, developing in Java gives you ample performance and somewhere between easy and trivial amounts of work in porting. Most LOB Java apps today are server-side with a web interface, and the main issue with portability is whether it runs in both IE and Mozilla.

                      If a Java

                    • by dryeo (100693)

                      There are open source versions of Pascal that are pretty compatible with Delphi.

                    • by terjeber (856226)

                      Maybe we just have better coding practices than others, but we develop on personal windows boxes, build and test on Linux, AIX and Sun and deploy mostly on Linux and Sun. We have never had to do any work at all moving to a new platform, and that is with a Java app that now has a few million lines of code.

                    • by afidel (530433)
                      Sure, they are cross-platform, if you run the EXACT java version on each platform that they were written against, move even one subversion off that and you often run into issues. This is a real problem when the supported version has known security holes but the vendor hasn't yet updated the app to support a newer version with the patch. Also it's a royal pain in the keister to keep up with the matrix of what version is needed by each app, I have eight different JRE's installed in my Citrix image to support
                    • by terjeber (856226)

                      I would re-evalute my relationship with whomever is doing your LOB apps. Honestly. They are an incompetent bunch of idiots. As I said, for years we delivered and supported LOB apps that would run on any platform and all minor Java upgrades. They would also always be forwards compatible, that is, our 1.4 based apps runs perfectly fine on Java 1.5 (Java 5). Java 5 apps would not necessarily run on older JRE versions however.

                      Ensuring such compatibility is trivial in Java, and a company that is incapable of doi

                • by terjeber (856226)
                  Oh, and do you have ANY idea what a LOB app is?
              • by sr180 (700526)

                You have obviously never used any of the cisco tools such as ASDM. These regularly break on minor Java updates - to the point that I run VM's containing specific versions of Java just to access older ASDM's. Your programs might not have problems with java, but theres plenty out there that do.

                • by terjeber (856226)

                  So, whoever does this for CISCO (they probably don't do them in-house) are incompetent morons, and CISCO should be advised to hire someone who knows Java 101. With regression test suites, it is trivial to ensure this compatibility.

                  On the other hand, if you have this problem, why is it an issue? Maintaining several versions of a JRE is trivial. The only issue would be security, but for most LOB apps that is not a real issue since they live behind a FW.

        • by drsmithy (35869)

          In addition, there are new companies that are using OS/2 for specialized apps or as servers that have gotten fed up with Windows, and find the various fragmented releases of Linux to be too daunting.

          It's a struggle to understand why anyone would choose OS/2 over Windows or the two mainstream Linux distributions.

          Unless, of course, they're being misled...

          What compelling features for a new installation could OS/2 possibly have over Windows Server 2008, RHEL, or SuSe ?

          • Over Windows Server 2008? Are you joking? When it comes to web serving, application serving, video transcoding (assuming one can do that stuff without a decent GUI interface to ffMPEG or mEncoder), it outperforms every version of Windows Server ever written.

            Here's my earlier post on my real world experiences on the matter:

            Well, one decently large site I run for a client runs on Warp Server for e-Business. It runs on an ancient box (10 years old) with a whoppingly fast set of 550MHz CPUs (Quad XEON 3's) and 4GB of RAM. It runs at an average of 3% CPU utilization. The site was originally hosted on a Windows Server 2003 box 4 or 5 years ago when traffic was one tenth of what it currently is. The Win2003 box was 4 times more powerful - and either bogged down or crashed repeatedly due to load.

            When I do the final video transcoding for Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2, it's generally done on an OS/2 box using mEncoder or FFMPEG... even on a much slower box than the one Windows machine here, those apps run far better, and even faster than the equivalent Windows versions (ie: it seems Linux ports run much much better on OS/2 than on Windows) and unlike on the Windows box, where the desktop becomes near unusable, OS/2's WPS is still snappy (even though the OS/2 box has 1/4 the CPU power). When I start using a "bunch" of threads on the Windows box (a "whopping" four) to do the transcodes, Windows slows to a crawl. Simple web pages in Firefox take 10 times as long to load. Windows takes forever to launch apps. The apps become unresponsive... all while the transcoder is set to normal priority. No such problems on OS/2. Windows XP and Windows Vista do not alleviate these problems - I dont know about Windows 7 as I have not tried it on that... but that still indicates that OS/2 seems to have a far better thread scheduler (coupled with the possibility that Linux ports simply run a lot better on OS/2).

            So... as the site I host keeps gaining popularity, I could either get a FEW big 8 way state of the art system each running Windows Server 2008 to serve the web requests for it (and a bunch more IP addresses)... or I can simply keep running the website on ONE ancient Netfinity 7000 M10 and Warp Server for e-Business.

            I've got a few clients who were tired of their Windows Server boxes... those boxes were replaced with eComStation, and run custom server side web based apps. For four years now. You have no idea how thrilled they are that they never have to call me because of a problem. And they only see me once every 3 months to clean the boxes out (ie: remove dust, clean fans, etc).

            They dont care what such things are running. The only thing they care about is that they dont need to call me to fix some new issue that has arisen (server infected, machine restarted on it's own because MS forced an update even though automatic updates is disabled, some idiotic WGA error and limited functionality because some new WGA update was broken, machine is running horrendously slow for some reason, and on and on - those are actual problems the clients had with their previous installation and their previous support team).

            Now Linux on the other hand, is a viable alternative... though I enjoy the use of REXX (a lot) and enjoy it's integration with the OS (eComStation/Warp) that cannot easily be duplicate

            • by drsmithy (35869)

              Here's my earlier post on my real world experiences on the matter:

              I don't believe your anecdote, to be frank.

              Though as a matter of sheer curiosity I think I'll fire up a couple of VMs and compare encoding times next week.

              • Even better would be to install eCS or Warp, run ffMPEG natively on it, and compare that on the same hardware running WinXP or Vista.

                As for the rest of my "anecdote" simply searching for (I forget the site) the site/server history of Star Trek New Voyages, and finding the old forum on it and reading the downtime complaints will prove the rest. The original server was an SMP multi GHz Windows 2003 box running IIS. The current server is an ancient IBM Netfinity 7000 M10 with four 550MHz XEON III CPUs and 4G

              • In addition... with an Opteron setup under Windows, and various Warp Server setups on far slower machines... why in the world would I choose the Warp Server machines to do the transcoding if the Windows machine was more capable?

        • "Do you have any idea how many specialized pieces of equipment out there are controlled by OS/2?"

          It's probably far fewer than the number of devices controlled by DOS or Windows or Linux.

    • by drfreak (303147)

      Yes, the supermarket. Many of them still run it on their cash registers.

      A lot of ATM machines run OS/2 as well, and I wish more still did. The day Bank of America replaced their ATM machines I heard the familiar Windows "Ding!" as my card popped back out. A part of me died that day, but it was replaced with a love for .NET, so oh well... :)

    • by ibbie (647332)

      For its time, Warp 4 was neat.

      That said, in this day and age, I'd rather play with haiku [haiku-os.org] than some musty, old IBM OS. IMHO there's more novelty to it.

      To each their own, though.

    • by RobertM1968 (951074) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @07:45PM (#31970274) Homepage Journal

      Well, one decently large site I run for a client runs on Warp Server for e-Business. It runs on an ancient box (10 years old) with a whoppingly fast set of 550MHz CPUs (Quad XEON 3's) and 4GB of RAM. It runs at an average of 3% CPU utilization. The site was originally hosted on a Windows Server 2003 box 4 or 5 years ago when traffic was one tenth of what it currently is. The Win2003 box was 4 times more powerful - and either bogged down or crashed repeatedly due to load.

      When I do the final video transcoding for Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2, it's generally done on an OS/2 box using mEncoder or FFMPEG... even on a much slower box than the one Windows machine here, those apps run far better, and even faster than the equivalent Windows versions (ie: it seems Linux ports run much much better on OS/2 than on Windows) and unlike on the Windows box, where the desktop becomes near unusable, OS/2's WPS is still snappy (even though the OS/2 box has 1/4 the CPU power). When I start using a "bunch" of threads on the Windows box (a "whopping" four) to do the transcodes, Windows slows to a crawl. Simple web pages in Firefox take 10 times as long to load. Windows takes forever to launch apps. The apps become unresponsive... all while the transcoder is set to normal priority. No such problems on OS/2. Windows XP and Windows Vista do not alleviate these problems - I dont know about Windows 7 as I have not tried it on that... but that still indicates that OS/2 seems to have a far better thread scheduler (coupled with the possibility that Linux ports simply run a lot better on OS/2).

      So... as the site I host keeps gaining popularity, I could either get a FEW big 8 way state of the art system each running Windows Server 2008 to serve the web requests for it (and a bunch more IP addresses)... or I can simply keep running the website on ONE ancient Netfinity 7000 M10 and Warp Server for e-Business.

      I've got a few clients who were tired of their Windows Server boxes... those boxes were replaced with eComStation, and run custom server side web based apps. For four years now. You have no idea how thrilled they are that they never have to call me because of a problem. And they only see me once every 3 months to clean the boxes out (ie: remove dust, clean fans, etc).

      They dont care what such things are running. The only thing they care about is that they dont need to call me to fix some new issue that has arisen (server infected, machine restarted on it's own because MS forced an update even though automatic updates is disabled, some idiotic WGA error and limited functionality because some new WGA update was broken, machine is running horrendously slow for some reason, and on and on - those are actual problems the clients had with their previous installation and their previous support team).

      Which do you think gets my market share?

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        it seems Linux ports run much much better on OS/2 than on Windows

        The big difference is that NT has a pathetic joke of a POSIX version 1 emulation layer while OS/2 has a vaguely credible version of a POSIX version 2 layer. Porting Unix stuff to Windows in a timely fashion basically means porting it to Cygwin, Services for Unix, or similar. I've found Cygwin to become more stable over the years, but not more performant.

      • New Voyages looks reasonably watchable (no offense, it's tough with a low budget), but (sorry) having to download the episodes piecemeal in six parts was just too off-putting. If you can't stream it (understandable), at least provide a simple torrent link; that's what bittorrent was designed for. You're probably losing a ton of potential new fans just because the downloads are too much hassle.

        • CarpetShark:

          You can always click the massive "VIEW ONLINE STREAMING" link on the front page, or the very prominent "View Online via DNA" (or however it's labelled) link on the episodes page.

          Additionally, every episode except TSAMD1969 is available via Torrent. That too is indicated on the episodes pages.

          Sorry you didnt notice all those links. I thought I made them more than prominent enough. I'll keep this in mind though the next time I do a site revision.

          • Oh, good. I normally skip streaming for downloads, so while I was aware that you had some streaming links, I figured they were only for the trailers, since I'd seen later that the trailers were more prominent and the downloads seemed to all be hosted on mirror sites. Admittedly, I scanned a lot and didn't look too hard.

            • Admittedly, I scanned a lot and didn't look too hard.

              Which still means I have some work to do... as watching the episodes is a key reason people come to the site, the links to such should be more prominent and easier to quickly grasp by those just flying through trying to watch an episode.

              Thanks again

          • Ahh, looking back, I must have skipped the view at DNA because it said "view enhanced.." My internal spam filter expected that to be a premium download link, as popularised by other sites like rapidshare.

            • Ahh, looking back, I must have skipped the view at DNA because it said "view enhanced.." My internal spam filter expected that to be a premium download link, as popularised by other sites like rapidshare.

              Ah... that explains it. I had a debate with the folks at DNA about that. I preferred using the technically incorrect term "streaming" because the majority of Internet users (who are not technically savvy) would understand it meant watching it online via a video window in a web page. Since the term is technically not correct (it's progressive download to a player - like most video players use) they opted for the "Enhanced" terminology.

              I think I will revisit the terminology we are using with them.

              Thanks m

      • by dryeo (100693)

        Curious where you got your copy of FFmpeg? And is it multithreaded?

        • You can get it here:
          http://os2ports.smedley.info/

          ...along with a few dozen other Linux ports. Is it multithreaded? Not a clue. I usually spawn between 2-4 transcoding sessions at once and never bothered checking on thread usage (episodes are in 5 parts... I transcode more than one part at a time). I rarely concern myself with thread usage under OS/2. As it is, Lotus Domino GoWebserver on my Netfinity spawns 1000 threads (configurable to 4095 - limited to 1000 by me in the config file) on launch (and then

  • could ya... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Nyder (754090)

    ... give it a lamer name?

  • Oh my God, my Eyes! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Phrogman (80473) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @07:15PM (#31970102) Homepage

    I am sorry if it seems overly shallow, but looking at the (awful) Flash demo, the UI design hasn't been upgraded at all from the last time I ran OS/2. I was hoping they had someone spend some time getting rid of the Win 3.1 look and feel, or are they hoping for some upswelling of nostalgia for the old look and feel?

    I should be open-mindedly welcoming the return of an old friend, and looking at the functionality available, but I am afraid I can't look past the awful look and feel of the UI long enough to find out. It just looked terrible - at least as long as the terrible flash demo ran before the whole thing seized up on me and I gave up.

    I *loved* OS/2 when I used it, it was superior to Win 3.1, allowed me to run DOS programs (like my BBS software) in the background while I ran something else in the foreground, etc etc. It had an amazing future - until IBM dropped the ball and completely failed to promote it. I would far rather than modern OS design had drawn more from OS/2 as a heritage than from MS Windows, but its a tad late now.

    Now, I am sure there is a market for this - all those POS software packages that look like DOS and are still used all over in small stores, ATM applications that are similarly primitive etc - but I can't see it having much appeal beyond the legacy support type environment.

    Now, if the arrival of eCommstation heralds the return of BBSing, I might be inclined to buy it. I loved the old BBS days prior to the availability of the Intertubes, but I don't think anything is going to bring that back :(

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RobertM1968 (951074)

      Ummm... what Win3.1 look and feel? You actually need to use the WPS before you make such an erroneous comment. In EIGHTEEN YEARS, Microsoft STILL has not been able to correctly duplicate the functionality of the WPS - even though they had a cross license agreement that allowed them access to (and rights to use) the code.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jonbryce (703250)

        I don't think it is a case that they aren't able to copy it rather than that they don't want to copy it. They are doing a reasonably good job of copying OSX's funcionality in Windows 7, and that has always been the way they've done things.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Am I the only person in the world to prefer the UI of classic Mac OS and Windows 3.1 to the shiny of Windows 95 / Vista (bleugh) / OS X (arghgh) ? I like clean simplicity, not decorations which distract me from using and enjoying the machine. Oh, and there's nothing enjoyable about a textured close button.

      • Everyone has a UI that was "just right" while everything since just hasn't been quite... right. Mine was AmigaOS 2.04. They made changes in Workbench 3 that were probably aimed at at fixing some inconsistencies (ie everything you had to push was 3D in 2.04, except the scroll bars, so they made them 3D in 3) that, to my mind, just didn't really work out. And Workbench 1.x was godawful.

        The best Mac OS/Mac OS X look, to me, was Jaguar's. Very clean. But it was flawed in some ways, and Apple tinkered with it

      • I'm kind of inbetween on the issue. I've used 3.1 through to Win7 and OSX. I've found the OS X GUI has some neat features that *Can* help with productivity - file previews of PDFs using coverflow for instance is neat, but it gets cluttered pretty quickly. OS X finder is really nice - I'm hoping someone can clone it as a filemanager for Linux.

        I'm using Windows 7 right now which isn't too bad, but I'm getting around to switching to Linux sometime soon. E17 is by-far my favorite GUI out of any OS or shell I'v

      • Sure. Being able to sort a list by clicking on the column name really sucks.

        • That widget definitely a point for '95 over 3.1, and TBH straight '95 (or, similarly, NT 4) isn't bad and maybe I shouldn't have gone as far back as expressing preference for 3.1 (classic Mac OS, OTOH, <3). But, like all modern UIs, there's a lack of uniformity: why aren't all lists appearing in various forms in the UI headered and why can't I always sort by clicking the header?

          • "why can't I always sort by clicking the header?"

            Because sorting is data dependent. That means that the OS must rely on the application to do it. For some applications it doesn't make sense or maybe the developer was lazy. So the OS provides the tools that support sorting by header but it's up to the application developer to decide if he/she wants to implement it.

  • Its just a good as the old OS/2 ! Loaded up VMWare and poof... installation failed... MISERABLY FAILED. I really want to thank the project team for the nostagia! Bringing back the true feel of what it was like to install OS/2 !! I remember it well now.
    • You could simply follow the instructions and BOOT off the Demo CD like it was intended for. Or read the VMWare info online about running OS/2 in a VM session.

      Either way, the problem and fault are yours.

      • by metamatic (202216)

        I think you missed his point.

        Many of us tried to use OS/2, and found that it wouldn't install because it was much more picky about hardware than Windows. That's probably a big part of why it died.

        At the company I was working at, we wanted to switch, but after attempting installs on three machines and having three different kinds of failure, we stuck with Windows.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by gearloos (816828)
          Thats exactly my point. IBM Hardware and your golden but anything short like a different atapi cdrom and you had to edit the config file on the floppy install and you better hope your good at remembering hardware addresses, IRQ's, DMA, etc... I did try and boot on a regular PC directly, but it's a Corei7 and figured that would be a bit much. tried anyway and it failed there too. I just don't feel like trying to get OS/2 working if it's that much trouble. Yes, I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard, and I do know
          • I ran three versions of OS/2 on non-IBM hardware without tweaking any config files. Initial versions of the OS were tied too tightly to IBM hardware, but releases 3 and 4 ran on a wide variety of platforms.

          • Your point only applies to ancient versions of OS/2 though. Warp 3 and 4 didnt care what ATAPI CD ROM you used. Older versions eComStation worked with faaaar more SATA setups than Windows XP. The newer eComStation (the version this article discusses) works on the latest hardware.

            Oh - and they were all available with CD based install.

            Your comparison and experiences are like comparing trying to install Win95 on new hardware.

            So... to install on new hardware... get the new version. And just install... tha

        • I think you missed his point.

          Many of us tried to use OS/2, and found that it wouldn't install because it was much more picky about hardware than Windows. That's probably a big part of why it died.

          At the company I was working at, we wanted to switch, but after attempting installs on three machines and having three different kinds of failure, we stuck with Windows.

          No, YOU missed the point. The DEMO CD does NOT install. It is a LIVE BOOT ENVIRONMENT... kinda like WinPE/BartPE/etc... He was NOT having installation issues as NO installation was taking place.

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten

Working...