DX Gaming
http://www.dxgaming.com/forums/

OS/2 is dead... kinda.
http://www.dxgaming.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10390		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  ArkAngelDuo [ Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:48 pm ]
Post subject:  OS/2 is dead... kinda.
IBM has announced they will stop selling OS/2 at the end of this year, and will stop support at the end of 2006.

Slashdot has an article on it, and if anyone actually understands this, post your comments. If not, do not post, we don't need any "what is os/2" posts. :P
Author:  Abib [ Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:28 am ]
Post subject: 
finally, they shoulda canned that back in 1990s when it was obvious that no one wanted it and rather get windows

whats it used for now, banks and railroad stations?

yay for userfriendly os(s)!
Author:  Eros [ Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:49 am ]
Post subject: 
I ran a multiboot system with OS2 about 10 years ago. I never really used the program, partly because I didn’t know how, and partly because it sucks for PC use, so I never took the time to learn.

I'm sure there will be some people out there who will be upset that OS2 is going the way of Geoworks, but I'm not one of them.
Author:  Excalibur [ Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:59 am ]
Post subject: 
O/S2 pretty much died in 1996 I'm surprised it's lasted so long after windows NT was realised.
Author:  Kinetic [ Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:13 am ]
Post subject: 
yeah
Author:  Carling [ Fri Jul 15, 2005 7:06 am ]
Post subject: 
I agree :roll:
Author:  Wizard_of_Gore [ Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:38 am ]
Post subject: 
I wonder what UPS (United Parcel Service) will be doing, considering they've been on an OS2 network for quite some time.
Author:  Carling [ Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:59 am ]
Post subject: 
:shock:
Author:  Kinetic [ Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:39 am ]
Post subject: 
yeah
Author:  Drizzt [ Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
it doesnt really mean the end of os/2 though,

http://www.os2world.com/petition/

take linux for example, it owns and its open source, enough programmers can get together and replace the code that ibm cannot release due to private sources from third party companies.

theres already a shitload of open source programs for os2 so that shows there are plenty willing coders.

this would save ibm a bunch of cash letting everyone else maintain most of the os. and of course customers would be happy.

i took this quiz, http://bbspot.com/News/2003/01/os_quiz.php

and ended up with this,

Image

lmao
Author:  ArkAngelDuo [ Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Just for references all, unless you've honestly tried OS/2, don't knock it. IT was actually leaps and bounds ahead of windows in most respects, and it is relatively easy to learn, provided you don't get stuck in a windows mindset.

This is just another example of things being good at what they do, but being killed off due to people not understanding it. OS/2 is actually damn good for certain things, such as automation and machine controls. A hell of a lot better then windows. Plus it's also great for low level programs that have to be maintenance free, such as ATMS. A friend of mine has an os/2 machine that's been running for 10 years without any problems, i kid you not. Most i've ever gotten a windows machine, even 3.1 or a tweaked stable 98se to stay up was a year and a half. :P
Author:  Drizzt [ Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:37 am ]
Post subject: 
yeah it is indeed really fng stable. much more so than linux even imo. it also requires less memory than windows to achieve the same tasks.

but a lot of that is because it simply is a lot less complex it doesnt have all the useless frills of windows therefore it doesnt need as many resources and also means less chance of problems.

microsofts code is very fng awesome depending on how you look at it, of course they just bloat everything so badly because well, they can afford it and people will use it no matter what pretty much. some alt os fanatics seem to think that ms is inferior because windows is less stable and indeed way less secure. but its not like they couldnt code a simpler, frill free os with all the security and stability of os2/linux etc.. if they wanted to. they see it as there is more to making (and more importantly, selling)
an os than just rock solidity, you need to have user friendliness and pretty gui's and all that jazz if the common users are gonna fork the dough over.

its sad but true man whos gonna want to use a console for jack shit in this day and age?

we all need to just accept the fact that ms owns this world.
they got all the money, and they also have the best programmers overall. hard to tell that one with all the bloat but its true.

and of course the key for me, compatibility, everything works with windows, so i ask myself wtf am i doing busting my ass to get this game to work on redhat when i can just pop the cd in and play it on my windows hdd?

i love toying with alt oses and seeing outstanding os memory management for a change, and the things you can do are simply f***** cool compared to how windows pretty much totally forces you to do things one way. the way they intended it to be done only.

but i simply dont have the time to bother when i can just plop down on my ass and hit go on windows. its a shame really.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC-07:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/