Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
No - it's the truth. Our voicemail runs on OS/2 and it's uptime is SIGNIFICANTLY more than that of Windows NT Servers.
Oh, and before you go off saying that NT Server can be made to run stable if you only put one application on it - that is EXACTLY what I did.
That and the OS/2 Presentation Manager and installation routines ARE different than the Windows versions - so it IS a little different than Microsoft.
0 
i've been using OS/2 for ten years now, and i hate it. i'm just sort of stuck here b/c my company continues to use it and i need a job that pays $65,000.
0
ah, I see your predicement.
What would you prefer to use? Personally I totally love NetWare, especially 5.1 - I can't wait to get my hands on 6! NDS is the most awesome product around and there is NOTHING on this planet that can touch it's file/print speeds and it has some hot clustering capabilities.
Windows NT is okay for application services as long as you only run one app on it at a time. It sucks as a file or print server because it's slow and nearly impossible to manage.
Windows 2000 is a joke. We are having the dangest time trying to get it to work properly. We can get the NT boxes to talk to the network properly but the Win2K boxes only want to talk to Win2K boxes (and no, we didn't install ActiveDirectory).
Linux is okay - I think of it as a baby NT, it's more stable but cumbersome. I think in time it might pan out to something good.
Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server with Citrix MetaFrame is a cool product, as long as you give it twice as much hardware as Microsoft suggests.
my two cents.
0
If you want security, stability and
convenience. Warp server serves DOS, NT,
Win*, win 200 Linux and OS2, comes with DNS,
DHCP, an undocumented firewall, security.The supermarket uses OS2 the Bank uses OS2,
most users do not realize the really
important uses are either OS2 or Unix.In my opinion--just as Wordperfect is far
superior to Word, but not as popular, OS2 is
one of those undocumented IBM programs the is
really very very good.
0
I beg to differ with your assisment of win2k.
I run win2k server, suse 7.1 linux, mac 8.6,
os2 4.0, and win*. Win2k server runs my
webserver, printer server, file, app and
terminal server, without a blink. 4 times
down for bad apps. Linux is great as server,
web, file, print and mail. Mac is simple for
the less experienced user, and not stable,
until OS X, which is a unix flavor. OS 2 warp
is ok, but way behind the current o/s's and
needs lots of help from big blue. My choice
is Win2kkkkk, it's ggrrreeaate
0
NO, no.
It's good OS but when I intalling it .....
It was horrible, I can't remenber how much hundred:) errors was. Huhh .... :(
(I'am talking not abouot OS/2 Warp)
0
Sure, I like it. I use it and Linux at home. At work I use Windows NT under duress, which is the only way I'd use MS software.
0
OF course I like OS/2 - or rather, LOVE it. In my experience (despite the problems others have had) it has installed without a problem on countless varieties of systems, from 486's up to the latest pentiums.
Windows, on the other hand gives me nothing but fits. One computer kept freezing - turned out it couldn't handle the processor speed/clock settings. Os/2 was fine with it.
As fas as I'm concerned, OS/2 is still the best OS out there.
0
Yes, of course I like OS/2. Anyone who truly tried all popular OS'es and has given it some objective consideration, has to come to the conclusion that already with Warp 3 IBM was then 8 years ahead of Microsoft as well as Apple.
Naturally there are features built in current flavors of Win that would be nice to have in Warp, but they can most often be had with an existing pay-, share-, or free-ware addition. And don't forget that I'm in that case comparing a basically 1994 OS with nowadays Macro$haft Bloatware.
The installation of OS/2 has for me always been a marvel, and everyone who has had problems on standard hardware must have been or too lazy to read some readme files, or illiterate, or maybe an outright moron.
And from a pointerview of speed and stability, let alone viru$ or 'worm' problems, it is still the absolute champion. Even Linux, who was and maybe still is going the right direction, has in certain flavors become so 'heavy', and also asking so much resources that to me OS/2 remains the best Operating System available.
Just an example: On a well configured 486 DX 40 (s---ty generic components) with 64MB, I would run my Netscape/2 browser and have several dozens of pages open while downloading half a dozen or more files simultaneously!!! When I try to do the same with Windows, whatever flavor, nowadays on my latest system with 256MB running @ 1.1GHz (all quality components), you may guess 3 times what happens. Of course something crashes. Windows is a resource hog, and has never been state of the art.
It is really a BIG shame that Big Blue has stopped serious further development.
0
I did like OS/2 a few years ago. It was king at one time. Then, of course Micro$oft VAPORWARE took over and all of the idiot IT managers jumped on the Window$ bandwagon. What a crying shame that such a perfect OS was literally destroyed by a product that didn't even exist yet!
Still, most point of use vending systems use OS/2 because it is rock solid. (once you get it running.
I still see my OS/2 Unleashed book sitting on the shelf gatehering dust!!Too bad for all of us, IBM had a great thing and didn't know how to market it.
Now we are all stuck with Micro$oft "me too" software.
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
