> > OS/2 was not as hot as it could have been. I seem to recall having
to
> > set up endless parameters in config settings for every application.
> > This was WAY beyond the novice.
>
> Wow. I didn't have to do any of that. My workstation had it
preinstalled,
> but I found settings were easier to change and and configure than in
> Windows. It was much more intuitive for me.
How long ago was that? I haven't used it for many years - maybe things
have changed...
> > There never was much support for OS/2. Comparatively few
applications
> > were ever ported, and (compared to the competition at the time) was
a
> > real resource hog.
>
> To what are you comparing it, specifically? Boot time was far quicker
than
> Windows, IIRC.
Well, when I tried it (which was a good few years ago now) Windoze 3.1
was king, Win95 was still a dream project called Chicago, a college
student called Linus Torvalds had just started releasing a (then very
basic) Minix/unix clone on an unsuspecting world, and my 486 with 8megs
of RAM made me the envy of my colleagues. OS/2 was a slug on 8megs, and
really needed 16megs to start performing. Now, I was living in the UK
at the time, with RAM costing $130/meg...
Windoze 3.1 (on the hardware I was running) was FAR quicker in every
respect than OS/2.
> *digs in her pockets, coming up with 2 cents and pocket lint* ;)
I hardly dare look in mine...
Anyway, I'm interested in your comments, as I gave up with OS/2 fairly
quickly and would love to hear a more informed opinion, although I think
we ought to take this thread to private e-mail before the net.police get
us #;-D
Regards,
Ozz.
