Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Operating Systems Software

eComStation 1.1 Entry Edition Review 176

Posted by timothy from the what-a-name dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

eComStation 1.1 Entry Edition Review More

eComStation 1.1 Entry Edition Review

Comments Filter:

  • You know youv'e made it (Score:4, Funny)

    by nother_nix_hacker ( 596961 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @08:06PM (#5886784)
    You know you've made an OS when Mozilla get ported!
    • Mozilla didn't just "get ported". IBM did the port because the corporate customers using OS/2 wanted a decent browser. Look at the mozilla.org release pages, you will even find "contributed by IBM" behind the OS/2 download link.
  • I liked their idea better. Choke all of the complexity at a single point.

  • Uh (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So you want to buy a new implementation of a dead OS?

    Yea, let me get in line.

    • Re:Uh (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by User 956 ( 568564 )
      So you want to buy a new implementation of a dead OS?

      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.

      /me is completely shocked.

  • Nostalgia (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Daimaou ( 97573 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @08:10PM (#5886814)
    I loved OS/2 (although I never tried Warp 4) back in the day. I stopped using it only when it was apparent that it was dead; but I have always had it in my mind that it was a really great OS (and compared to what was available at the time, it really was).

    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)

      by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @08:21PM (#5886900) Journal
      I loved OS/2 also, and yes, I even used Warp 4.0 for a while. (In all honesty, Warp 4.0 was the first really "mature" OS/2 release in many ways. It finally added such things as alternate fonts that looked better on laptops with LCD panels, colored tabs for menus, and an all-around more "polished" look and feel.)

      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)

      by lostchicken ( 226656 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @08:29PM (#5886955)
      The same thing happened to BeOS. I still really, really want to use it, but don't because there is no future for it.
    • I loved OS/2 too, used it till '97 as desktop and internet server, and still miss how intuitive and integrated was WPS under Linux (the desktop under BeOS looked to me at least as good as wps, btw), how responsive it was even with relatively low hardware (like playing quake1 in internet in a 8Mb 486), and how much reliable it was.

      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

    • Nostalgia ain't what it used to be, either.

  • Look at those Screen Shots! (Score:5, Funny)

    by zulux ( 112259 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @08:12PM (#5886829) Homepage Journal

    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)

      by Orgg ( 3764 ) * on Monday May 05, 2003 @08:25PM (#5886932)
      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


      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...
    • If I really wanted that experience I could always run winfile on Win98. Ick.
    • There's a computer store up in Maine that still has a boxed, shrinkwrapped copy of Win 3.1. I haven't been up for a while, but last time I checked the guy was trying to sell it for $80 or something like that.

    • You can't - they *force* you stay on the upgrade treadmill.

      Yes, by holding Microsoft Gun to your head.

    • Ring.... Ring....
      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.

      • 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.

        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...)

  • Not to knock it, i've always actually liked OS/2 even though i never got to play with Warp 4 but its not really an operating system for the average guy.. It was before its time but now it is past its time..

    might be a nice little OS for old computers but we have linux for that.. dunno what these ppl are trying to do..
    • as I've been saying for years....or at least since '96....
      If IBM released OS/2 as open source, both Windows AND linux would rapidly become hobby software.
      • If IBM released OS/2 as open source, both Windows AND linux would rapidly become hobby software.

        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.
        • I was more referring to windows, actually...Linux is still AFAICT a hobby / niche OS; OS/2 as open source would quickly provide a better windows environment for casual users than the "OS" MacroHard makes.
          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.
          • Linux is still AFAICT a hobby / niche OS

            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
      • Microsoft owns part of the copyright on the OS/2 codebase. They did everyting they could to suppress it, but IBM still had enough rights to keep it going. MS will never allow it to go open source, and they do have enough control over the code to prevent that.

  • Stupid name (Score:3, Flamebait)

    by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @08:23PM (#5886913) Homepage
    Makes it sound like a niche OS. Come on, doesn't eComStation imply that's only good for one thing? This alone will help make it hard for OS/2 to make a comeback of any kind.
    • Actually, it sounds like they thought "Let's drown ourselves in buzzwords!"

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Looks like the only legacy apps running (according to the screenshots) are Sailor Moon videos?..not exactly what most people need..

    Oops..I forgot this is slashdot..

  • Yeah! (Score:3, Funny)

    by lostchicken ( 226656 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @08:31PM (#5886968)
    I think I'll just fire up VMWare and try this out.

    Oh wait. You say VMWare won't run OS/2. That's right...
  • And they say BSD was dying. Man. Were the trolls wrong. :)

  • tough install? No problem. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by twitter ( 104583 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @09:16PM (#5887196) Homepage Journal
    The author says, after 2 weeks of effort and 3 machines, "...the installation procedure is buggy and it might work or might not work for you."

    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.

    • Did 1.0 even have Mozilla? Easy enough to install. Look at the OS/2 section of Mozilla development.

      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,
    • A difficult/buggy install should not hold this software back if it's worth using.

      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

  • other reviews and links (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    http://www.os2ezine.com/20030416/page_2.html

    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)

    by cybrthng ( 22291 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @10:05PM (#5887473) Homepage Journal
    I loved OS/2 like no other os. OS/2 truely let me choose what i want out of my os.

    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.

    • >
      it was extending the framework.. something unique even to this day!

      And how is this different from GNU/Linux or *BSD?

      • Neither Linux nor the *BSD family was as useful on x86 hardware at that point in time.

        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...

        • >

          Neither Linux nor the *BSD family was as useful on x86 hardware at that point in time.

          Agreed, but you talked about today as well.

          >

          providing a level of functionality that Linux still can't realistically provide even with DOSEMU, Wine

          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.

          • > backwards compatibility with MS-DOS and MS-Win
            > 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

            • >

              How so?

              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

    • 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

  • The website mentions that the OS is "REXX enabled", which is an OS/2 / IBM scripting language, right? Any other operating systems or applications use REXX these days?

    I remember the Amiga had a version of this too... ARexx! Very useful back in the day.

    • There are commerial products which run under windows. I used it to write a small rexx script for the mainframe. Tested it out with a piece of small data downloaded from the mainframe. When it worked, the logic. I U/L up to the mainframe and change a couple of things. It works great and parses an output file to a readable report. I really liked REXX. Great for taking raw data, and producing reports. Like COBOL. I even think there is some freeware REXX program for Windows environment. Do a search

    • Re:REXX support? (Score:3, Informative)

      by MrBlack ( 104657 )
      AFAIK IBM's ObjectREXX has an active scripting binding, so on windows anywhere you can write VBScript/JScript you can also put REXX code there too. Similar bindings exist for a lot of languages including Python and Perl. I don't actually _know_ of anyone using REXX, but this is a possibility.
    • Most operating systems has an REXX interpreter. It is widely used and is found in quite a few flavours, like NetREXX - that enables you to create applications in REXX and compile it to Java bytecode.

      About the Amiga...well IBM traded the REXX for some of the AmigaOS GUI stuff.

    • among other platforms.

      Check it out here [sourceforge.net]

      Here is another good link [rexxla.org] if you're sufficiently interested.

    • Here's a little known bit of REXX/Amiga trivia...

      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? ...sigh...

  • Lacking one major feature (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This is useless to me without support for IPv6. I bet it has decent support for MCA adapters at least.

  • THIS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SCHecklerX ( 229973 ) <greg@gksnetworks.com> on Monday May 05, 2003 @11:07PM (#5887902) Homepage
    is the desktop environment that KDE/Gnome should be trying to emulate. Real objects which interact with each other. Consistent. Intuitive. Simple. Elegant.

    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!

    • Thank X not nautilus for the failure.

      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
      • Xf86 is the worst X implementation on the market.

        If your market only includes SGI's X server and XFree86, this might be a true statement.

        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.

        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.
    • The user doesn't want an intuitive OO GUI, they want a skinnable GUI that sucks the life out of the machine and drives the uder nutz .... who cares - IT IS SKINNABLE!
    • I would like to learn more about the advantages of the WPS to the desktop user. Do you have any references (preferrably free and on-line) that would tell me more?
      • * One can arrange the icons on the desktop or in each folder in several different ways (around the top, bottom, left, right, etc), and UNDO the arrange command if it was done accidentally by selecting the "Undo Arrange" item on the main menu for that desktop or folder object.

        * 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
  • I grew up on OS/2 (well, after moving up from an old Sony SMC-70 and a variety of 8088s and 286s). I loved it's GUI. (yes, even without stable virtual desktops) It was just about the only thing that would handle our old P75's aging graphics card gracefully at anything other than 800x600. (sadly, we now use that box as a monitorless linux printserver and no longer have OS/2 installed anywhere else in this house)

    Even now that I have happily switched over to Linux and KDE, I find that there's one feature t
  • OS/2 Still has the best GUI newsreader.

    • NR/2 (Score:2)

      by zoward ( 188110 ) *
      I remember this! OS/2's newreader was called NR/2, and it came with the OS. It had three separate windows: one listed the newsgruops, and double-clicking the group you wanted to browse brought up a second window with a list of headers from that group sorted by thread, and double-clicking the header you wanted brought up a third window with the message. Because of this, you could easily read the message fullscreen, something I haven't seen in a GUI-based newsreader before or since. Anyone know of an open
      • Heh, no.

        NR/2 Was pertty horrible, didn't support message threading and had a number of other problems :)

  • Who installs that OS? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:01AM (#5888507) Homepage
    Corparates, who actually buy operating systems and support.

    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_info .phtml

    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...


  • 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.
  • I'm cracking up hearing all the talk about how the WPS was the nicest piece of software ever written, how it was "object oriented" before its time, etc., and how KDE and Gnome should go read history.

    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
    • Who is this? Kurt?

      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-
      • Yes, this is Kurt Westerfeld. I have my OS/2 battle scars to prove it....see here?

        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
        • ....btw, so funny, I twitch so much thinking about Workplace Shell I write WSP instead. Not freudian, unless you can come up with an acronym that is a proper analog.

          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!
  • I'm actually somewhat interested in eComStation, since I never gained much familiarity with OS/2 in the first place. Unfortunately, this review doesn't really help me, and I doubt it would help anyone.

    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
  • Probably ex-IBMers like myself. I still use it on an old thinkpad and a Dell Optiplex and runs just fine. I've heard stories and rumours of ECS, but I recommend just running Warp 4 with all the fixpak updates. I actually prefer the look and feel of the WPS' industrial look than that stoopid cartoony XP layout. I'm sorry to see it go, but I still wear my OS/2 shirts with pride.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close