It reminds me of all the fun I use to have loading drivers in OS2Warp. But
once u got "it" the operating systems both run fine.

Re: Win64 Pro - OS2Warp by Andre

Andre
Fri May 12 01:33:11 CDT 2006

Never used OS/2, but I was watching this interview with Bill Gates saying he
was scared of it, since a lot of banks were using it for their ATM's and how
banks love OS/2. I have to say, XP Pro x64 is a great OS, no problems at
all, everything just works. For 2000 Professional I had to wait a few months
before my modem, printer and scanner were supported.
--
--
Andre
Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

"Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:%23U99GuWdGHA.1320@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> It reminds me of all the fun I use to have loading drivers in OS2Warp. But
> once u got "it" the operating systems both run fine.
>



Re: Win64 Pro - OS2Warp by Martin

Martin
Fri May 12 13:27:59 CDT 2006

I was working for a national bank a couple of years back, they were in the
process of a complete conversion to XP. However, they still had app's that
needed OS/2 that weren't getting converted anytime soon, they also had
Virtual PC running for the OS/2 stuff. I'm sure at some point though they
would replace these OS/2 app's with XP app's.


"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <andred25@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23w9W03YdGHA.1276@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Never used OS/2, but I was watching this interview with Bill Gates saying
> he was scared of it, since a lot of banks were using it for their ATM's
> and how banks love OS/2. I have to say, XP Pro x64 is a great OS, no
> problems at all, everything just works. For 2000 Professional I had to
> wait a few months before my modem, printer and scanner were supported.
> --
> --
> Andre
> Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
>
> "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:%23U99GuWdGHA.1320@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> It reminds me of all the fun I use to have loading drivers in OS2Warp.
>> But once u got "it" the operating systems both run fine.
>>
>
>



Re: Win64 Pro - OS2Warp by Carlos

Carlos
Fri May 12 18:39:01 CDT 2006

Where I work we have one chip placement machine (those machines that place
the small rectangular components and integrated circuits on motherboards an
other electronic devices) which runs on OS/2.
Alive 'n tickin'
Carlos

"Martin S." wrote:

> I was working for a national bank a couple of years back, they were in the
> process of a complete conversion to XP. However, they still had app's that
> needed OS/2 that weren't getting converted anytime soon, they also had
> Virtual PC running for the OS/2 stuff. I'm sure at some point though they
> would replace these OS/2 app's with XP app's.
>
>
> "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <andred25@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23w9W03YdGHA.1276@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > Never used OS/2, but I was watching this interview with Bill Gates saying
> > he was scared of it, since a lot of banks were using it for their ATM's
> > and how banks love OS/2. I have to say, XP Pro x64 is a great OS, no
> > problems at all, everything just works. For 2000 Professional I had to
> > wait a few months before my modem, printer and scanner were supported.
> > --
> > --
> > Andre
> > Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
> > Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
> > Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
> > http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
> >
> > "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:%23U99GuWdGHA.1320@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> It reminds me of all the fun I use to have loading drivers in OS2Warp.
> >> But once u got "it" the operating systems both run fine.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>

Re: Win64 Pro - OS2Warp by Andre

Andre
Fri May 12 19:17:19 CDT 2006

I think the reason why IBM failed with OS\2, they were complacent, and they
really didn't have a developer story, there was no incentive really for
developers to target the platform or at least IBM did not make it clear
enough. Also, the clones were kind of suspecious also, the enemy developing
the OS to run on our hardware?
--
Andre
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

"Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23c$EyoadGHA.4128@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Kue2 wrote:
>> It reminds me of all the fun I use to have loading drivers in OS2Warp.
>> But
>> once u got "it" the operating systems both run fine.
>
> Back then, OS/2 is the best one to execute old DOS applications. IBM
> have backward compatibility in mind. But M$ was trying to monopolize
> everything, and everyone bought into its believes...
>
> I still have my OS/2 disks with me... Anyway, we got Linux now.
>
>
> --
> .~. Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
> / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
> /( _ )\ (Ubuntu 5.10) Linux 2.6.16.16
> ^ ^ 17:53:02 up 1 day 2:20 0 users load average: 1.00 1.01 1.00
> news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk
>



Re: Win64 Pro - OS2Warp by Agent86

Agent86
Thu Jun 01 00:35:59 CDT 2006

Plus IBM tried to get the OEM's to pay royaltiess on ISA bus computers
(all they had ever sold) in order to bundle OS2. That is what really
drove the nails in its coffin. They tried that with MicroChannel too
and where is it today?


On Fri, 12 May 2006 17:17:19 -0700, "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]"
<andred25@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I think the reason why IBM failed with OS\2, they were complacent, and they
>really didn't have a developer story, there was no incentive really for
>developers to target the platform or at least IBM did not make it clear
>enough. Also, the clones were kind of suspecious also, the enemy developing
>the OS to run on our hardware?

Re: Win64 Pro - OS2Warp by George

George
Thu Jun 01 15:40:55 CDT 2006

It's time to suck it up, and move on. Why don't we talk about the
uselessness of XP64 instead?

"Agent86" <maxsmart@control.org> wrote in message
news:nvus72103inft2d8bs43qpk32tf7i088hu@4ax.com...
> Plus IBM tried to get the OEM's to pay royaltiess on ISA bus computers
> (all they had ever sold) in order to bundle OS2. That is what really
> drove the nails in its coffin. They tried that with MicroChannel too
> and where is it today?
>
>
> On Fri, 12 May 2006 17:17:19 -0700, "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]"
> <andred25@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I think the reason why IBM failed with OS\2, they were complacent, and
>>they
>>really didn't have a developer story, there was no incentive really for
>>developers to target the platform or at least IBM did not make it clear
>>enough. Also, the clones were kind of suspecious also, the enemy
>>developing
>>the OS to run on our hardware?



Re: Win64 Pro - OS2Warp by DP

DP
Fri Jun 02 11:17:12 CDT 2006


"George" <george23%@qol.com> wrote in message
news:OCLquubhGHA.1320@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> It's time to suck it up, and move on. Why don't we talk about the
> uselessness of XP64 instead?
>

I guess uselessness is in the eye of the beholder. X64 works for me and for
a lot of people in this ng.

If it's not working for you, maybe it's something that people here can help
you fix.
Or if you just don't like it, that's cool. No point in arguing that. It
would be a silly as arguing which is the prettiest color or who's the
greatest rock band ever or what's the best-tasting food.




Re: Win64 Pro - OS2Warp by Chuck

Chuck
Fri Jun 02 14:40:36 CDT 2006

x64 versions of the OS are most "useful" when you have:

(A) more than 2 GBytes of physical RAM in the machine

and

(B) are running either 64-bit native applications -or- 32-bit applications
built with LARGEADDRESSAWARE (which many applications are not)



The other scenario that would be improved with x64 is:

(A) more than 2 GBytes of physical RAM in the machine

and

(B) you are running several memory-intensive applications at once where the
bottleneck is virtual memory demand paging to disk rather than computation,
graphics performance, etc.



If neither of these scenarios apply to you, then you probably won't see much
benefit in installing the x64 editions at this time.

There are a lot of architectural improvements that go with x64 native code
that will benefit applications that move to it over time, but the memory
addressability still the primary reason 64-bit technology is an improvement
over 32-bit. When systems start shipping with more than 2 GB of RAM standard
in the box, it will in fact be a waste of money to have anything but x64
Editions running on those machines.

--
Chuck Walbourn
SDE, Game Technology Group

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.