Fullscreen HTML5Med Res (??MB)HTML4

BY PAUL LYNCH The PC game is changing again: OS/2 is really here PC users find themselves in an unusual position in 1992: IBM is really after our dollars. The year is still young but it is difficult to imagine that much will happen that's more important than the new release of the IBM operating system, OS/2. IBM released version 2.0 of the system at the end of March. It's a true 32bit system, which means that it runs extremely quickly. MS-DOS and PC-DOS run at eight bits in real mode - and Microsoft Windows at best runs in only 16 bits in 386-enhanced mode. As many users have found, this higher mode of Windows is effectively no faster than the usual protected mode. OS/2 also tackles memory management in innovative ways that make have a machine with a 40Mb hard disc, it's quite likely that OS/2 is not for you - at this time. What we have now is software that in effect will prescribe your hardware configuration - if you choose to accept it. What IBM has done to encourage you to do this is really quite remarkable. The nature of SILICON CHIP is pretty obvious - it's a technical magazine. But at some stage, the PC user looking for software must recognise the corn- "To run 05/2 version 2.0, you will need at least an 80386SX central processing unit (CPU) chip. You'll also need a lot of spare storage. The minimum requirement is 15 megabytes" previous systems quite obsolete. All this is good - in fact, excellentnews. But part of the news is not quite so good. To run OS/2 version 2.0, you will need at least an 80386SX central processing unit (CPU) chip. You'll also need a lot of spare storage. The minimum requirement is 15 megabytes. If you install the lot, it will occupy 30Mb of your hard disc. So if you already 24 SILICON CHIP mercial environment in which he or she is operating. There are many dead ends in the history of the PC: I have a number of software packages on my shelves that I seldom used some years ago and will never use again. They've been a waste of money - quite a lot of it, I'm sorry to say. They remind me daily of the importance of looking beyond the technical parameters when buying major software and equipment. The new version of OS/2 is quite wonderful but a straight technical statement of its characteristics will not answer the sensible questions of most users. After all, to run it, many people must consider replacing their present computer at a cost of some thousands of dollars. Is this a good idea? Answering the question calls for a quick stroll through the marketplace. The race for our dollar Quite a lot of the stuff laid out in the market is there not because it's ready, but just to beat a competitor in the race for our dollar. Central Point Software and Symantec had just such a race last year Central Point was in a hurry to put PC Tools 7.0 on the market, because Symantec was in a hurry to present Norton Utilities 6.0. Haste overcame caution and within weeks of each other, both manufacturers found it appropriate to bring out free updates designed to fix the errors that existed in the products as first marketed. Central Point issued PC Tools 7.1 and Symantec offered 6.01. The feelings of people who purchased the bug-infested versions only weeks or months earlier have not been recorded publicly. But in a recent article in the American magazine PC Computing, senior officials of WordPerfect were quite frank about the error they'd made in putting their version 5.0 on the market too soon a few years ago. As they see it now, the product had so many glitches that it almost destroyed their reputation. (It's worth recalling that it's only in the past few months that WordPerfect re- leased its Windows version - two years behind its major competitors). Beyond this urge to hit the market at the earliest possible date, all software manufacturers find themselves to a large extent in the fortune-telling business. What do we users want? What will we pay for? How much of what we want should be in the final package? WordStar users saw what started out as a single double-density disc program wind up, in version 5.5 , as one that needed 19 discs for the same program with all kinds of bells and whistles. I doubt that any single user wanted, or applied, all the wonderful things offered on those 19 discs but the manufacturer had a commercial need to supply the lot. Since 1990, software manufacturers have had another question to answer: when they move beyond MSDOS, should they develop a Windows version or an OS/2 version? OS/2 was clearly a technically superior interface ·but market realities are such that many of those software designers who decided that OS/2 was the way to go got their fingers burned quite badly. While OS/2 had been round since 1987 as a joint effort between Microsoft and IBM, there was a rupture of the partnership. Microsoft pulled out because of the staggering success , starting in 1990, of its graphics interface, Windows. The success of Windows In any history of the PC, the appearance of Windows 3.0 will merit a new chapter. Earlier versions of the program were glitch-ridden, and even 3.0 presented users with some difficulties, but largely due to the support of other software manufacturers who wrote programs to operate through MS-DOS µlus the Windows 3.0 graphics interface, the Windows market exploded. Over nine million copies had been sold by the end of 1991. This is why Microsoft says "the market has spoken", suggesting that computer users are so happy with their product that they want, or will want, no other. This is a doubtful proposition. But the Windows success prompted Microsoft to pull out of OS/2 development and concentrate on later versions tlf Windows. Version 3.1 came out last month and Windows NT - a 32-bit package - is promised for late this year. Presumably, NT will be the first true Windows operating system, as distinct from an add-on to the basic MS-DOS: which is what versions 3.0 and 3.1 are. Microsoft says that no matter which version you buy, it will always look like what you're used to. The present Windows interface will always be retained - as far into the future as its technical people can see. So why should users buy OS/2 version 2.0 instead of sticking with Windows? There are a few reasons. The first and most dramatic is probably that OS/2 actually includes Windows 3.0 and IBM promises that it will continue to enhance its Windows versions in the package - to match 3.1 and, later, to match NT. How is this possible? It's because IBM and Microsoft signed a development deal for graphic interfaces back in the eighties that gave IBM full rights to all programming codes developed during the course of that agreement. This agreement runs as far as the coming Windows NT, IBM claims, and includes it. So if you like Windows, and want to use it, you now have a choice of buying the Microsoft version or the IBM version. If you buy Microsoft, you will also need to buy MS-DOS, on which Microsoft Windows stands. If you buy OS/2 version 2.0, you will find it includes DOS - and goes beyond it into 32-bit processing. Countless forests have been hewn to bring computer users the first reports on what OS/2 is, and what it does. Here is a simple Q&A that answers some questions about whether it belongs in your computer - now, or in the future. What's the minimum hardware I'll need for OS/2? IBM says this is an 80386SX with 60Mb of storage and 4Mb of RAM. A smaller hard disc may suffice if you are running compression-on-the-flysuch as Sup erStor, Stacker or DoubleDisk. Obviously, the faster your CPU chip , the greater your RAM and the larger your hard disc, the better OS/2 will run. How much disc space will I need? The bare-bones installation occupies 15Mb and there are alternative installations that take you up to 30Mb. The higher-end installations, however, STOCK SALE!! FANS 80 x 80 x 25mm 240VAC .... $16.84 120 x 120 x 38mm 240VAC $16.92 Fan Finger Guards for 80mm Fans ....... ........ .. .. .... $1.43 Fan Finger Guards for 120mm Fans ........... .... .. .... $2.12 MISCELLANEOUS Circuit Breakers 7.5A- Press To Reset .. .... .......... .. ... .... ... $7.25 Mains Power Lead 10A 1.8m long ...... .... ... .......... .... $4.16 9V Battery Snaps .... .. ..... ....... $0.20 2 x AA Battery Holder ... ...... .. . $0.28 12-Way terminal block 10A .. . $1.60 SEMICONDUCTORS 1N4004 Diodes ... ... ......... ...... $0.07 1N4007 Diodes .. ..... .. ... ... .. ... . $0.1 0 1N4148 Diodes ................ ... .. $0.04 MJ15003 Transistor ........ .. .... $6.50 MJ15004 Transistor ........ ... ... $6.50 MJ15024 Transistor ..... ......... $8.60 MJ15025 Transistor ..... .... ... .. $8.60 MJ13007 Transistor ....... .. .. ... $4.87 MFR571 Transistor ..... .......... $4.27 NE555 IC ... .. .... ... ............ .. .. .. $0.30 TL494 IC .... ... .... ...... ... ........... $2.83 MC14514 IC ..... ....... .... ..... ..... $3.00 MC34063 IC ....................... ... $2.98 ALL ITEMS 10 PLUS 10% OFF HY CAL ELECTRONICS Unit 4, 62 Gt. Western Hwy, Parramatta, NSW 2150. Phone (02) 633 5477 Fax (02) 891 5640 Credit Cards Welcome MAY 1992 25 are those including the on-line help, and if you don't have this, your learning curve may be a longer one. There's a type-font program. (These are just the things I found in my review copy. I'm told there's more). How much does it cost? Are any OS/2 application packages in the market? Beats me. The recommended retail price is $275 but you could get it for about $250 on the day it hit the shops. IBM is apparently interested in discounting to get a leg into this market which ultimately can bring them hundreds of millions of dollars. How well does it work? Brilliantly. An IBM publicist said last year that the new package would "run DOS better than DOS and Windows better than Windows". OS/2 certainly does that, for two reasons. One is that it's a 32-bit package - your DOS and Windows applications run faster. The other is that IBM, just like Microsoft, has had about two years to clean up some of the things that trou- Yes. In June last year, you could buy PageMaker, CASE, Carel Draw, Lotus 1-2-3, PackRat, Ventura, WordPerfect and other packages in OS/2 versions. Microsoft was offering Excel and Word. IBM spread its programming codes around for version 2.0, and now claims that 800 applications are now available or in advanced preparation. Note, by the way, that the programs listed here sold for the same prices as the Windows versions in almost every case. Is OS/2 here for the long haul? We don't know whether any of the current systems are here for the long haul. How long a haul are we think- "OS/2 actually includes Windows 3.0 and IBM promises that it will continue to enhance its Windows versions in the package - to match 3.1 and, later, to match Windows NT" bled Windows users with the 3.0 package. I couldn't get any Unrecoverable Application Errors from my OS/2 Windows, for example. Memory management is wonderful. I don't use Windows and don't want to. What's in OS/2 for me? Quite a lot of things. Your DOS programs will run faster. RAM cram vanishes because of the way OS/2 presents DOSwhich is that it sets up a new DOS simulation for every DOS program you get into. These simulations each have something like 630Kb of available RAM. Task switching is better. The REXX programming language supplied is better. And besides, OS/2 is bundled with a lot of things beyond the operating system itself. And these are? There's a database and a spreadsheet. There's a good communications program for modem users. There's a calendar/diary/personal information manager. There are excellent games. There's a 5-disc suite of device drivers, including scads of mouse drivers. 26 SILICON CHIP ing of? It's pretty obvious that OS/2, DOS and Windows are here for as long as we're using x86 Intel CPUs. And IBM has already worked out how to transfer our OS/2 data files to RISC processors. Only a brave or foolhardy person would predict what CPUs we'll be using 10 years from now. How confident can I be that OS/2 works? Pretty confident. IBM issued 30,000 beta copies before release and licensed many of the beta assessors to make up to 10 copies of the beta code. When Microsoft released MS-DOS 5.0 last year, it announced there had been 5000 beta testers - at that time, the largest such program in history. DOS 5.0 doesn't seem to have too many dark and spooky corners. Do I really need OS/2? It's up to you. If you often sit in front of your computer waiting for it to do things, for example, you'll spend less such time with OS/2. If you're crashing your present system often, you should enjoy less crashes under OS/2, because of the improved memory management. If you foresee working with any software that calls for a lot of calculation, you can rest assured that somebody out there is writing or bringing to market a 32-bit version that won't run under DOS. If you're already running a program you want to be faster, check with your program's Australian agent when the OS/2 version will be available. Your DOS or Windows software will be faster within OS/2; your OS/2 application will be faster again: in some cases, much faster. What are the disadvantages? The main one, is that you have to learn it. It's not much fun learning any new software. One of the many charms of Microsoft Windows is that its Program Manager interface slashes the learning time for new applications; but you have to learn the PM interface before you can take advantage of this. In exactly the same way, you have to learn how OS/2 works. The other disadvantage is the high hardware requirement. You may not be able to run OS/2 at all on your present computer. Then again, you may not be able to run Windows NT, either. · How do you see OS/2? My view is that it shows us where the PC is going. Not everybody has to follow this path. If you want a simple business machine for word processing, plus a couple of simple DOS and Windows programs, you can continue happily with an 80286 machine, a couple of megs of RAM, and a 2040Mb hard disc. These machines are really cheap today and will get cheaper in the future. OS/2's ability to run DOS and Windows now, and keep up with Windows even through the NT evolution, is a powerful incentive to adopt the system. And the higher-level machines are also getting cheaper. Coincidentally, just as I was finishing this column, I saw a newspaper advertisement from a well-known clone supplier. It was for an 80486-40 machine with 64Kb RAM cache, 125Mb hard disc and 4Mb RAM- for under $2200. Two years ago, an 80286 with a 40M hard disc, no cache and 2Mb of RAM, could cost you $5000 or more. SC