FAQ: Should I buy OS/2 Warp 3.0? by Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com last revised: 8/18/96 Introduction ------------ This document is intended to serve as an answer to the above question, which is being posed with regularity to various OS/2 newsgroups. I am posting this to comp.os.os2.advocacy, and making an official HTML version available at http://www.rodsbooks.com/buy-os2/. This document is undergoing continual, but mostly minor, revisions. Please feel free to e-mail me with corrections or additional information. Permission is granted to distribute this file on Internet web sites, BBSes, or by any other means, so long as its content is not altered. I do request that you try to keep whatever you distribute up to date. Changes since the last release include: 1) Miscellaneous small textual changes 2) Changes to shift the implicit and explicit focus of comparison from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 3) Major re-write of the OS/2 features section 4) Added a paragraph about Windows 95 programs to the software section 5) Mentioned the shareware Advanced Boot Manager 6) Added a discussion of removable disks (like Zip drives) to the hardware section 7) Expanded the discussion of printers 8) Added a brief section on scanners to the hardware section * Sections which have changed since the previous version are marked with * leading asterisks (like this text). Unfortunately, the question of whether to buy OS/2 has no simple "yes" or "no" answer. The answer depends upon the user's hardware, software, and purpose for having a computer. This FAQ therefore goes over some of the issues involved in answering the question, in the hopes that the reader can construct the answer from the individual sub-answers. The nature of this FAQ necessarily means that it overlaps somewhat with other OS/2 FAQs. The interested reader is encouraged to examine one or more of the following OS/2 FAQs: - WARPFAQ3.ZIP -- Tim Sipples' main OS/2 FAQ. This has information on what OS/2 is, OS/2 resources and programs, etc. It's thin on OS/2 installation and debugging tips, though. - GBU109.ZIP -- John Altstadt's Good, Bad, & Ugly hardware list for OS/2, which lists hardware that's known to work well or not-well under OS/2. - PCIWARE.ZIP -- Pat Duffy's PCI hardware information for OS/2, which gives information on PCI chipsets, motherboards, SCSI controllers, EIDE controllers, and video boards under OS/2. - PFAQ34.ZIP -- Andreas Almroth's Programmer's FAQ for OS/2, which answers questions about programming under OS/2. - OS2FNFAQ.ZIP -- Cliff Cullum's OS/2 Font FAQ. Addresses questions about fonts and their use under OS/2. * - TMFAQ24.ZIP -- Christian Scarborough's Team OS/2 FAQ, which tells you what Team OS/2 is, and what it does. - OS2D-FGA.ZIP -- The OS2DOS Frequently Given Answers. This is a summary of most of the frequently given answers from the FIDONET OS2DOS echo, covering all sorts of issues of running legacy DOS and Windows applica- tions under OS/2, from "Can I use DOS programs on HPFS?" through to "What about VxDs?". - PROSCONS.ZIP -- The Highly Unofficial FIDONET OS2DOS C++ Compilers Pros and Cons list. The developer switching to OS/2 will want this in order to compare and contrast the main C++ compilers for OS/2 (Borland, Watcom, IBM, Metaware, EMX) and get further information about toolkits, DirectToSOM C++, and Developer assistance programs. * - Soundcard summary -- I maintain information on sound cards under OS/2. * It is available via my web site. This covers many (but not all) popular sound cards, and gives tips on driver availability and known limitations. - Unofficial OS/2 Beta FAQ -- A FAQ on beta versions of OS/2 is available on the web from http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~kwilas/. This has information about development of future versions of OS/2. Most of these are available on ftp-os2.nmsu.edu or ftp-os2.cdrom.com, under the os2/newsltr or os2/info directory. The contents of the PCIWARE.ZIP file can be found on ftp.netcom.com under the pub/ab/abe directory (grab everything with "pci" in the filename). OS2D-FGA.ZIP and PROSCONS.ZIP FAQs are available on FidoNet from DoNoR by File Requesting from 2:440/4.0, and the latter is on ftp-os2.nmsu.edu as FIDOCPP.ZIP under the dev32 directory. Some or all of these may also be available on rtfm.mit.edu (an ftp site devoted to FAQs of all sorts) under the pub/usenet/comp.os.os2.misc or pub/usenet/news.answers directories. The soundcard summary can also be found on the web at http://www.rodsbooks.com/sound/index.html. Tim Sipples' OS/2 FAQ is published in an expanded book form, including a CD-ROM with drivers and utilities, by IDG Books (ISBN 1-56884-472-7). In addition to these FAQs, there are several OS/2-related web sites which may be of interest to somebody considering purchasing OS/2. These include: - IBM's main web page at http://www.ibm.com. 'Nuff said. - The Warp Pharmacy (http://www.umn.edu/nlhome/g561/maki0019/ WarpPharmacy.html), a site devoted to OS/2 information and troubleshooting. There are mirrors of this site around the world (this URL goes to a North American site; the original is in Australia). - The Berkeley OS/2 User Group's homepage at http://godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU/os2/homepage.htm. This has links to other useful OS/2 web sites, FAQs, etc. * - Henry Rieke's Ultimate Sound web page at http://wvnvaxa.wvnet.edu/ ~hrieke/US.html, which includes drivers and sound-related utilities. - IBM Europe's Device Driver Repository (http://www.europe.ibm.com/getdoc/ psmemea/progserv/device/), from which you can download assorted drivers for OS/2 Warp which don't come with the base OS (either updated or new drivers). - The Cincinnati Team OS/2 Update List at http://www.cincyteamos2.org/ masterupdate.html, which has links to major OS/2 software updates. - The EDM/2 homepage (http://venus.ee.ndsu.nodak.edu/edm2). EDM/2 is an online OS/2 developer's magazine containing book and utility reviews, programming how-to columns, and other material of interest to programmers. - The Indelible Blue homepage at http://www.indelible-blue.com/ib. Indelible Blue is one of the major OS/2 mail-order retailers. Check this page to see what sort of native OS/2 software is available. * - The OS/2 Forum, with some OS/2 information in German, is available at * http://www.teuto.de/~matgo/os2forum.html. * - Information on OS/2 voicemail programs can be obtained from * http://www.he.net/~jubjub/. OS/2's History and Purpose -------------------------- OS/2 was originally developed jointly by IBM and Microsoft as a multitasking successor to DOS for 286 and better CPUs, but version 1.x never really caught on except in a few specialized applications. With version 2.0, Microsoft dropped out of the OS/2 partnership, and IBM promoted OS/2 to a 32-bit OS requiring a 386 or better CPU. This basic * configuration has not changed with OS/2 2.1 or 3.0. The upcoming * "Merlin" version of OS/2 (probably to be called 4.0 when it's released) * will not be tested with 386 CPUs, and at this point it's unknown whether * it will work on a 386 system at all. OS/2 Warp 3.0 is a multitasking, 32-bit, single-user OS for 386SX and better CPUs with 4MB or more of RAM. It is very DOS-like in some ways (such as the commands used in its command-line interface, and the presence of a CONFIG.SYS file), but resembles the Mac in other ways (e.g., the iconic representation of files from the WorkPlace Shell) and has some similarities to other OSes in still other ways (e.g., pop-up menus when clicking on the desktop itself, which are reminiscent of X Windows under Unix). Warp includes a Graphical User Interface (GUI) known as Presentation Manager (PM), and a desktop metaphor for launching programs and manipulating files called the WorkPlace Shell (WPS). The PM bears some resemblance to Windows, though it's not identical. The * WPS is similar to Windows 95's desktop metaphor or the Mac's Finder, but * is generally more flexible and more object-oriented than either. A Windows version of the WPS is available as WPSFW150.ZIP under the /windows directory on ftp-os2.nmsu.edu. * OS/2 Warp 3.0 comes in several versions with varying levels of * networking support. The first-released version has only dial-up * networking (SLIP and PPP) support. Two other versions, "Warp Connect" * and "Warp Server," include client and server capabilities, respectively. * The next release of OS/2, code-named "Merlin," will include client * networking features in the base package. When used with Windows for * Workgroups 3.1, the WfW networking features are disabled under OS/2, though they can still be used if WfW is run from native DOS. * The lower-end versions of OS/2 also come in two versions each, one that * includes a re-compiled version of Windows (often called the "with * Win-OS/2" or "Blue Spine" version), the other of which requires that the * user already have Windows 3.1 in order to run Windows programs from OS/2 * (somtimes referred to as the "for Windows" or "Red Spine" version, * though neither term is official). The "with Win-OS/2" version sometimes * runs Windows programs slightly faster than does the "for Windows" version, * and is easier to set up if the user doesn't already have Windows 3.1 * installed; but the "for Windows" version is less expensive. Out of the box, Warp can run OS/2 text-mode, OS/2 GUI, and DOS programs. * Windows is a DOS program which Warp can run, and this is how OS/2 * provides Windows support -- by running Windows on top of its DOS mode. * This method of Windows support will not change with Merlin. Note that * Windows 95 CANNOT be used to provide Windows program support for OS/2. Most new OS/2 users should get the original "for Windows" version of Warp. The "for Windows" version is slightly less expensive and will use less disk space than the "fullpack" version. Somebody who's upgrading from OS/2 2.1 fullpack should buy the upgrade package of the Warp "fullpack," which includes a "sniffer" to detect the old 2.1 code, and won't install if it doesn't find this. Somebody who's building a new computer and who doesn't already have Windows or OS/2 2.x, but who wants to run Windows programs, should buy the non-upgrade "fullpack" version of OS/2, which is the more expensive version, but more convenient than buying the "for Windows" version and a separate copy of Windows. * Major OS Features * ----------------- * * - Multitasking. All OSes can be classified according to how they run * multiple programs. At one end are simple OSes that can only run a * single program at once, or which, at best, place extreme restrictions * on running multiple programs. MS-DOS is an example of such an OS. * One step up from this level is an OS that does "co-operative multi- * tasking," in which the programs involved must voluntarily switch back * and forth. Such a system typically multitasks as well as its least * cooperative program; one program can easily "hog" the CPU, preventing * other programs from running. Windows 3.1 and the MacOS both use co- * operative multitasking. The next level up is "pre-emptive * multitasking," and this lets the OS dole out CPU time as it sees fit, * thus reducing or preventing problems due to one program's selfish * hogging of resources. Pre-emptive multitasking allows, for instance, * a reliable high-speed file transfer, spreadsheet recalculation, and * floppy disk format to all occur at the same time. Windows 95, Windows * NT, most varieties of Unix, and OS/2 all use pre-emptive multitasking, * though there are variations in implementation details, particularly * concerning the multitasking of DOS and Windows 3.1 programs. Some * OSes, including some but not all varieties of OS/2, can also handle * symmetric multi-processing (SMP) computers, in which more than one CPU * is present. In these systems, one program can run on one CPU while * another runs on another. * - Multithreading. This concept is similar to multitasking, but involves * only a single program. In an OS which allows multithreading, a single * program can create multiple "threads" of execution in order to improve * responsiveness. For instance, a word processor might create a thread * for printing a document and then allow you to immediately return to * editing the document even while the word processor is still formatting * the text for the printer. Note that the OS ENABLES multithreading, * but to be useful this feature requires applications that utilize the * feature. OS/2, Windows 95, and Windows NT all enable multithreading * for native applications, but not for "legacy" Windows 3.1 or DOS * programs (unless these programs implement the feature internally). * - Process protection. In some OSes (such as Windows 3.1), one program * can write into memory reserved for another program, or sometimes even * the OS, thus crashing the other program or the OS as a whole. OS/2, * as well as Windows 95, Windows NT, and most Unixes, includes a method * to prevent this from happening. This system is imperfect, but it does * work most of the time. OS/2 extends this protection to DOS programs, * and can prevent Windows programs from damaging DOS or OS/2 programs. * Normally, Windows programs can still damage each other under OS/2, but * by running Windows programs in "separate sessions," this protection * can be extended to them, as well. Windows NT's level of process * protection is roughly comparable to OS/2's, while Windows 95's is * comparable only for native Windows 95 programs; it's my understanding * that Windows 3.1 and DOS programs run under Windows 95 can still do * considerable damage much more easily than they can under OS/2. * - The "64kB limit." Because of its 32-bit address space, OS/2 programmers needn't worry about the so-called "64kB limit" imposed by DOS's history. Under DOS, a single data structure is limited to 64K by the 16-bit memory addresses used by DOS, unless a 32-bit DOS extender is used. This 64K limit can be a pain to programmers, though end users needn't ordinarily worry about it. In fact, "32-bit" has been over-hyped by the media. Although some programs may get a speed boost from being 32-bit, others may win a speed DECREMENT if re-coded as 32-bit. Thus, the 32-bit address space is mostly a concern for those doing programming using large data structures. It should be noted that the new Intel Pentium Pro processor wins a speed increment for 32-bit code but a decrement for 16-bit code, compared to a similarly-clocked Pentium processor. Thus, OS/2 users who run mostly native 32-bit OS/2 programs can benefit from the Pentium Pro, but people running DOS/Windows, or even Windows 95 (which contains a * substantial amount of 16-bit code internally) may not. Windows NT and * most Unixes are mostly or completely 32-bit internally and run 32-bit * native programs. * - The "640kB limit." OS/2's memory architecture also obliterates the so-called "640kB barrier" imposed by DOS. While DOS programs are still limited to less than 1MB of RAM directly (plus whatever EMS, XMS, or DPMI memory they need), OS/2 itself is not so limited. The main upshot of this is that an OS/2 user need not juggle device drivers endlessly to maximize the available main memory. For many devices (such as CD-ROMs), OS/2 gives DOS programs access to the device without explicitly loading a DOS device driver, assuming that an OS/2 * device driver is used. Windows 95 is a bit of a cross on this issue; * when using native drivers, the 640kB barrier isn't much of an issue, * but when using older DOS drivers it is. Windows NT and most Unixes * are pretty much immune from the 640kB limit, as well. * - DOS settings. Many DOS and Windows programs require special drivers * or other commands in CONFIG.SYS or AUTOEXEC.BAT, and these commands or * drivers sometimes interfere with other programs, creating a problem * for the user. OS/2 allows the user to specify a unique AUTOEXEC.BAT * file and assorted settings that influence the way OS/2 runs the * program, thus giving the user great flexibility in running individual * DOS programs, and even in running several programs with conflicting * requirements simultaneously. Windows 95, Windows NT, and Unixes * (when they support DOS programs at all), by contrast, are much more * limiting in this respect. Windows 95 may produce better results in * running some finicky DOS applications individually by shutting itself * down into a dedicated DOS mode, but in terms of customizing settings * for specific DOS programs, OS/2 is the most flexible OS available. * - Filesystems. Hard disks must be organized using a disk-spanning data * structure known as a "filesystem," which allows the OS to locate * specific files. The filesystem used will have an important impact * upon system performance and features -- the filesystem determines, * for instance, the rules for naming files and the granularity of disk * space allocation (e.g., is disk space allocated in 0.5kB chunks, 2kB * chunks, etc.). To most people, FAT is the most familar filesystem, * but it isn't a very good one; it includes too many limitations and * design problems, some obvious to the user (like the so-called "8.3 * filename limit") and others not (like increasingly large disk space * allocation units with increasing partition size, which can end up * wasting 30% of a 1GB or larger disk's available space). While OS/2 * can use FAT, it includes the optional HPFS filesystem, which offers * long filenames, a constant 0.5kB allocation block size, better speed, * and greater reliability relative to FAT. DOS and Windows programs can * run on HPFS partitions from OS/2, but will still suffer from the 8.3 * filename conventions of DOS. While switching from FAT to HPFS isn't * necessary for OS/2 users, such a switch is often quite beneficial. * Other OSes offer other filesystems; for instance, Windows NT offers * NTFS, which is quite similar to HPFS in many ways; and Linux uses * ext2fs. Windows 95 uses something called VFAT, which is basically FAT * with long filename support. Recent systems with Windows 95 preloaded * may use VFAT-32, which offers relatively small 2kB allocation block * sizes on most hard disks. * - Networking. Most OSes these days offer some form of networking * support. As described above, OS/2 Warp 3.0 comes in different * versions with varying levels of network support, though Merlin is * slated to simplify matters considerably, bundling client networking * capabilities in the base OS. * - Multimedia. Most OSes today can handle multimedia applications * ranging from simple sound playback and recording to full-motion * "movies" and dynamic 3-D displays. OS/2 provides the necessary * underlying OS components for multimedia support, in the form of * MMPM/2. Aside from playing sounds, however, there are few OS/2 * programs that utilize multimedia in any substantial way, though * this is slowly changing. Most Windows multimedia titles will run * under OS/2, though some (particularly those which use MIDI file * playback) may produce somewhat "jerky" timing. Integrating the * Windows sound card drivers is the weakest point in the OS/2 * multimedia link. Because most of the home multimedia titles are * aimed at the masses, these titles do work best under Windows 3.1 * or Windows 95. Some Unixes do provide native multimedia support, * but these OSes generally don't run Windows multimedia titles very * well, if at all. * - Desktop Shell. OS/2's WPS provides a unified method of access to * programs and files, something like the Mac's Finder. The WPS is * very flexible and extensible, both by the user and by programmers. * The main drawback to this flexibility is that it increases system * overhead, slowing down certain operations. Windows 95 includes a * similar, but not as flexible, user interface, and Windows NT 4.0 * introduces this interface for NT. Unix X Windows servers vary * considerably in their details. * - Voice recognition. The vast majority of computer users today give * commands to their computers primarily via the keyboard and/or mouse. * Emerging technologies are making it possible to use the human voice * to accomplish this task, however, as well as to dictate directly * into a computer application. While such features can be added to * many OSes today, the next version of OS/2 (code-named "Merlin" and * due out in late September, the last I'd heard) will include it in * the base OS. No matter what OS is used, however, speech recognition * will require either specialized add-on hardware or a fairly high- * end computer. Merlin will require at least a Pentium-90 with 24MB * of RAM, for instance, to accomplish voice dictation, with lesser * requirements for voice commands. These, then, are some major OS features, and where OS/2 fits in on them. As you have probably gathered from this, modern OSes are more alike than unlike on most of these features. For a more direct comparison of OS/2 to Windows 95, see the section on that, towards the end of this document. If OS/2 sounds appealing by these measures, then score a point for the "yes" vote to "should I buy OS/2?". Somebody who just uses a computer to run, say, a word processor, and absolutely nothing else, is less likely to be drawn to OS/2, though, since these features offer relatively few advantages to such a person. Somebody who wants pre-emptive multitasking, or who runs lots of DOS programs that require conflicting configurations, may find OS/2 tantalizing. That may not be reason enough to buy it, though.... This is the THEORY behind OS/2's design. The PRACTICE is often less rosy, since there can be device driver conflicts, incompatible hardware, and a considerable learning curve in setting up an OS/2 system optimally. For whatever reason, some people find OS/2's promises of crash protection, better multitasking performance, or whatnot to be only partially fulfilled. This is sometimes the result of flakey or incompatible hardware, sometimes the result of a non-optimal configuration, and sometimes the result of bugs within OS/2. Unfortunately, the only way to know how well OS/2 will work for you is to try it, though at least some hardware problems can be caught before picking up the box (see the hardware section). Configuration problems can often be worked out by getting help on the net. In this respect, somebody who's unwilling to take some time optimizing and possibly debugging a system should probably avoid OS/2 -- though such a person should also avoid DOS/Windows or Windows 95 if s/he is new to the PC world, since these configurations can be as difficult to a PC newbie. Such a person should view Unix as the bubonic plague. It should be noted here that occasional incompatibilities or driver bugs will prevent OS/2 from even installing correctly. In many cases, these problems can be overcome by obtaining updated drivers. These are generally posted on http://www.cincyteamos2.org/masterupdate.html (the first choice for this), ftp-os2.cdrom.com, ftp-os2.nmsu.edu, and http://www.europe.ibm.com/getdoc/psmemea/progserv/device/, as well as various BBSes. Driver problems have been reported with IBMKBD.SYS, IBM1S506.ADD, just about every SCSI driver known, and others. If you press while the white square and "OS/2" are visible in the upper left corner of the screen when booting the OS/2 installation disk, OS/2 will print the name of the driver it's loading, so you can track a driver that simply hangs your system. It's important to note, however, that while problems EXIST with many drivers, they're UNCOMMON with most drivers. Software Issues --------------- * OS/2 is designed to run OS/2, DOS, and Windows 3.1 (if the user already owns Windows, or if OS/2 with Win-OS/2 is purchased) programs. For the most part, it does so quite well; however, OS/2 runs some programs better than others, and how well it runs these programs depends to some extent upon the user's hardware and to a large extent upon how well the system is configured. Obviously, how well OS/2 runs an OS/2 program depends upon how well-written the OS/2 program is. Unfortunately, many OS/2 programs are quick "ports" of a DOS, Windows, or sometimes a Unix program, and these ports sometimes don't run terribly well. One of the worst offenders in this category is the (now-defunct) WordPerfect 5.2 for OS/2, which was a buggy and slow port of WordPerfect 5.2 for Windows. On the bright side, an increasing number of companies and shareware authors are learning how to utilize OS/2's features to produce fast and flexible software. Some examples: DeScribe 5.0 is a reasonably well-designed OS/2 word processor, and the new ClearLook word processor makes even better use of OS/2's features. The shareware ZOC terminal program and KWQ Mail/2 offline mail reader both perform well and utilize many of OS/2's features to good effect. Many OS/2 GIF and JPEG viewers are faster than * their DOS and Windows 3.1 counterparts. DOS applications generally run as well under OS/2 as they do under DOS, and with the added benefit that they can be configured individually and run simultaneously. DOS programs sometimes present difficulties, however, if they are very timing-sensitive (such as terminal programs doing file transfers or tape backup programs) or if they need to access the computer's hardware or disks directly (such as disk defraggers). Some games (and even applications) require a lot of tweaking of the "DOS settings" to run well, and a few don't run at all under OS/2. CPU- intensive DOS programs may take a slight performance hit due to OS/2 stealing CPU cycles from them to perform its own tasks, but this generally isn't very great. As a rule, DOS programs don't multitask as well as OS/2 programs, since DOS programs tend to "busy wait" -- they tie up the CPU simply waiting for a keypress or other system event. Disk-intensive DOS programs may experience a performance hit or a performance gain, depending upon the hard drive setups. HPFS's advantages may give a performance boost for DOS programs that use the disk heavily. * Windows 3.1 programs generally present fewer multitasking problems than do DOS programs. Windows programs are also less likely to want access to low-level hardware that OS/2 wants for its own. Because Windows itself is fairly memory-intensive, however, many Windows programs put enough of a strain on a computer's RAM reserve that they run more slowly under OS/2 than under DOS/Windows. This is especially a problem for users with relatively little RAM (say, 8MB or less) and/or those who installed OS/2's multimedia support and IBM Works, both of which chew up RAM. Some Windows multimedia titles, especially those based upon all but the oldest versions of Apple's QuickTime, may not run properly under OS/2; but other Windows multimedia titles run fine, especially in full-screen mode. The video drivers which OS/2 provides to allow Windows programs to run "seamlessly" (side-by-side with OS/2 programs) necessarily result in a worsening of video performance, since these drivers must interface with OS/2's drivers, and this overhead slows things down. Video performance can usually be improved considerably by running Windows programs "full-screen" -- they take over the video display. These adverse speed effects can be reduced by careful management of OS/2's CONFIG.SYS file and other settings, and many people find that they can run Windows programs as well under OS/2 as under DOS/Windows. Others, however, particularly those with less RAM, become frustrated by OS/2's performance with Windows programs. * In the post-Windows 3.1 era, there are several types of 32-bit Windows * applications. Most of these are now marketed as being "for Windows 95" * in some sense or another, but most of these are actually what's known as * "Win32s" programs -- they use a subset of the Windows 95 features, and * will run under Windows 3.1 when it uses the Win32s extender. OS/2 also * supports the Win32s extender, and so will run most (but not all) of * these titles. Thus, although OS/2 does not run any "real" Windows 95 * programs, it DOES run many of the programs that are marketed for Windows * 95. Similarly, a number of recent games are being marketed for Windows * 95, but in fact they're DOS games that often run under OS/2. Check the * box's system requirements carefully on any such program you're * considering. If it lists DOS or Windows 3.1 with Win32s as a minimum * system, chances are that OS/2 3.0 or later will run it, though this * isn't guaranteed. Since OS/2 runs Windows in order to use Windows programs, most Windows features, including TrueType fonts, are available to Windows programs under OS/2. TrueType fonts are not available to native OS/2 programs in OS/2 3.0 or earlier, however. Instead, OS/2 uses ATM fonts (also known as Type 1 or PostScript Type 1 fonts) for OS/2 programs. OS/2 also includes a version of ATM for Windows, so the same PostScript fonts can be used for both OS/2 and Windows. With the release of Merlin, OS/2 will support TrueType fonts in addition to ATM fonts. There are a handful of commercial font conversion programs, such as FontMonger, but there are no freeware or shareware programs for converting TrueType to PostScript fonts. One good source of ATM fonts that can be used with OS/2 is the Bitstream 500 Font CD for Windows, which sells for $20-$40. Another good ATM font collection is the Expert Software 2000 Fantastic Fonts for Windows CD, which costs about $15. Avoid the SoftKey KeyFonts Plus and KeyFonts Pro collections; the former, despite the label, does NOT include PostScript fonts; and the latter lacks the .AFM files that OS/2 needs (though these can be regenerated with the PFM2AFM program). There are numerous freeware and shareware fonts in the /multimedia/fonts directory on ftp-os2.nmsu.edu, as well. For all three types of software (OS/2, DOS, and Windows), a complete list of software that runs well and software that doesn't is beyond the scope of this FAQ. If you're concerned about a specific program or set of programs, post your question. (Do not e-mail me about this, please; I use few DOS and Windows programs, and so probably don't know the answer to the specific query.) Note that "does it run DOS games?" is too vague; list the specific games that you want to run. (There is a comp.os.os2.games newsgroup for such questions, too.) Running OS/2 does not preclude running native DOS (with or without Windows), Linux, Windows NT, Windows 95, or any other operating system. OS/2 can coexist on a single FAT boot partition with DOS using a method known as Dual Boot; or OS/2 can be installed on a separate partition and a program (included with OS/2) called Boot Manager can be used to select the boot partition. Dual Boot is easier to install but more limited in its capabilities, while Boot Manager is more difficult to install but more flexible in use. One tip: Installing Boot Manager becomes MUCH easier if you can shrink the size of existing partitions. This can be accomplished with either the commercial utility PartitionMagic (under $100), or with the (much more limited) freeware utility FIPS, which is available on tsx-11.mit.edu or sunsite.unc.edu under the Linux DOS * utilities directory. There's also a shareware utility called Advanced * Boot Manager (http://www.kamiu.ru/paragon/www/prod01.htm) that allows * the installation of multiple OSes on a single C: FAT partition. * Although the name of this utility is similar to OS/2's Boot Manager, * it's really more like OS/2's Dual Boot in many ways, but more flexible. Thus, the type of applications you use will influence the answer to the question, "should I buy OS/2?". If you run mostly Windows programs, and have no intention of or desire to switch to OS/2 programs, you should give points to a "no" answer. Ditto if you run exotic games and/or DOS programs that must access low-level hardware. If you're willing to investigate native OS/2 software, however, or if you run multiple DOS or * Windows 3.1 programs requiring different DOS CONFIG.SYS or AUTOEXEC.BAT files, OS/2 is worth consideration. OS/2 is also worth a look if you want to run multiple DOS programs simultaneously. OS/2's Dual Boot and Boot Manager features mean that you need not abandon an old OS completely in order to try OS/2. Note that OS/2 applications can be hard to find, though they DO exist; many software stores lack a good OS/2 selection, though this varies from store to store, even within a single chain. If you can't find a specific OS/2 commercial application, or if you simply want to know what's available, contact an OS/2 mail-order vendor, such as Indelible Blue (800-776-8284, 919-878-9700, 76256.3334@CompuServe.com, http://www.indelible-blue.com/ib, or fax at 919-878-7479). Even many local stores which don't stock OS/2 programs can special-order them, too. Hardware Issues --------------- The OS/2 Warp 3.0 box lists as hardware requirements: - Intel 386SX-compatible or higher based personal computer - 4MB of random access memory (RAM) - 35-55MB free hard disk space - 1.44MB 3.5" diskette drive - VGA video support - IBM-compatible mouse - An OS/2-compatible CD-ROM drive [note: on CD-ROM version; not required for floppy version] - Multimedia-ready systems for sound * The upcoming "Merlin" release of OS/2 will likely have higher * requirements, at least if some of its extra features (like voice * recognition) will be used. Reports indicate that the beta isn't more * resource-hungry than Warp 3.0 when only the Warp 3.0 feature set is * installed. One major exception: The Merlin beta chews up A LOT of * disk space -- about 100MB for a minimal installation, and 300MB or so * for everything. As with most software, these requirements, and particularly the RAM requirement, are optimistic. While there are people who are happy running OS/2 Warp 3.0 in 4MB of RAM, these people are rare, and frequently don't run Windows programs. Multimedia support, Internet access tools, and networking all chew up RAM, and so are iffy propositions, even in a system with 8MB. OS/2 is more RAM-intensive * than CPU-intensive. If you're satisfied with the speed of a 486 computer, there's no need to upgrade the CPU for OS/2, though even a Pentium computer might benefit from more memory. OS/2 frequently benefits from extensive "tweaking" of settings in the CONFIG.SYS file, and not all of the tweaks are obvious. (For instance, many OS/2 newbies assume that increasing the size of the disk cache will improve performance, but this often has the opposite effect.) The file CFGINFO4.ZIP, available on ftp-os2.nmsu.edu and ftp-os2.cdrom.com, contains a database and access program that will analyze your CONFIG.SYS and help you tune it. I strongly recommend that OS/2 "newbies" use this. OS/2 requires not only a 3.5" floppy drive, but a 3.5" *A:* floppy (though there are workarounds for this which allow installation on a system with a 5.25" A: drive). 35MB is enough to install a fairly minimal OS/2, but if that's the entire free space on the hard drive, it won't be enough. OS/2 also uses a swap file, which can grow to substantial size; and once the user starts adding OS/2 programs, 100MB of free space becomes a more reasonable minimum for serious OS/2 use. Video, CD-ROM, and SCSI support are complex issues, and will be dealt with individually below. CPUs and Motherboards --------------------- To the best of my knowledge, OS/2 Warp runs fine on all 386 or better CPUs from all manufacturers. This includes Intel 386 and 486 CPUs; AMD, Cyrix, and IBM 386 and 486 clones (including the Cyrix 486DLC and related CPUs, IBM's "Blue Lightning" 486, and the AMD and Cyrix 5x86 chips, which are more 486 than 586); Intel Pentium and Pentium Pro CPUs; and NexGen and Cyrix Pentium clones (the Nx586 and 6x86). I've yet to hear about the AMD 5K86, but I wouldn't expect problems with it. Note that many of these CPUs are available under other brand names, either from companies which re-badge them or from companies (like Texas Instruments, SGS Thomson, and IBM) which manufacture Cyrix CPUs in return for a percentage of the production. One important caveat about CPUs, though: The next version of OS/2, code-named "Merlin," will include a much-discussed technology known as Voice Type Dictation (VTD). This will allow the computer to take spoken commands and even dictation into word processors or other applications * which accept text input. Details are still foggy at the moment, but it appears that a high-end 486 (like a DX4/100) will be required for minimal voice command functionality and a mid-range Pentium (like a P100) will be needed for full voice recognition. This technology utilizes the floating point unit (FPU) of the CPU very heavily, so the fact that Pentium clones have worse FPU performance than integer performance relative to an Intel Pentium means that a faster Pentium clone may be required to get equivalent VTD performance with Merlin. As * Merlin is not yet released, however, all of this is speculative. Monitor the comp.os.os2.beta newsgroup or the OS/2 beta FAQ (http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~kwilas/) for more information on this. In addition, IBM has announced that they will not be testing Merlin on 386 CPUs. It's entirely possible that Merlin will run on a 386, but this cannot be guaranteed. A second caveat concerning CPUs is that the CPU must interact with the motherboard, and some motherboards don't work well under OS/2, or with certain CPUs. This is particularly true of 486-class boards using AMD or Cyrix 5x86 CPUs. Unfortunately, a complete listing of good and bad motherboards or motherboard/CPU combinations is well beyond the scope of this FAQ. If you have a PCI system, Pat Duffy's PCI Summary postings may be of help here. I would like to emphasize that most motherboards and motherboard/CPU combinations do work fine with OS/2, but problems do exist with some equipment. Video ----- The OS/2 Warp 3.0 manual lists the following as supported video chipsets: Non-accelerated devices: - ATI 28800 - Cirrus Logic CL-GD5422, CL-GD5424 - Headland Technologies HT209 [but NOT the HT216, used on many Packard Bell machines; for these, the Reveal VC500, using a Cirrus Logic chipset, is reported to work well as a replacement] - IBM VGA16, VGA256C - Trident TVGA8900B, TVGA8900C - Tseng ET4000 - Western Digital WD90C11, WD90C30, WD90C31 Accelerated devices: - IBM 8514, XGA - S3 86C801, 86C805, 86C928, 86C864 - Cirrus Logic 5426, 5428, 5430, 5434 - Western Digital WD90C24, 90C24A, 90C24A2, 90C31, 90C33 - ATI Mach 32, Mach 64 - Tseng ET4000/W32, ET4000/W32i, ET4000/W32p - Weitek Power 9000 In general, a video board using any of these chips will work fine "out of the box;" however, there are exceptions. Video board manufacturers frequently tweak their boards in ways which produce better performance, but which also make their boards incompatible with "generic" drivers such as those in OS/2. [I do not currently have a list of "problem" boards -- if somebody has such a list, please e-mail it to me and I can include it here.] If you don't see the chipset used on your board, post or contact the manufacturer to ascertain the availability of OS/2 drivers for the board. Include as much information on the board as possible if you post; for instance, simply saying you have "a Cardex board" doesn't give enough information. Give the precise model number and, if you know it, the chipset used on the board. Many manufacturers have their own OS/2 drivers, even if their board is supported by OS/2 "out of the box." These drivers are sometimes superior to IBM's drivers, but other times are not. [Again, specific information about this might be helpful. Thanks.] CD-ROMs ------- There are three basic classes of CD-ROM drives for PC-compatibles: - SCSI drives. These connect to a SCSI controller. OS/2 includes "generic" drivers for SCSI CD-ROMs which work with all SCSI-2 units, to the best of my knowledge, and with most or all SCSI-1 units. The only tricky thing with SCSI drives is to find a driver for the SCSI controller (see below, under hard drives). There may sometimes be quirky interactions between specific controllers and * specific CD-ROM models, however; for instance, QLogic boards are * reported to have problems with some NEC CD-ROM drives. * - ATAPI (aka "IDE") drives. These connect to an IDE or EIDE controller. These are the newest class of CD-ROM drive, and as such have the least mature drivers under OS/2. OS/2 Warp 3.0 does include drivers for this class of CD-ROMs, but how well they work seems rather variable. If you have such a drive and encounter problems, look for the file ATAPI.ZIP on software.watson.ibm.com or ftp.europe.ibm.com; this has updated IDE drivers which are often more reliable than those which come with Warp (and especially Warp "for Windows"). - Proprietary drives. These connect to a sound card or a dedicated controller, and use a variety of different (non-)standards. Various manufacturers sell these drives, and many are re-badgings of other models. OS/2 Warp 3.0 includes support for the major proprietary models (see below). There are a few oddball brands that may not be supported (for instance, OS/2 doesn't support Dolphin drives out of the box, but I understand there are now beta test drivers for these), so check to be sure if you're not positive of what you've got. CD-ROM drives supported by OS/2 Warp 3.0 "out of the box" include: - All SCSI-1 and SCSI-2 drives, assuming a SCSI driver exists for the SCSI controller card - Most IDE drives, including models from Mitsumi, NEC, Philips, Sony, Wearnes, and Toshiba (some may require the new ATAPI.ZIP drivers, though) - Creative Labs OmniCD - IBM ISA CD-ROM - Mitsumi CRMC-LU002S, CRMC-LU005S, CRMC-FX001, CRMC-FX001D - Panasonic 521, 522, 523, 562, 563 - Philips LMS CM-205, CM-225, CM-205MS, 206, 225MS, 226 - Sony CDU-31A,33A,7305,7405, CDU-531,535,6150,6201,6205,6251,7201,7205 - Tandy CDR-1000 Note that for all CD-ROMs, there are potential "gotchas" during installation which are documented in the OS/2 manual. The plethora of conflicting "standards" and hardware means that extra parameters may be required on the driver line in CONFIG.SYS for some CD-ROMs to be used. Before posting with a CD-ROM problem, please check the CD-ROM troubleshooting section of the OS/2 manual. In a worst-case scenario, you can create a set of installation floppies from a CD-ROM version of OS/2 and install from that. DOS CD-ROM drivers can sometimes be made to work for DOS programs using a special DOS boot procedure. (Ordinarily, OS/2 provides DOS programs with access to the CD-ROM drive using its own drivers.) Hard drives ----------- OS/2 supports the vast majority of hard drives out of the box. EIDE, IDE, ESDI, MFM, and RLL drives all use the same driver -- IBM1S506.ADD. An increasing number of EIDE controllers have drivers optimized to the particular controller from their manufacturer; however, posts indicate that some of these introduce minor or major reliability problems, so they should be used with caution. SCSI drives use either the IBMINT13.I13 generic driver or a driver specific to the SCSI controller in use. SCSI drivers are included for many SCSI controllers: - Adaptec 1510, 1520, 1522, 1540, 1542, 1640, 1740, 1742, 1744, 2840VL, 2842VL, 2740, 2742, AIC7770, 2940, 2940W, AIC7870 - BusLogic BusMaster SCSI Adapters - DPT PM2011, PM2012 - Future Domain 845, 850, 850IBM, 860, 875, 885, TMC 9C50/C950, 16xx, 1790, 1795, MCS600/700, TMC 1800/18C30/18C50/3260/36C70, 7000EX - IBM PS/2 SCSI Adapter - IBM 16-Bit AT Fast SCSI Adapter - ProAudio Spectrum 16 with Trantor SCSI - SoundBlaster 16 with SCSI (uses Adaptec 1520 driver) Drivers for QLogic, UltraStor, NCR 53c8xx-based boards, and probably others, are available from the manufacturer. If you have one of the latter boards and wish to install from a SCSI-based CD-ROM, you will need to acquire the appropriate SCSI driver and add it to the OS/2 Diskette 1, or else OS/2 will be unable to recognize your CD-ROM drive. Instructions should be included with the OS/2 driver. Note that OS/2 2.x SCSI drivers usually work under OS/2 3.0, so if you can only find a 2.x driver, try it. OS/2 support for parallel-to-SCSI adapters is limited at best. Unfortunately, I don't have more specific information on this, though. The PC BIOS imposes a limit of 1024 cylinders (0-1023) upon hard disks. This limit, in conjunction with limits upon the number of heads and sectors, limits the size of IDE (and ESDI, etc.) hard drives to 504MB, and the size of SCSI hard drives to 1GB. (Most SCSI and EIDE controllers have an option to get around this.) If you have a hard drive larger than this value, it may have come with a DOS driver to allow access to the entire hard drive. If you've used that package, OS/2 may not be able to read the drive's partition table, and thus OS/2 will not install. OS/2 has a different way around this 1024-cylinder * limit. If you have an older system which is experiencing problems * related to this, check my mini-FAQ on the subject, available at * http://www.rodsbooks.com/large-drives/index.html. Sound Cards ----------- OS/2 Warp 3.0 supports most of the common sound cards, including Creative Labs' SoundBlaster series and the MediaVision Pro Audio series of boards. SoundBlaster-compatible cards may or may not work under Warp using the SoundBlaster drivers. Many of the more sophisticated wavetable cards don't yet have good OS/2 drivers available, though most have SOMETHING, and more have drivers under development. Drivers in one form or another exist for the Advanced Gravis UltraSound boards, the Aztec Waverider 32+, Creative Labs' SoundBlaster AWE32, the Ensoniq Soundscape, OPTi boards (such as the Reveal SC500 rev. 1), Aria-based boards, Mwave-based boards, and others. Turtle Beach has been weak with its OS/2 support, but some models can be made to work in one way or another. Many boards that use an MPU-401 interface can be made to work for MIDI files by using IBM's MPU-401 driver, though it is often necessary to initialize the card in DOS first. Considerably more detail on sound cards can be found in my OS/2 Soundcard Summary. As mentioned above, multimedia support chews up a substantial amount of RAM under OS/2, and this degrades performance on low-memory systems. Therefore, those with 8MB or less RAM would be well-advised to install without multimedia support. It can be added later, if desired, and also uninstalled, if desired. Disabling WPS sounds for common actions like window opening can help here as an intermediate measure. Tape drives ----------- OS/2 does not provide direct support for any form of tape drive. There are, however, several packages which allow the use of tape drives under OS/2. These drives fall into five broad categories: - Floppy tape units. These connect to the system's floppy controller and generally use the QIC-80 standard. They are inexpensive and are increasingly popular. Unfortunately, they're also VERY timing- sensitive, as the CPU must monitor everything that goes over the floppy controller. This is tricky to handle under a multitasking OS, and so the DOS or Windows software which drives these units is generally unreliable under OS/2. Several OS/2 programs, including FastBack, BackMaster, Sytos, and one or two others, are available. Specific drive models tend to be slightly idiosyncratic, and these idiosyncracies interact with the motherboard, floppy controller, and software. It's therefore impossible to give a list of which drives work well and which ones don't. - Proprietary tape units. In some cases, these are floppy-based drives which use high-speed interfaces. These frequently work with the same software as the floppy units, but check with the software producer to be sure. In other cases, a true proprietary interface and drive are used. To the best of my knowledge, no OS/2 software yet supports such drives. - SCSI tape units. As with CD-ROM drives, these require the use of a driver for the particular SCSI controller involved. (See under hard drives, above.) They also require a tape backup software package. One, GTAK 2.45, is a freeware port of the Unix tar program. This uses an arcane command-line interface, but it gets the job done and is free. BackupWiz, FastBack, BackAgain/2, * Novaback, and Sytos are five commercial packages that come to mind. Note that, in theory, the specific brand of SCSI tape drive shouldn't matter, though there may be idiosyncratic problems with specific * drives. A recent version of BackMaster supports SCSI units, but * violates this principle; it uses idiosyncratic commands for each * supported SCSI tape drive, rather than generic SCSI commands. * - ATAPI (aka IDE) drives. Like SCSI units, these should, in theory, not require drive-specific drivers or software. At the moment, IDE tape units are fairly rare, as is corresponding OS/2 support; however, recent versions of BackAgain/2, at least, are reported to include IDE support. - Parallel-port drives. These are usually QIC-80 devices similar to the floppy-port drives, but they connect to the computer's parallel (printer) port. There is support for these devices under OS/2, but it's relatively rare. BackMaster supports at least some of these, but I'm not sure precisely what packages support precisely what drives, though I've one report that the Trakker drive is supported under OS/2 by the manufacturer. Sometimes a SCSI tape unit can be hooked up via a parallel-to-SCSI adapter. These will depend upon OS/2 driver support for the parallel-to-SCSI adapter, and such support is still weak under OS/2. Conner recently announced bundles of various drives with OS/2 backup software, and other vendors, such as Parallel Storage Solutions, independently offer such bundles as well. * Removable Disks * --------------- * * High-capacity removable disks such as Iomega Jaz and Zip drives, SyQuest * drives, and magneto-optical disks have been increasing in popularity. * These units often connect to a SCSI bus, sometimes to an IDE bus, and * often use a computer's parallel port. Devices which use the SCSI or * sometimes the IDE bus should work with OS/2 with little trouble, though * often with limitations. For instance, it's usually tricky at best to * format a removable disk to use HPFS, so you may be restricted to the FAT * 8.3 filenames on the removable disk. Drives which connect to the * computer's parallel port will require special OS/2 drivers. Iomega * provides these for its popular Zip drives, but not in the box; you must * contact Iomega to receive this support. The newsgroups have been abuzz * with conflicting reports of relative speed of Zip disks under OS/2 vs. * other OSes. Most people report worse performance under OS/2, and blame * this on uncached OS/2 access to the drives, WPS overhead, poor handling * of non-EPP parallel ports, or other factors. PCMCIA Support -------------- OS/2 3.0 includes support for PCMCIA devices. Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about this topic, and so can say no more about it at this time. [If somebody would care to send me some summary information, * I can include it here in the future.] I have, however, received one * report to the effect that it's impossible to install OS/2 directly from * a SCSI CD-ROM connected to a PCMCIA SCSI adapter. Printers -------- OS/2's support for printers is generally quite good, in part because there are only a handful of standards for printer command languages (e.g., HP's various PCL levels and PostScript for laser and some ink jet printers, Epson mode for dot-matrix models, etc.). If you get OS/2 and don't find your printer model listed in the (quite lengthy) list of supported models, you can either try a model which your printer is supposed to emulate or contact the printer's manufacturer. Oddly, some printers may actually work better with a driver for a model which the printer is designed to emulate than with a driver labelled as being for the model specifically. This is the case, for instance, with most non-HP 600 dpi laser printers which use PCL 5e; the OS/2 drivers for most of these printers supports only up to 300 dpi, but they often work well with the HP LaserJet 4P driver at up to 600 dpi. * One major exception to the "good OS/2 printer support" rule of thumb is * that an increasing number of laser printers are using Windows "GDI" * drivers to implement features while minimizing the amount of RAM and CPU * power on the printer. Unfortunately, the manufacturers of these * printers don't normally include OS/2 drivers, and so the printers will * work, at best, with only restricted features (such as 300 dpi printing * rather than 600 dpi printing). Some users also report that the OS/2 * drivers for many color inkjets produce poor results when printing * digitized photos or other complex graphics, relative to the results from * Windows. This problem can often be alleviated by using the freeware * Ghoscript package in conjunction with an OS/2 Postscript driver set for * a color Postscript printer (such as the Postscript version of HP's * DeskJet 1200C). * Scanners * -------- * * I know relatively little about scanners under OS/2; however, I do know * that there are commercial OS/2 programs which support various scanners. * There is a web page at http://www.sn.no/~bthoem/hpsjfaq.html devoted to * providing information about getting HP scanners working under OS/2. Systems ------- Unfortunately, there's no clear rule that systems from any given manufacturer will or will not run OS/2. All manufacturers change the components used in their computers with such stunning frequency that no generalizations can be drawn. If you're looking for a new system on which to run OS/2, your best bet is probably to get a system with OS/2 pre-loaded. IBM, CompuDyne, Austin, Indelible Blue, and other, smaller * firms, sell systems with OS/2 pre-loaded. (There's a new web site at * http://budgetweb.com/os2/ devoted to this topic, too.) Try to get a system with the disk formatted at least partially HPFS, if you plan to have OS/2 be your main OS. If you want to purchase from a company which doesn't pre-load OS/2, try to get a guarantee that they will replace any component which doesn't work with OS/2, and check that the brands and models of individual components work with OS/2, as reported here, in the GBU lists, and in Pat Duffy's PCI lists. It might also be helpful to try to get the system with Windows 3.1 rather than Windows 95, since you can then buy Warp "for Windows," which is less expensive than Warp "fullpack." Interrupts ---------- Under DOS, the "sharing" of interrupts is frequently allowed. This is permitted, in part, because two separate programs are unlikely to try to access two separate devices using the same IRQ at the same time. Such occurrences aren't at all impossible or even uncommon under OS/2, however, and so the sharing of interrupts is much more likely to cause problems under OS/2. One common source of shared interrupts is an internal modem. The default setting for COM3 uses the same interrupt as COM1. The best solution is to reconfigure the modem to use an unused interrupt, or to disable an unused COM port and reconfigure the modem to take on that port's identity (COM number and IRQ). The shareware SIO serial drivers for OS/2 also permit serial port interrupt sharing under some limited circumstances, and so may be a worthwhile investment for those with crowded IRQ lists. Note that there's no way to determine which interrupts are being used by which components under the standard ISA architecture (and its derivatives), short of physically examining the boards and comparing jumper settings to manuals' listings. DOS's MSD program, which is useful for some things, will give totally inaccurate information on IRQ use, unless your system is relatively "plain vanilla" and therefore conforms to MSD's expectations. General Hardware Comments ------------------------- Cruddy hardware abounds, unfortunately. OS/2 pushes the PC's hardware * more than does DOS (or even Windows 95), and so will sometimes crash on sub-standard motherboards or RAM chips on which DOS gets by. The cry "it works under DOS" is often heard, but means very little. "It works under Unix" will get more attention, however, since most Unixes push hardware in a way similar to what OS/2 does. Of course, this is not to say that an OS/2 crash must be a hardware issue; like all modern software, OS/2 is not bug-free. Nor should the potential buyer necessarily be scared off if s/he purchased a bargain-basement computer; many of these run OS/2 just fine. This is something to keep in mind, however. It may be beneficial for the potential purchaser to observe OS/2 running on a system similar to his or her own, particularly in the amount of memory that system has, to determine whether performance is acceptable. OTOH, OS/2 can benefit greatly from performance "tweaks," so observing a poorly-configured OS/2 system may leave the wrong impression. In general, the hardware issues with OS/2 are very complex. An informed purchaser will research the major components of his or her system before purchasing OS/2, to be sure that OS/2 supports those components. Usually it does, but many people do find one or two components which give problems under OS/2, and this sometimes leads to frustration. If this happens, try posting a calm and rational request for help -- posts with titles such as "Warp Sucks Moldy Lemons" gather more flames than helpful responses. As to the initial question, the answer must depend upon all of the above hardware issues. Simply put, unsupported hardware adds to the "no" response, while supported hardware adds to the "yes" response. RAM below 8MB pushes towards "no," while RAM of 8MB or more pushes towards "yes." Available hard disk space below 100MB pushes towards "no," while more available disk space supports "yes." What About Windows 95? ---------------------- OS/2 is often compared to Windows 95, and it does seem that these OSes are each others' main competitors in the desktop marketplace. It should first be noted that OS/2 can NOT use Windows 95 to run Windows programs, and probably never will; OS/2 "for Windows" relies upon very specific things about Windows 3.1 to be able to use it for running Windows programs, and these things have changed with Windows 95. The current release of OS/2 will only run those Windows 95 programs which will run under Windows 3.1 with the Win32s extensions, and OS/2's Win32s subsystem doesn't run 100% of all Win32s applications. Note, however, that many of the programs being marketed today as "for Windows 95" fall into this category, and OS/2 will run most of them. If in doubt, check the box's requirements carefully to see if the program will run under Windows 3.1, or post to an appropriate OS/2 newsgroup. In terms of features, abilities, and system requirements, Windows 95 is very similar to OS/2 in many ways. RAM requirements, pre-emptive multitasking, an object-oriented "desktop" environment [though Windows 95's is object-oriented in only a "skin-deep" sort of way], and other features exist in both OSes. Here, then, are some of the major DIFFERENCES: - HPFS. OS/2 allows the use of HPFS, which is a giant leap forward in disk software technology, compared to FAT, especially on larger drives. Windows 95 allows the use of "VFAT," which is an extension to FAT which allows long filenames; but few of FAT's other numerous shortcomings are addressed by VFAT. Thus, people with large drives (say, larger than 512MB) should favor OS/2 over Windows 95. OTOH, VFAT drives can easily be read from DOS, which may be a concern for some people; HPFS * requires special drivers to be read from DOS. The latest version of * Windows 95 (available only on pre-loads) also includes VFAT-32, which * fixes the massive waste of disk space problem on large drives that's * existed in FAT and VFAT up until now. * - Drivers. Windows 95 allows the use of existing DOS drivers for many devices, which should alleviate the driver availability problems which * have historically plagued OS/2. Using DOS drivers in Windows 95, * however, may slow its performance and make it more crash-prone. - Hardware. Windows 95, while technically a 32-bit protected-mode OS, actually utilizes much older 16-bit, real-mode code. Thus, while it puts more demands on hardware than does DOS, it may exhibit fewer problems on flakey hardware than OS/2. On the other hand, Windows 95 has its own idiosyncracies, and I've seen posts which indicate problems under Windows 95 on systems which run OS/2 fine, as well as vice-versa. * - Software. Currently, there are more OS/2 programs than Windows 95 programs; and companies have been developing OS/2 programs for longer than they've been doing any 32-bit Windows programs, so the * earliest 32-bit Windows 95 programs are crude compared to existing * OS/2 software. There are an increasing number of Windows 95 * programs appearing on store shelves, but many of these are actually * Win32s programs that run under OS/2 as well as under Windows 95. * As noted earlier, however, OS/2 software can be difficult to locate. * Check Indelible Blue (http://www.indelible-blue.com/ib/) for a * sampling of commercial OS/2 software. - DOS program settings. I confess to less-than-perfect knowledge about how Windows 95 handles DOS programs, but my impression is that OS/2 is more flexible in its ability to specify different parameters than Windows 95. - Multitasking. While both OSes use pre-emptive multitasking, OS/2 implements this feature much more completely than does Windows 95. Specifically, many Windows 95 system calls are "non-reentrant," which means that they can only be called by one program at a time. This may produce some "jerkiness" to the multitasking of Windows 95. Of potentially greater concern, Windows 95's multitasking performance drops radically when even a single 16-bit Windows 3.1 program is run, whereas OS/2's multitasking will not be adversely affected in this case. - Protection. Like OS/2, Windows 95 provides protection between different programs. Unlike OS/2, however, Windows 95's protection applies only to 32-bit Windows programs; the existing base of 16-bit Windows programs does not benefit from this, and in fact such programs, if buggy, can much more easily bring down Windows 95 than they can bring down OS/2. How serious this problem is in practice I don't know, however. I've seen a number of comparisons in the computer press between OS/2 and Windows 95. Unfortunately, many of them use subtly (or not-so-subtly) biased measures, such as using Win32 disk benchmark programs (generally using FAT for both OSes) or comparing video speed based upon OS/2's seamless video modes (see above). Most, but not all, such comparisons also utilize only single-tasking performance. When reading such comparisons, read them VERY carefully, and take them with a rather substantial grain of salt. There have been many reports of OS/2 and Windows 95 coexisting on the same machine, much as OS/2 and DOS can. You can therefore get "the best of both worlds," if you don't mind the expense and time investment this * would entail. Such a setup requires the use of Boot Manager or a * third-party boot utility like the shareware Advanced Boot Manager or the * commercial System Commander rather than Dual Boot. IBM maintains a * document called Just Add OS/2 Warp (at * http://www.austin.ibm.com/pspinfo/drk95.html) which covers installing * OS/2 on a system with Win95. The Future ---------- IBM is preparing various future versions of OS/2, but tends to keep such developments private, at least compared to the sort of hype which preceded the release of Windows 95. Of most immediate interest is "Merlin," the code name for the next version of OS/2 Warp for * Intel-based PCs, which should be available in late September or early * October, the last I'd heard. OS/2 for PowerPC has recently been released. This version may eventually be ported to the Intel platform. Questions about and discussion of beta versions of OS/2 is best restricted to the comp.os.os2.beta newsgroup. There is a FAQ on beta versions of OS/2 available at http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~kwilas/. Summary ------- Deciding whether to buy OS/2 is a complex decision to make. A potential OS/2 user should have a clear understanding of why s/he wishes to use OS/2, know what software would be run under OS/2, and have a good idea of whether his or her hardware is capable of running it. Failure of analysis in any of these three areas is likely to lead to frustration, wasted time, wasted money, and possibly wasted net bandwidth on flame bait and/or flames. In other words, look before you leap. (Any OS/2 newbie who's read this far is presumably attempting to do so -- good for you!) The bottom line in deciding on an OS must be to select one which will allow the user to get his or her work (or play) done. OS/2 will fit the bill for some users, but not for all. It's my hope that the above tome will help some people to ascertain which category they fall into. Please feel free to comment on this document. I'll incorporate what changes I can when time allows. Many thanks to Jack Tan, who provided the list of supported CD-ROM drives and SCSI controllers, both of which I edited for brevity. Thanks also to JdeBP@donor2.demon.co.uk for providing the names of some FidoNet-accessible FAQs.