Submitted by The second release candidate of eComStation 2.0 has been released. “This is the sixth public beta release of eComStation 2.0. This product is available for download to all registered eCS customers with active Software Subscription Services (see this explanation). This version of eComStation 2.0 is the second Release Candidate, no big changes or additions will be added before the GA version, it mainly consists of updates to drivers and installation scripts.”
I used OS/2 2.11 and 3.0, many years ago, and loved them both.
I am thinking seriously about buying the release when it comes out. I have an older computer (1.7 GHz Celeron/512 MB RAM) to put it on, and I’d just love to have OS/2 running on my home network again.
I really wish IBM had marketed OS/2 better, back in the early 90’s. The (computer) world might be very different today.
Edited 2007-09-02 16:27
OS/2 was so much better than anything available from Microsoft (which was Windows 3.1+ for most of it’s run – thru Warp 3.0/1994). Sadly… I say this in hindsight as I look back with some regret.
Alot of people blame marketing issues but I don’t really think anyone can market an alternative OS when computers at the time came bundled with DOS and Win3.1 (later Win9x) and everyone else was locked out of the supply chain. Despite this, OS/2 made significant gains in areas that required the most secure and robust of systems such as banking (ie, businesses that actually made comparative evaluations as oppose to reading pop tech mags).
For most other users, many (like myself) were transitioning from DOS and we already had a *free* Win3x on our systems. With these two options available, it was difficult to justify spending extra for a system that was fundamentally different even with the promise of compatibility.
I agree with your possible outcome. I think that if Microsoft had to market Win3x on an equal footing with OS/2, they would’ve been pwned. We might be seeing eComStation selling Win9x today.
I loved OS/2 – I own both 3.0 and 4.0 – but the price is too steep – sorry.
A full copy of OS X costs $130. Yes, a copy of vista ultimate is more expensive than ecomstation, but I still think that $189 for an upgrade (or 259 for a full version) is too expensive.
Yes, I agree with you, the price is too steep. Unfortunately, I think they probably have to pay IBM a fee for each license sold, as well as make profit for themselves.
I’m still going to buy a license, if for no other reason than to have OS/2 running on fairly modern hardware, in my house again. It will be a hobby installation, nothing more. That said, I wish they had a hobby user license. Something around $99, or even $149, would be much more comfortable with the folks around here, and they might actually sell more licenses.
I believe $99 is the price of the academic version, if you are involved in academmia in any way, shape or form.
If only
The wife WAS going to college (and I did take advantage of that, when I could), but alas, she graduated 2 1/2 years ago.
No biggie. I can afford $249 for a single copy. It will be worth it to me, to have OS/2 running again.
(yes, I know. I waste my hard-earned money on way too many things. Remind me to tell you about the $4,300 Amateur Radio I’m lusting after )
Ibm’s OS2 had Fat32 support back in the win98 days, and ran some windows programs.
Does this mean that eComstation will be up to date with ntfs and support Ntfs and windows programs/drivers as well as dirextx? Or is this something for older pc’s?
Edited 2007-09-02 16:53
Ibm’s OS2 had Fat32 support back in the win98 days, and ran some windows programs. Does this mean that eComstation will be up to date with ntfs and support Ntfs and windows programs/drivers as well? Or is this something for older pc’s?
Read my review of RC1 for more information on eCS’s Windows capabilities.
http://www4.osnews.com/story/18169/Review:_eComStation_2.0_RC1
Edited 2007-09-02 16:54 UTC
just a quick suggestion – while providing a link for the review is really nice so that we can catch up with ecomstation’s features, answering the question would have been more pertinent – just my two cents
The ecomsys devs should add win32 support (if it aint in it already) so that windows programs can run on it now having it on an NTFS harddisk being able to cope with win32 would certainly make it more updated maybe it even can replace Vista assuming the devs make directx run on it , After all its IBM/Microsofts project.
And then maybe if they lower the price below vista gamers and alike will get it with new pc’s
How hard would it be to port Wine and/or share code with ReactOS?
From what I’ve gathered, Odin is somewhat based on Wine, and code from the Wine project is used when possible.
That said, the Odin team is a fraction of the size of Wine’s team, and Odin handles running Win32 apps differently than Wine. It actually loads a pseudo- device driver in Config.sys (win32k.sys) that detects Win32 programs and runs them in the correct mode without having to set file associations (which would be very difficult considering OS/2 executable files also have a .exe extension, unlike Linux). Also, in addition to providing a Win32 runtime, Odin converts the PE (win32 format) executable to LX (OS/2 format) in memory, so the program runs on the system as a native application.
Considering the magnitude of the project, and the size of the development team, they’ve done some amazing work on Odin. OpenOffice/2 and Firefox/2 are both Win32 based, running atop a specialized Odin-based runtime developed by Innotek.
Odin is largely based on the Open32 libraries (formerly known as DAX and DAPIE) that IBM supplied with OS/2 as an aid to porting Win32 applications to PM, and it also has some code in it from Wine.
…but Odin is limited to only running certain programs. I use it under Warp 4 to run Palm Desktop, Adobe Acrobat, and IrfanView, but there are many programs I’ve tried to run which fail.
I do think an NTFS driver is included in eCS, but I’m not sure.
Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux armv5tejl; en-US; rv:1.9a6pre) Gecko/20070810 Firefox/3.0a1 Maemo browser 0.4.34 N770/SU-18
I thought Odin worked better than that… I have never actually used it. I’m guessing larger and more complex windows programs fail more often than the simpler ones, right?
Many Windows applications use APIs which are specialized and which cause issues, and many depend on newer libraries that just aren’t present in the vanilla Odin installation. Older programs tend to be better than newer ones.
Innotek also has a runtime for running Windows programs which is similar to (and I think partially based on) Odin, so there are a couple of different alternatives.
I would personally love to see an OS/2 port of Wine.
It’s too expensive. I’m a long-time OS/2 user myself, but even I am limiting my use of eCS to a single license at this point due to cost considerations. It’s simply less expensive to acquire additional copies of Warp 4.
Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux armv5tejl; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061130 Minimo/0.016
I used to run OS/2 back in the day. If I am not mistaken, the price had to include MS license for Windows 3.1 code back then. It was at least a partial reason of it’s failure – it was just too expensive.
Do they still have to pay MS for Win3.1 code now? That would explain it.
No, I think IBM has full rights to the Windows 3.1 source code now, so the WinOS2 part is a freebie (effectively).
I think Serenity Systems is still trying to recoup some development/distribution costs, which is why they charge so much over and above the base Warp 4 license.
Plus I’m not sure that they are all that interested in popularizing the OS at this point in time, which is a shame (at least to me).
it’s not too expensive for me. there are a lot of advantages to eCS – every virus warning out there makes me smile. this OS gets me done everything I need to be done on a PC in quite an educated manner. it’s great to be able to use the best designed general duty OS for a long time to come.
browser: firefox 2.0.0.6; OS: eCS 1.2R
I’m fine with one license, but I have three Warp 4 licenses here in addition to the one I upgraded to eCS 1.2 (I don’t have any of the 2.x betas here).
The licensing cost for multiple systems, at least for a home/hobby user like me, is simply too high, so those boxes are almost certain to be running either Linux or Windows at any given time. Or base OS/2.
Edited 2007-09-02 21:01
Bundling the OS is probably more important than marketing, as people will often use what is provided with their machines out of sheer inertia. My first computer came with a dual-boot OS/2 warp 3.0 – Windows 3.11 setup, care of the now defunct Escom computers. I still have eCS 1.2 running under Parallels on my Macbook Pro more for sentimental reasons than actual need, but I loved that OS because of its stability, flexibility and multitasking prowess which I never experienced with Windows.