Start-Up Pains for IBM’s OS/2 System
The notion behind IBM’s new high-powered operating system, OS/2 2.0, is quite appealing: to be able to simultaneously run and exchange data among DOS, Windows and OS/2 programs.
The price is modest, if you already own a computer powerful enough to run OS/2 2.0. It’s $139, or a promotional prices of $99 if you already have DOS and $49 if you own Windows.
The new generation of OS/2 programs made possible by this new version are more promise than reality at this point. What makes OS/2 2.0 viable in the meantime is its ability to run existing DOS and Windows programs.
It does a much better job with DOS programs than previous OS/2 versions, and better than even DOS itself in most cases. You can run several DOS programs simultaneously, and each one has more than 600 kilobytes of regular memory plus extended and expanded memory available to it. A few DOS programs that use built-in forms of extra memory access will not run under OS/2, however.
Programs compatible with Windows 3.0 also run under the new OS/2, although there are some limitations on display resolution. You do not need Microsoft’s Windows 3.0 itself, and, in fact, it works better if you don’t. The built-in WIN-OS/2 program is an OS/2 version of Windows 3.0. IBM has not decided whether to add Windows 3.1 compatibility to OS/2.
OS/2 2.0 has a clean “desktop,” a graphical user interface that avoids the rigid design of Windows and Macintosh with their list of menu categories across the top of the screen, from which pull-down menus emanate.
Menus are not visible on the OS/2 2.0 desktop until you need one and press the appropriate mouse button while pointing at the program icon you want.
Icons are small pictures that represent computer functions, programs and files. A built-in utility lets you easily modify the standard icons and design new ones.
The program requires a 386- or 486-equipped computer with at least 6 megabytes of random access memory (RAM) and at least 40 megabytes of free space on a hard disk after all the other application programs and data files needed are installed.
That’s not large compared to UNIX, a powerful multi-tasking (and multi-user) operating system on engineering workstations and minicomputers that takes about 100 megabytes of disk storage space.
I found it performed well on a computer with a 25-megahertz 386 and 10 megabytes of RAM. It was acceptable on a 20-megahertz 386 with 8 megabytes of RAM, but too slow on the same computer with 4 megabytes of RAM.
OS/2 2.0 was unacceptably slow on a 16-megahertz 386/SX computer with 5 megabytes of RAM.
The 21-disk installation takes about an hour--longer if you have to partition and format your hard disk--and is mostly automatic. But a “read me” file contains an extensive list of modifications that may be needed, depending on your computer and existing application software.
The installation, though easy, did not accommodate certain features of my computer, leaving it partially crippled. Inexplicably, the operating system does not support the IBM 5.25-inch diskette drive in my IBM PS/2 Model 80 computer. Nor is there any mention of what to do. I finally found the necessary driver listed on IBM’s Compuserve forum, but without any explanation of how, when or why to use it.
My external CD-ROM drive also does not work with OS/2 2.0. The only cure for that will be a current model interface card for that drive.
Both drives function fine under DOS and Windows. OS/2 lets me start the machine as a DOS-only computer when I need to use my CD-ROM drive.
IBM’s free 60-day OS/2 telephone support service isn’t much good, based on my experience. After two weeks I was still waiting for a technician to call back. The Compuserve forum support was better with a response message the second day after my query.
Start-up pains are not unique to OS/2. They have also happened with Windows and DOS. Once everything is smoothed out, my hope is that OS/2 will allow me to run a wider variety of programs more easily than I could under DOS and Windows.
Windows does pose special problems under OS/2, however, but I’ll save that discussion for another column.
