No favorite files added yet
220.127.116.11 (Jan 22, 2011)
The nirsoft version of this allows you to create a third grouping which you can put other vendor's applications in. You are not restricted to just these two.
It's some how a pity that this one misses out on that.
7.56a (Dec 20, 2010)
TC is my second preference for file management, and first for things like GUI operations etc. Still, there is no OS/2 version, or text version (like FC/2). Both are well worth the support... Have two copies of each :)
7.01 Build 361 (Apr 1, 2006)
I have been with 4DOS since version 4.0, 4OS2 from 1.1 and 4NT from 2.5. I still use them quite heavily.
Like many of the proggies that came through OS/2, there are lots of interesting extras. 4NT for example, supports REXX commands, and also the wonderful EXTPROC (ie the OS/2 verion of unix /#).
It is meant to be compatible with command.com and cmd.exe, and apes many of their bugs as well. On the other hand, it is meant to add lots of usable functionality, replacing a horde of utilities in a neat compatible package.
Note that the windows command line is no more DOS than the windows shell is. cmd.exe is a win32 proggie, complete with registry access etc. It is not "DOS" by any means.
3.1 (Jul 19, 2005)
I was a user of ObjectDesktop from when it first came out, on OS/2, way back. Sadly OS/2 is no longer supported by ibm.
Still, i bought it for a while on windoze 9x, but eventually slipped back into something pre-emptive [DOS].
The idea was good under OS/2, but some of the Windows stuff was a tad clunky [prolly the OS fault].
3.1 (Oct 28, 2007 - 2:47 AM)
For a while, i used vista. But it's got lots of unnecessary changes in it. The icons for things like the usb-manager (which allows you to stop devices from the shell), and the control panel, have all been changed.
I used vista, i used xp, but i am back full time on a 2k machine. In the next scrape-down, i plan to put OS/2 back in the mix. Oh well. c'est la vie.
3.1 (Aug 5, 2005 - 12:59 AM)
I wish there was more diversity in the computer user space, so virii do not spread so rath.
3.1 (Jul 6, 2005 - 2:17 AM)
Although holes exist in any operating system, the track record suggests that the design of UNIX, linux etc, is that the holes are neither large, nor do they extend through much of the operating system.
Windows, any form of it, is based ultimately on DOS (either natively, like Win9x, or through the OS/2 link). DOS, OS/2 and Windows don't have very good OS security, since this is never a paradigm for DOS programmers.
3.1 (Jun 22, 2005 - 12:55 AM)
OS/2 has had a programable GUI. This is one of the strengths of the WPS. One way of starting an OS/2 program from a script, was to make a custom icon [from the command line], and then launch that. The \NOWHERE directory is for that. either NO-WHERE or NOW-HERE.
You can do this in Windows to some extent, but the actual API that makes icons is itself buggy. The user interface works, though.
You can do quite a lot from the command line, but the shell is so buggy that the changes do not take effect immediately. For example, using the free regina.rexx and patrick mcphee's w32util.dll, you can even modify the registry.
Windows is not built on a tradition of passing commands between applications. Every few years a new "technology" comes out, eg DDE, OLE, etc, which does this. Whatever it is, it is poorly documented, and the average user does not use it.
On the other hand, the OS/2 rexx interface, and the Unix pipe-line are both well documented, and often used.
3.1 (Feb 1, 2005 - 6:29 AM)
Microsoft became a monopoly by riding the limits of the law, and retracting only when legal issues have been raised.
The decision to rent software was hastily reversed when it was revealed to them specifically what the price of being a landlord was.
On the other hand, however one becomes a monopoly, the rules change. Just like when you go from small business to big business.
The evidence here is that Microsoft is using one monopoly to create another. Plain and simple. The idea that Microsoft is something like Google or RedHat is plainly wrong. It has, and is willing to use (as far as legally possible), the full extent of the law to quash competition.
It is only fitting that the law should be applied.