GUI

[James Knott]

Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 09:35:51PM -0500, James Knott wrote:
> 
>>That's a huge question.  There are many things in it, that I couldn't do 
>>more than scratch the surface.  If you're looking to just point and 
>>click, any shell will do.  The WPS can do so much more, that I don't 
>>know where to start.  Everything on the desktop is an object, with full 
>>properties, which can be use for many things.  For example I used to 
>>download stuff from Compuserve.  In the properties for a file, there's a 
>>page for descripton, history etc.  When I downloaded a file from 
>>Compuserver, the application I used, (Golden Compass) would pull the 
>>file.idz from the download, and place the contents in the description 
>>box.  The download date etc., would be stored in the history and so on. 
>> Then you could use the searching capabilities of the WPS to search on 
>>the contents of the description, history, access dates and times and 
>>much, much more, in about a complex of search as you could imagine. 
>>Another nice thing, was the "shadows", which would be similar in concept 
>>to hard links in Linux, in that instead of having the "shortcut" as in 
>>Windows, the shadow was actually another instance of the original 
>>object.  This means that changes in one affect all.  Also, the object 
>>you see on the desktop, is actually part of the attributes of the file, 
>>and not a separate file pointing do it, in the way that icons are linked 
>>to files in Windows and Linux.  This means you avoid the problem you 
>>have in Windows, where it's possible to move a file in such a way, that 
>>the shortcut loses track of where it is.
> 
> 
> Shotcuts yes, but if the file is actually in the 'Desktop' directory it
> will just be the file itself you see.

The file is normally not on the desktop.  The icon is actually part of 
the file, in the extended attributes, but appears on the desktop.  The 
shadows of that icon are actually the exact same icon, but appearing in 
a different location.  Incidentally, OS/2 supported 64KB of extended 
attributes, which could hold a *LOT* of info about that file or object.

> 
> 
>>It would be a whole lot easier to show the things the WPS is capable of 
>>than to try and describe them.
>>
>>Also, I have found the multitasking in OS/2 to be better than Linux and 
>>far better still than Windows.  For example, on my Athlon XP 1700 system 
>>with 512 MB, opening Konqueror will interupt the playing of a midi file. 
>> I never had such a thing happen in OS/2, even on a 386!  One of the 
>>things OS/2 users used as an example, was to format a floppy in the 
>>background, while doing something else, with little effect from the 
>>floppy operation.  This compares with the Windows desktop virtually 
>>locking up in a similar test.
> 
> 
> I find a lot of things on Linux depends a lot on your kernel, how it is
> optimized (and 2.4 sure could use some help, which 2.6 is going to
> give), as well as which sound card and drivers you use.  The OSS drivers
> really suck badly.  ALSA drivers are almost always much faster and more
> responsive, and they are always much more feature complete for a sound
> chip.  Of course DMA access being enabled on the drives also will help
> things a lot.
> 
> 
>>There were features in OS/2, back in 1992, that have still not appeared 
>>in Windows.
> 
> 
> Well my Amiga 500 could format a floppy while playing a mod file no
> problem (along with doing other things) on a 7.16 MHz 68000.

I haven't used the Amiga, but it would take some doing, to be as bad as 
Windows.  The 1st computer I ran OS/2 on, was a 386DX-33 & 4 MB of 
memory ( I quickly upgraded to 8).


In many ways both OS/2 and Linux are better than Windows.  In some of 
those ways OS/2 does it better than Linux and vice versa.

I'd much rather run either, than have to use Windows.

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml