eCS 1.0 alpha, eCS 1.1 beta, eCS 1.2 GA - SVISTA 1.0 alpha, ... isn't it frustrating????

eCS 1.0 alpha, eCS 1.1 beta, eCS 1.2 GA - SVISTA 1.0 alpha, ... isn't it frustrating????

Post by Thorolf Go » Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:21:05


Hi,

yes possibly this is not true at all what he is writing (BTW the
eCS-sites where hacked and there are no credit card-infos) but
unfortunately he is not wrong in everything what he is writing :-(


Three eCS-sites had been hacked and there never has been any official
statement from Serenity, this is absolutely UNPROFESSIONAL and not
convenient for any (real) user :-(

I'm still waiting for it!


I NEVER had any problems (exept the IBM1S506 what was always easy to
solve) with installing Warp 4, MCP or ACP on any machine I tried to do
it, but eCS 1.0 failed on most machines I tried, eCS 1.1 failed still on
a lot of them and even eCS 1.2 was not installable on all machines (a
lot of them had been IBM machines where MCP, Linux and Windows run
without any problems)!

And my latest new eCS 1.2 installation on my T40 I maid 3 or 4 times
until it run like I wanted, MCP-installations I made only once!

Sure, eCS also has advantages, there are a lot of drivers for new
hardware, USB runs out of the box, there are a lot of apps included in
the price and other. But Serenity and Mensys have to accept that it is
not always good to promise everything and then deliver a product that is
not complete and not ready for GA, not always the newest SW, fixes and
drivers are working together and I'm sure that they don't have the
ressources to test everything!

This is done by the users and maybe a lot of them don't have to work
with there computers, but I have too and it is very frustrating if the
system is not working as promised or expected.

Now, several years after introducing eCS GA I would say that this could
be eCS 1.0 - not 100% perfect, but mostly complete and stable how I
expect it for an OS/2-system!

And with SVISTA they are doing the same now, the so called GA is an
incomplete alpha-version, one day I will lose my patience with serenity,
it seems that they never ever will understand it :-((((

Thorolf


PS: For "The Real OS/2 Guy":
I prohibit specifically that YOU use ANYTHING out of my mails in ANY way
outside of this specific thread to create your FUD and SPAM for the
world!!!!!!!
 
 
 

eCS 1.0 alpha, eCS 1.1 beta, eCS 1.2 GA - SVISTA 1.0 alpha, ... isn't it frustrating????

Post by MMI » Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:13:45

horolf Godawa wrote:

After 11 years with OS/2 and few years (1993-1997) of extensive
installing on whatever machines available (from 386 to then-powerful
Pentiums, from 2.1 to 4.0) I must say that on carelessly chosen
hardware, OS/2 may die quickly and you can do nothing about it. For
example, I've seen Socket Super 7 board where Linux and OS/2 quickly
died (didn't even boot installation media) when the board had 2.1V K6-2
inserted. Of course, every M$ operating system worked well on it, NT 4
too. With 3.3V K6 in the board every OS worked flawlessly.

So, even the allmighty IBM can't guarantee 100% successfull
installation, how could SSI achieve that? I installed eCS succesfully
(1st attempt) on all machines I attempted to (some 4 machines). OS/2
worked on them without problem, too. I think eCS (have 1.1) and OS/2 are
about equal on successfull installs: they install on most machines, and
fail on some, but these failed machines aren't always the same.

I've had MCP2 to test, and on my machine, I found no big difference
between eCS 1.1 and MCP2 (with the exception of WPS extensions and
polish of eCS) in installation or usability. They were almost the same:
my well-chosen HW worked and all apps I use worked too. For me, eCS 1.1
upgrade from Warp 4 for some 110 euro was a bargain with the
accessibility to SWC offer all the time.

Of course, I can't comment on 1.2 or SVISTA (I have only 1.1). I just
wanted to say that IBM branded OS/2 isn't as much better with installing
issues as eCS. I see them as about the same, each better in it's own
realm (eCS on newer HW, OS/2 on IBM's HW). YMMV, but I've seen too much
failed IBM OS/2 installation attempts on weird 486/586 boards/computers
in the past.

Cheers,
Martin