>> Yes, their EAGLE driver is -not- a generic NE2000 driver.
 > Fine, but how many people have NE2000 clone cards vs Eagle 
 > cards?

Consumer people or Corporate people?. There are various clone NE2000 ISA
drivers available, most of us used to use the NS one. I don't see this as a
problem area, in fact as far as drivers go, OS/2 is -very- well off for
network drivers (thanks to LanServer's strong industry usage/support).
Almost all (99.99%) of network cards are supplied with OS/2 drivers. A good
fast PCI network card is only about $69.00, and ISA network cards are all
but obsolete by now, the start of '97.

 > The number of the latter is likely insignificant in 
 > comparison. Which therefore makes this an extremely bad 
 > mistake on IBM's part.

It would have been nice to have a clone NE2000 driver supplied with CONNECT
a couple yrs ago, now it's not an issue.

 >> No. The Netware client is not particularly friendly. As per 
 >> the docs, did you run nwfixup.exe?
 > No, and what docs?

MPTS and/or the Netware client.

 > All I did was add the "Netware support" 
 > protocol in MPTS, assuming this to be IPX.

It's not. What it is, is the ODI2NDI stack link for ODI based network
drivers/requesters.

 > I did not actually 
 > want the Netware Client, nor did I actually install it. Just 
 > this protocol support. Which, just like Warp3, seems to ruin 
 > the entire networking configuration.

Adding the netware support (ODI2NDI) protocol in MPTS config requires the
installation of the netware client and some other adjustments. Consult the
Netware docs. Agreed this area should be cleaned up. Currently it's built
to be compatible with IBM/Novell's std (and free) OS/2 (full featured and
official) Netware Client.

Remember that IBM's OS/2 network stack is NDIS based (the main global std).
The Netware client is ODI based. MPTS's "Netware support"
protocol selection is an ODI2NDI shim between the two.

 > Actually, in a system where all devices can be reliably 
 > detected, and are preferably plug and play, this is quite a 
 > reasonable way to go.

If such a system existed :). It's wishfull thinking, so far as; if the
concept is designed to ease average configuration tasks, it fails badly.
Any hardware conflicts existing in a machine causes Win95's auto config
features to behave badly (often get it completely wrong or hangs). The
consequences are a more difficult task to fix the problem with Win95
getting in the way all the time. To the degree that in my experience, when
setting up a Win95 machine, the worst problem is always Win95 itself :(.

The real truth must be that; the auto-config junk is part of the marketing
image, where the "consumer" is sold on the idea that it can all
be done for them. "90's computing without the need to learn
anything". Sadly that concept is a complete falsehood, simply not
possible. Worse, the consequences are that the consumer (or his pocket via
a consultant) is up for more problems and more support efforts.

 > Yes, Win95 is inclined to reconfigure 
 > things that it really can't, but OS/2's Hardware Manager 
 > seems a very poor clone of Win95, and in fact, it seems 
 > utterly useless.

:) What's a hardware manager? Fancy name for a computer technican? I mean
what's the aim here? As above Win95's management junk is no more than
marketing image and technican's nightmare.

 >> Just change the entry in config.sys. Takes 10 seconds.
 > Assume I'm not a power user. Why should I need to edit 
 > CONFIG.SYS?

Hmm, you usually don't, but it is a usual PC ownership operating default
(to need to do so). Me thinks you've been having a MS dream (sucked in
badly ;). Remember that DOS/WIN users spent the 80's (and some still do in
the 90's!?) hacking at their CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files in vein
attempts to cram 1MB of real mode drivers into 384K of space. Thankfully
OS/2 is much much easier to get along with.

 >> You need to compare it with WinNT V4. Win95 is the world's 
 >> last DOS extender, tiny (and stupid) in comparison.
 > Technically, perhaps that would be a fairer comparison.

Yes.

 > It doesn't matter. Windows95 is intended for the end (home) 
 > user's desktop,

Well Win95 is intended to make more money from the DOS/WIN3.XX user base.
Granted it's no corporate solution.

 > NT is not (yet). Isn't Warp intended for the 
 > home user's desktop as well? Then a comparison of Win95 and 
 > Warp4 is very valid.

You need to step back from MS's offered solutions. The Win95 / WinNT
product choices seems to confuse the issue. WARP V4 is intended to provide
the best possible Desktop and Network operating system support for the PC.
There is little to no technical justification for the averager consumer
limiting themselves to inferior products.

:) To my mind at least, comparing WARP 4 to DOS VX.XX or even Win95 (DOS
VX.XX + small 32bit GUI) is a pointless exercise. Why not compare a Holden
to a LearJet?.. they both move you around after all.
 
 > Sorry, I still can't say I'm impressed. The VoiceType is 
 > interesting, but in my experience it has trouble with 
 > Australian pronunciation. Basically, a gimmick.

Like Win95? :).

VoiceType?.. perhaps useful, now or in the future. Anyone with a disability
would be really silly to be not using it NOW. It does have great potential,
and we have it NOW from IBM. If you saw problems with it, try a good noise
cancelling microphone (prefer headset). Like a mouse, once it's properly
adopted/trained (it also always dynamically trains during usage) it's
almost failsafe. I guess you could call a Mouse a gimmick, people used to,
some still do.

 > I booted Warp4 up again last week. I recently changed network 
 > cards from an NE2000 to an SMC8013. The NE2000 (NS2000) 
 > driver hung when it did not detect the card.

That's common for NE2000 cards actually, they're not real smart. A bit like
floppy interface tape drives.

 > network configuration problems, I reinstalled the whole 
 > operating system. Total installation score: Windows95 - 2 
 > (initial install was an upgrade, second was fresh install), 
 > OS/2 Warp 4 (both fresh installs, the second one only two 
 > weeks after the first), Debian Linux 1.1/1.2 - 1 (no 
 > reinstall required, in place upgrades handled perfectly).

WARP is a big package if you're approaching from a DOS perspective. Be
prepared to live with it for from a few mths to a few years as you get to
know it.

 >> Overall, as a general workstation operating system, network 
 >> client, and internet interface, WARP V4 is way out in front. 
 >> No comparison at all really.
 > I can't agree.

 > The interface on Warp has remained constant, 
 > and I believe is now surpassed by Windows95. Certainly, the 
 > implementation of the GUI itself may be poor in Win95 (eg no 
 > SOM, with shortcuts being kludges on 95). But to the end 
 > user, there's not much difference.

There is in the long term, concerning stability, usability, performance,
upgradability, and volume of general technical features. The Win95 GUI is
obviosuly inferior, the fact that they may look similar is not the issue.
 
 > When you want to move, 
 > copy, or make a shortcut to a file, you drag it with the 
 > right mouse button. It took quite a while to work out which 
 > combination of Shift, Alt and Control was used to make a 
 > shadow the other day. Things like this need to be a lot more 
 > obvious.

I still forget most of them :). For productive work, the keyed sequences
are faster and better than a popup menu as only option. WARP has both menu
and keyed shortcuts.

 > Warp4 still comes with WebExplorer! A good browser in its 
 > day, but that was in 1995 in Warp3. OEM Windows95 comes with 
 > Internet Explorer these days, which is a pretty comparable 
 > browser to Netscape, and a lot better than WebEx.

I strongly disagree. Browsing online web sites is only one of many usages
for the system html viewer. WARP V4 includes a whole CDROM that is html.
More and more programs are now released with html docs. Encyclopedia
Britannica (and now World Book 97) are full html. Under WARP it's common to
have several copies of WebEx running at any one time. It's a default system
tool, and a GOOD one.

For top of the line Web support including Java you could try Netscape/2.
Personally I have 4 web browsers on the desktop, including Sun's HotJava -
a native Java application.

Speaking of Java, WARP V4 also gives us not only OS intergrated Java
support, but a full blown Java development package/environment. Roll on the
java based 97 app releases (Lotus/Corel/etc/etc/everyone_but_MS), they'll
all be running under WARP V4 :).

8-) p.s. You know I'm biased, I love running WARP.. but then most WARP users do.

Regards.

--- Msgedsq/2 2.2e