-=> Quoting Frostbyte to All <=-
 Fr> After a couple of weeks after my ..er...uh...'upgrade' to win95, i've
 Fr> had to  wipe the thing.  I run a bbs (just two nodes) on a AMD 586-133,
 Fr> 8M RAM and the  system just SLOOOOOOWED and now it's back to the ol'
 Fr> DOS 6.20-Win 3.11 setup  (this is the preface, the question is coming
 Fr> up).  The system performs well  with this system but i have lately been
 Fr> getting up on the os/2 info web pages  and it sounds like everyone in
 Fr> the world should be running Warp.  Even the  more 'conservative' or
 Fr> objective pages seem to lean towards os/2 over win3.11  or win95.  My
 Fr> question is has anyone done any comparisons between win3.11 and  win95
 Fr> and os/2 on their own machines?  I understand that os/2 can be more 
 Fr> difficult to setup but in my experience, anything worth running
 Fr> usually is.  I  have read all the technical specs and such and i'm
 Fr> seriously looking into  switching to Warp 3.0.  I don't run a lot of
 Fr> windows applications, mostly dos  ones for the BBS (i still do command
 Fr> line file moves and such:)  Any info is  greatly appreciated...
        Well, I switched from DOS/Windows 3.1 to OS/2 v3.0 before Win95
was released.  At the time, I had a 486-40 with 8 megs RAM.  And I
couldn't believe it:  my machine was now more powerful than before, just
by changing the OS.  However, the WPS was a bit sluggish, so I used a
shell replacement for a while (TaskBar), until I upgraded to 16 megs.
After that, drag 'n dropping went much more smoothly.
        This is what took the most time to get used to:  the interface.
You could use OS/2 has a command line environment (i.e. DOS) or a
simple graphical interface (i.e. Windows 3.1).  But to really benefit
from the power of the WPS, you have to discover what the interface can
do for you.  There are a few simple concepts to learn, and once you
see how to use them, you really appreciate the ideas behind them.
        The first item would be the program object.  In simple terms,
a program object is an icon that lets you start a program.  Just like
in Windows (3.1's Program Manager and 95' shortcuts), you can select a
working directory, specify arguments, and change the icon.  But, unlike
those, if you move the underlying executable, the Program Object will
be updated.  If you understand correctly, that means that you'll still
be able to click on the 'icon' and start the program.  Nice, but not
essential.
        If the executable is a DOS or Windows program, you can specify
many settings (around 30 I think).  These include the amount of
memory to provide to the applications, and which device drivers are
necessary.  Thus, if you have a small DOS program that only needs
380k of ram, you can remove all the XMS and EMS from that DOS session.
And if you have another DOS session that requires 32 megs of EMS, you
simply give it to it.  Simple.
        A second item is the shadows, which Win95 tried to implement
as shortcuts.  Shadows allow you to access Program Objects from
different locations.  And just as before, if you move the program
object, the shadow will be automatically updated so that clicking
on the icon will still work.  Again, nice but not essential.
        A third item is the folders.  At first, I perceived folders
simply as directories.  But once I realized what could be done with
this item, I was quite pleased.  Folders are used to hold files,
just as directories.  But you can also place program objects and
shadows in them.  So what?  Well, you can create groups of 'icons'
that are related.  For instance, my Communication folder contains
the following:  Archie/, BlueWave/2, Crosstalk Communicator (to
call BBSs), ExeCom (a script that scans zip files for viruses),
FaxWorks, FTP-PM, ipSpeed, Netscape/2, Sslurp, and Yarn.  These have
all one thing in common:  they are all the tools I need to connect
to BBSs and to the internet.  All I need is conveniently placed in
the same folder.  Also, I found that I frequently wanted to access
the files I had downloaded.  Since the Communications folder is
already opened, I placed a shadow of my download directory in it,
where I can easily access it.  Very nice.
        And I have folders for other tasks, such as programming.
And with the help of program objects and shadows, these folders
are quite helpful:  everything I need for a given task is there.
And if I need the same tool for two tasks, I simply create a
shadow of that tool in the other folder.  But I that tool needs
to have a different configuration (working directory for example),
I then create another program object for it.  And remember that
if I move the original executable, all the program objects and
shadows will be updated automatically.  Very very nice.
        What else is there?  Well templates.  When I start a new
programming project, I always need the same few files:  Basic.hpp,
BasicDialogFramework.cpp or BasicFrameFramework.cpp, dialog_about.cpp,
main.cpp, URE (dialog editor), and Watcom C/C++.  So, I once created
a folder with all these files and tools, and made it into a template.
Now, when I need to start a new project, I simply have to drag this
template to the desired location.  In this case, the original object
(i.e. folder) will remain at its location and a copy will be created
at the desired location.  Nice.  I forgot to mention that this folder
also contains templates to .cpp, .hpp, dialog.cpp, and frame.cpp.
These files contain some text (code) within them that I always need
when I need a new file.  So, thanks to templates, I don't have to
rewrite that code everytime.  This is a great time saver.  Again,
very very nice.
        A little used item is the workplace.  That feature is available
to folders.  When you start an application within a workplace folder,
and minimize or close the folder, the application will also be minimized
or closed.  And when you restore or open the folder, the application will
be restored or opened.  Nice.
        And so far, I haven't talked about the superior multitasking,
and the rare crashes.  I've mentioned how you can configure each DOS
session, but you won't really appreciate that feature until you see
it for yourself.
        Anyways, I've made my decision a few years ago.  Now that I've
experienced something better (yes, I've tried Win95 and found it to be
shallow), I can't ever go back.  So be careful too;  you may not be
able to go back to Windows or whatever else afterwards.
        Stephane [TEAM OS/2]
--- Blue Wave/OS2 v2.30
---------------