| Was würden Sie an OS/2 verbessern ? |
|
|
|
| Was würden Sie an OS/2 verbessern ? |
| 1.1% | 5 |
OS/2 hat keine Zukunft. Was wollt Ihr also !? |
| 10.3% | 47 |
Warum verbessern, ist doch klasse so. |
| 100% | 452 |
OS/2 braucht noch viel |
| 34.9% | 158 |
Ja |
|
| Power & Kompatibilität |
| 38.3% | 147 |
Erweiterter Adressbereich (512MB Limit). Mit mehr Kompatibilität, aber weniger Geschwindigkeit, wegen den thunking-layers für alte 16-Bit Module |
| 53.2% | 204 |
Erweiterter Adressbereich (512MB Limit). Mit mehr Geschwindigkeit, aber weniger Kompatibilität, d.h. keine thunks, aber alte 16-Bit Module funktionieren nicht mehr |
| 100% | 383 |
Win32-Support (Ausführen von Windows95, 98, NT Programmen) |
| 41.7% | 160 |
ELF-Support (Linux-Software, obowohl viele im Quellcode erhältlich sind.) |
| 27.1% | 104 |
mehrere swapfiles oder swappartitionen |
| 53.7% | 206 |
X-Window-Funktionalität für den PM |
| 20.3% | 78 |
andere Windowmanager (GUI) für die WPS-GUI (nicht die Funktionalität) |
| 69.7% | 267 |
Links im Dateisystem (a la Linux-Ext2FS) |
| 8.8% | 34 |
keine Laufwerksbuchstaben |
| 2% | 8 |
keine Erweiterung |
|
| Sicherheit |
| 19.1% | 30 |
Ich brauche keine Sicherheit (Windows95 Modus) |
| 71.3% | 112 |
POSIX-style Sicherheit wäre schon (Unix ähnlich) |
| 12.1% | 19 |
Microsoft hat es mit NT gut gemacht, sowas will ich |
| 100% | 157 |
OS/2's SES Security Enabling Services sind OK. Wenn ich keine Sicherheit brauche, habe ich weniger overhead. Mit anderen Programmen könnte ich C2-certified security standard erreichen |
| 86.6% | 136 |
Multiuser-Desktop wäre genug (PMLOGIN) |
| 24.2% | 38 |
keine Erweiterung |
|
| Geschwindigkeit |
| 0% | 0 |
Make it FAST, I don't care much about stability. (aka Windows95) |
| 17.9% | 31 |
Speed is more important than stability, but not as it is shown by Windows95. |
| 61.2% | 106 |
Slower is ok, when stability is better. |
| 0% | 0 |
Speed isn't so important, the system has to be stable |
| 100% | 173 |
OS/2 is ok, as it is |
|
| Resource requirements |
| 7.7% | 24 |
Lower the recource requirements by deleting some features. (e.g. WPS) |
| 100% | 310 |
OS/2's resource requirements is ok |
| 49.6% | 154 |
OS/2 is slim enough. It could get bigger, for some more features. |
|
| (neue) Technologien |
| 100% | 393 |
DVD-Support |
| 45.5% | 179 |
3D-Technologies like Direct3D, beside of OpenGL |
| 67.9% | 267 |
3D-Support via OpenGL is enough, but hardware-support is important. |
| 97.4% | 383 |
Extended USB-Support, also e.g. for Scanner |
| 88.5% | 348 |
SANE/TWAIN similar scannersupport in the system |
| 80.6% | 317 |
Symmetric multiprocessing |
| 95.9% | 377 |
Journaling Filesystems, that can check faster (BeFS, NTFS, JFS) |
| 48.8% | 192 |
POSIX-APIs, for better UNIX-compatibility |
| 47.8% | 188 |
Multi-Monitor-Support |
| 38.4% | 151 |
Generic support for streamer |
| 79.8% | 314 |
Video-CD (new MPEG standards) |
| 1% | 4 |
no extension |
|
| Softwarebundling |
| 28.2% | 55 |
The OS/2 package could need some more software send with |
| 100% | 195 |
OS/2 Warp 4 has all I need. I get the rest over the internet. |
| 27.1% | 53 |
I don't need most of the software OS/2 Warp 4 has. IBM could save some of the CDs |
| 37.9% | 74 |
Softwaresites in the internet are enough, and are much easier to keep actual |
| 57.9% | 113 |
We need more actual and modern software sent with OS/2 |
|
| Entry-user support |
| 25.8% | 51 |
I'd like to have some more WarpGuides(TM) |
| 51.7% | 102 |
I need some more easy to understand entry-user-documentations |
| 100% | 197 |
OS/2 Warp 4 is fine as it is |
| 38.5% | 76 |
OS/2 is not a system for entry users. Entry-user support isn't very important. |
| 27.4% | 54 |
Supportsites in the internet are enoughand are much easier to keep actual |
|
| Java |
| 1.6% | 4 |
What the hell is JAVA ? |
| 9.5% | 23 |
JAVA is not important for OS/2 |
| 100% | 240 |
JAVA support is important and it is nice, that Warp 4 is optimized for JAVA |
| 96.6% | 232 |
JAVA is the future! OS/2 JAVA has to get the best and fastest JAVA-system for PC in the world! |
|
| Multimedia |
| 1.6% | 4 |
Multimedia is good for playing. |
| 9.5% | 23 |
Multimedia is not important for OS/2 |
| 100% | 240 |
Multimedia is important for OS/2 and should be enhanced. |
| 96.6% | 232 |
Multimedia is gorgeous! Without Multimedia, wether OS/2 nor JAVA nor Internet is interesting. OS/2 has to get an important multimedia platform! |
|
| Should the leading OS/2 technologies, like (D)SOM and (OO)REXX, be took back for Internet-technologies, like Java-Objects and JavaScript? |
| 6.3% | 19 |
Of course! Internet has absolute priority! |
| 4.3% | 13 |
Internet technologies should have higher priority than OS/2 technologies. |
| 100% | 298 |
OS/2 technology is as important as internet technologies |
| 57% | 170 |
OS/2 technologies should have higher priority than internet technologies. |
| 1.3% | 4 |
No way! OS/2 technologies have absolute priority! |
|
| Your own suggestions |
|
![[Forum]](../../../images.os2.org/de/forum.gif){kind=small}
![[Forum]](../../../images.os2.org/de/forum2.gif){kind=small}
