From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 20:20:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.185554.49478@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.233432.27395@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (
>Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct10.220520.14135@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.clarem
...
>>bits level, Windows 2.X, 3.X, Win32s, Win32.  It's possible in the
>>near future that OS/2 may run well everyone else's apps, but it mainly
>>means there is less incentive for people to make apps for the small 2.0
>>native market.
>
>Wrong again.  OS/2's support is necissary for its survival until its own apps
>start getting here in bigger quantities.  I myself would not have bought it if
>its DOS/Win support was significantly worse.  Further, when did IBM even hint
>at supporting Win32?  They haven't and shouldn't.  I have heard something
>about them supporting Win32s, but that may very well be a net rumor.  IBM
>doesn't need to really support mcuh beyond what they already have.  What is

From a posting by sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
	Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 01:28:11 GMT
	Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy

**Today IBM Chicago held its monthly OS/2 User's Group meeting.  This
**month's meeting was devoted, in large part, to a presentation by two
**OS/2 experts from Austin (mainly delivered by Don Crabtree).
**
...
**Now, where is OS/2 headed?
...
**In 1993 ("OS/2 2.x"):
**
**** Win32/Win32s API compatibility.  This was a surprise, frankly.  But
**it was there on the overhead transparency.
**
**[Just to editorialize, this could cut both ways.  On the one hand OS/2
**is essentially remaining a superset of Windows "forever," i.e. if you
**have OS/2 you can always run more.  Meaning it is more attractive for
**consumers.  On the other hand you might ask whether developers should
**write for the OS/2 API.  But, then again, developers don't dictate OS
**markets, consumers do.  If OS/2 is more popular, and, other things
**being equal, OS/2 users prefer native OS/2 applications over Win32
**applications, then developers with native OS/2 versions will have an
**advantage.  What would be truly bizarre (devious?) is if IBM
**implemented the Win32 API before Microsoft did, which is certainly
**possible with these new, modern OSes given that the API is rigidly
**defined.  BUT I DIGRESS.]
...
>supports right now is enough to get its foot in the door and ease the
>transition.  Besides, NT is trying to support everything under the sun as

Please define "everything under the sun"... NT has a consistant,
complete modern API defined.

>well, and isn't going to even trying to fully support 16-bit stuff.  That makes
>it much less attractive.  Also, if everyone starts making Win32s apps, which
>are supposed to run under 3.1, then that sort of reduces the incentive to buy
>NT doesn't it?  Of course it doesn't really, but the arguement is just as
>stupid as the one you put out there.

No, NT is intended for workstation class machines: 386 DX with 8 megs or more
of memory -- people with that class of hardware should find NT desirable
over Windows 3.X.  NT is also intended for servers.

>>
>>Further the large number of subsystems + IBM's need to maintain its
>>reputation for supporting old features for a long period of time, will
>>mean that OS/2 development will lag more modern OS's. The back-
>>compatibility burden will be huge.  The amount of back-compatibility
>>also means a large overhead in disk space needs, more complicated installation,
>>and more complexity in the subsystem APIs, and even the WPS in order to
>>support it all.  Worse Windows 3.X, Win32s, and Win32 are moving targets...
>>OS/2 2.0 developer's main jobs will be simply keeping up.
>>Any major new feature in OS/2 will have to be geared to be compatible with
>>the other platforms.  Imagine they have to support two of many things already!
>>Two font systems, two multimedia systems, two sets of printer drivers.
>>What seems like a good idea at the moment, will quickly become a burden.
>>IBM would better spend its time recruiting ISV support.
>>
>While they have done this in the past, OS/2 2.0 flies right in the face of
>this arguement.  If they were currently so hell bent for keeping old features,
>then OS/2 2.0 would probablly have some way to run on 286s.  And in case you
>have forgotten, NT has significantly higher overhead than OS/2.  But that was

Where does NT have significantly higher overhead than OS/2?
Memory requires for a networked station are almost the same.
OS/2 requires more disk than the current pre-beta does.
Plus now that IBM is going to support Win32... how will it ever need less
resources?

>just a convienent oversight wasn't it?  The market is going to force NT to
>keep similair mountains of backwards compatibility and thus it will swell at a
>similair rate.  Also, again, where did IBM even claim that they were going to
>support all versions of Win?  They haven't.  Please remember that even when it
>isn't so convienent.  If they had to support two sets of everything, then
>wouldn't they have done much more already?  The only increase in the number of
>printer drivers that I have seen for example is one added disk on a beta.  Ohh
>how will they ever manage?

Well I'm not going to bother to go look up  a reference, but at the time
it was revealed that IBM would not have access to Windows source code
anymore  IBM claimed that it would not give them problems in upgrading
to future versions of Windows.

>
>>While all users expect their past investment not to disappear immediately,
>>experience in the Macintosh community shows that most apps still working
>>after a major upgrade is sufficient.  Word from contacts inside Microsoft
>>seem to indicate that DOS support in the beta is already well above the
>>acceptable level.  (Only a few more days till the beta ships!!!)
>
>That's nice.  We'll be the judge of that.  And besides, that depends entirely
>on what you consider acceptable.  How about 16 bit Windows support?  That had
>better be there too.

Of course NT will have 16-bit windows support, it already does...but
obviously you've never bother to look.  Why do you insist on being an
NT basher, when you haven't bothered to look at both?  I have looked at
both, I use both regularly.

>Stacy John Behrens

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))