From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:48:20 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

...
>MS's on the net seem to think that NT does everything OS/2 does but
>more.  This is not the case.  I will assume that most of us believe
>that whoever rules the Intel platform has won the game already.  With
>that in mind, OS/2 has these important thigns in its favor that NT
>simply is not going to have or have in the near future:

First of all I want to point out that I very much believe that OS/2 is
a subset of NT.  In all the discussion I've ever seen on this group...
only 3 points of potential importance have I seen that OS/2 has that NT
will not have from day 1:  Excellent VDM's, WPS, and REXX.
You list the first two, but left out REXX.

Now to deal with your points:

>
>NT will not be able to run DOS programs as quickly or well as OS/2.
>NT chose to be airtight (not a bad choice but this is the result).

The vast majority of DOS programs should work under NT without problems.
There is no need to run DOS networking or multimedia drivers as
there is under OS/2.
Only in the area of games do I expect any problems... and as
even the pre-beta was able to run 1 of the 2 I tried... I'm not sure
even this will be that much of a problem.

>
>NT is going to have the ridiculous program manager and file manager
>back.

This is clearly a two-edged feature.  A user migrating from Windows
does not need to learn anything new and for many if not most
users this shell is fine.  If WorkPlace shell was not so complex
and if it's operation had been better thought out, then perhaps
you would have more of a point, but I think it likely not to
factor in most user's decisions.  For "power-users" this can be
a factor, but having used WPS for several months now... I don't
find I miss it when running under Windows 3.1 and Windows NT.
Personally I'm quite content to wait for someone to implement
an alternate shell with a simliar flavor for NT. (And remember
that Cairo will be out in '94 -- it's shell looked similar
to WPS... but hopefully will be better thought out.)
The idea of WPS is great, but its implementation is lacking.

>
>NT is going to run Windows programs probably only as well as OS/2 does
>(I have the beta with win 3.1 support and seamless windows 3.1 sessions
>are very fast now).

Perhaps it will handle Windows program as well once 2.01 comes out (I
remain skeptical).  But what about a year from now?  It looks like IBM
will take 9 months to get Windows 3.1 support into OS/2, and they have
sources...  what about the next time when they don't?  And don't say
that OS/2 will have all the apps it needs by then...  Windows 3.X and
its derivatives will clearly be the mainstream platform for some time
to come.  Most apps will be there first.

>
>So MS people out there, why should we, the users who have the machine
>to run NT choose it over OS/2?  
>
>More Apps?  The bread and butter apps will be out for OS/2 before NT
>and OS/2 runs all windows programs I have.

I see no evidence that the "bread and butter" apps will be out for OS/2.
A few of the major companies that tend to support multiple platforms
have said they will be there, but there will be nothing like the
selection available for Windows 3.X, or even the Mac anytime
in the near future.

>
>To make money?  MS makes most of the money on Windows.  ISV's have more
>money making potential in the OS/2 market IF it succeeds.

What basis do you have for this statement?
Windows apps will pass the sales of DOS apps this year.
Microsoft is far from the only company receiving a windfall from
this market.  Early sales figures of course were higher for MS, but
then they had their apps there first.  You can bet that Borland, Lotus
and WordPerfect won't let that happen again.
Most ISV's don't make things that MS makes -- how can the OS/2
market possibly have more money making potential?
Money making potential is directly proportional to customer base
and Windows 3.X/NT is clearly the larger base.
BUT doesn't that imply that the NT apps don't use all the
fance features?  Who cares... with the 30-40% speed up
from having a Windows 3.X app ported to NT... AND that app
is actually being available... NT users will be quite happy until NT class
OS's are the mainstream.  At least NT users will _have_ native apps.
Even if OS/2 eventually does get an app base it will be limited
to those features that Windows 3.X has, as that is the larger
app base.  Only if OS/2 displaced Windows 3.X would this fact
not hold... and I seriously doubt OS/2 can displace Windows 3.X.

>
>Network support?  Novell is the standard and will continue to be and
>its support for OS/2 is solid.

And Novell support won't be there for NT?  It's already being
developed... remember how long it took for Novell to put it on OS/2?
The only thing currently different w.r.t. to Novell and OS/2 is that
a Novell server is planned that will run on top of OS/2.
1) Just what will be its relationship to LAN Server?  Is IBM going
to abandon it?
2) It's not here yet nor is it close to release.
3) Even if it was here why would this affect NT?  NT and Novell will
clearly interoperate.  NT's networking comes with the base package, so
all NT boxes can talk to Novell servers.  DOS 6 will come with integrated
networking... it will clearly be able to talk to NT servers.
Likewise Windows for Workgroups will be able to talk to both.
4) Microsoft and Novell are said to be negotiating a similar deal
for NT.

>
>Multi-platform?  Who cares.  Any manager who suggests putting WindowsNT
>on a sparc so that they can run word for windows won't be a manager for
>very long.

I'm amused at this one.  Do you think that DEC, SGI and Sequent
choosing to support NT at this early stage is unfounded on their part?
SGI is already shipping systems.  DEC employees are running around
saying that NT will "save" them.  There are several new vendors
making ACE compliant multi-processor machines.

...
>Brad Wardell

Now my turn.
Why should I chose OS/2?
There are three "strong" points, Excellent VDM's, WPS, and REXX.
The excellent VDM's are more than a bit overkill... and it's not
clear yet that NT's DOS support will not be adequate, or even good.

WPS and REXX are just application programs.
WPS is a nice idea, but falls short of being all that much better
than the Window 3.1 (note the 3.1) versions of Program Manager/File
Manager.  In fact, until IBM improves the speed of the drive folders,
I would argue it's inferior.
REXX is the remaining feature... it's the one I can't knock down
especially since seeing Visual REXX.  While REXX is nice, it has
an awful lot of historical uglies... and again Cairo will have
"Object BASIC".

So in short OS/2 has two features WPS and REXX both of which will
will have alternates from MS in NT in '94.  Third parties will clearly
be putting out shells similar to WPS (and probably better thought out).
And there are already REXX versions for NT in beta... which, BTW
are already integrating advance version of OLE 2.0.  In short this
means that this REXX will be BETTER integrated into NT than REXX is
into OS/2.  OS/2 programs must specifically integrate REXX on a per
program basis.  The way OLE 2.0 is designed any program that takes
advantage of OLE will be able to use the REXX _or_ any other
scripting language the user chooses to use.

Everything else that OS/2 has... NT has NOW!

Now what does NT offer over OS/2?
First and foremost:
	Has a cleaner, more modern design than OS/2 2.0.
		This is extremely important and very hard to describe
		in a short space.  Essentially it means that added on
		system features such as "Stacker" is MUCH easier to
		do.  For example NT has dynamically loadable/unloadable
		file system and device drivers.  This is a result of
		its design... OS/2 could add this feature, but it would
		have to be hacked in.

		Maintenance of NT by MS will be much easier. This means
		less bugs.  New features will occur sooner.  MS intends
		to release sources to the research community allowing
		the latest and greatest research to flow into NT.

	ISV support
		Features like all system API calls that take strings,
		take UNICODE strings make a lot of difference to ISVs.
		Microsoft has carefully recruited a much broader base
		of support than IBM has for OS/2.
		Vendors making products for the vast Windows 3.X market
		can EASILY expand their market by doing a quick port
		to NT.  If you consider that the likely developer
		platform for Windows 3.X apps will be NT, then it
		should occur to you that, that in itself will
		encourage the ports of these apps to NT.  In truth
		many of these will be made on NT using a subset 
		of the API (such as Win32s) and then "ported" to
		Windows 3.1... I mean this will only make sense...
		it's far easier to debug an NT app.  Even if the
		eventual target is a native 16-bit windows app...
		it is easy to make the same source code work on
		both.

	Peer-peer file and printer sharing.
	RPC
	TCP/IP
	Multimedia
	E-Mail API (X.500, can use X.400 as a transport)
		Now people will be tempted to say that OS/2 has this
		too, but they are optional and expensive.  There will
		be much less incentive for developers to make apps for
		OS/2 to use these features

	32-bit OLE
		Just as NT does not have REXX and WPS... this is the
		"biggie" underlying feature that OS/2 doesn't have.
		OLE 2.0 will allow far more flexible shells and
		scripting than provided by either REXX or WPS.  And use
		of more than one simultaneously will be possible.  In
		short, rather than the kitchen sink approach of WPS
		features, object handlers can be chosen to fit the the
		abilities, needs, and wishes of the user.  Scripting
		languages can be chosen to fit the preference of
		users... i.e. I'd like a C-like one, some might
		prefer a BASIC one, and of course some would prefer
		REXX.

	Logons.
		Anyone that shares a system will appreciate the value
		of this feature.  Larger sites will appreciate the
		C2-level security.

	DOS, POSIX, OS/2 1.X and NT console apps can output to the same window.
		This is an important example of where NT's
		compatibility is better than OS/2's.

	More low-level OS features (e.g. memory-mapped files).
	Symmetric multiprocessing support.
	NTFS
	POSIX  (1003.1 -- the system calls)
	Runs on more than one architecture.
		This set of features appeal to several large niche
		markets.  Realistically speaking, OS/2 is two years or
		more from having these.

Finally...
OS/2 2.0 is a kludge of 16-bit and 32-bit calls.  It will be
quite some time before IBM can get it to a portable state.  It is
missing a fair number of major features.  Unless a complete rewrite is
undertaken it will always be a hack...  and hacks are hard to
maintain.  It's API is already cluttered with historical problems
from failed 1.X ill-thought out features.

NT has one of the most clean modern designs of any
commercial OS available or announced.  It has a feature set that
is ready to take full advantage of modern systems.
It is inherently portable and extensible.

Wouldn't you prefer that the better OS win?
Five years from now would you prefer to be fighting the uglies of
a hack (i.e. the future equivalents of the 640K barrier), or using
an OS that was designed to be extended?

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! :-))