From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Windows NT will fail -----
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:11:16 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec11.000738.28184@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
 writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.192026.29070@kth.se> d92-jhe@hemul.nada.kth.se (Johan Hel
lman) writes:
>> Then they were not doing their job, and that is one reason for the
>>failure of 1.x.
>
>
>       Agreed, but a relatively minor one.  The realy biggie was
>       the stupid packaging of 1.0 and 1.1 ("Standard" and "Extended"
>       editions?  S-t-u-p-i-d), lack of *any* software support,
>       and the association between OS/2 and the PS/2--a major
>       marketing faux pas by IBM in their vain attempt to get a
>       grip on the mainframe market.  MS's part comes in last
>       among all of these issues.
>
>
>
>> If all you really use is windows apps, and there aren4t OS/2 versions
>>available, it does make more sense for you to run windows. OS/2 is
>>useful when you have a combination of DOS and Windows apps.
>
>
>       Right-o.  And this is the main reason OS/2 is doing so
>       poorly in the general user market.
>
Actually OS/2 seems to be selling pretty well.  Around thanksgiving I went
around to several Cleveland area computer stores, including 2 superstores and
informaly asked how OS/2 had been selling recently.  Invariably they said it
was selling pretty well.  Not a barn burner by any means, but it was selling
at a decent clip.  (Unfortunately I could not get any sales figures so these
were only general impressions of sales types)


>
>
>> Ami Pro will be out in an OS/2 version, DeScribe is out in a new
>>version which, from what I hear is a great deal better than 3.0. Corel
>>Draw is out in a multithreaded OS/2 versionm although I think it is
>>only version 2.5,.
>
>
>       "will be out" == "not out" == "not in stores"
>
>       == waiting.  If you're going to advise someone to wait,
>       you might as well advise them to wait for NT, which
>       *will* have the software.  As it is, they'll get Win31
>       and DOS for the price of a song from most places.

That is possibly the screwiest logic I have heard in a while.  Once a person
already has a system that runs most availlable apps, why should they wait for
a system that is still a promise?  People who are running OS/2 are looking for
OS/2 apps.  Not a lot are out yet, so they are told to wait for them.  They
aren't interested in waiting for NT.  NT is simply not it the picture at this
point.
>
>       Still, I am glad that Ami Pro is coming--I only hope
>       Lotus is sane and offers an upgrade to the OS/2
>       version--and prices it the same as the Windows version.
>
>       DeScribe--I have not seen or used 4.0, and had understood
>       that it was "real soon now" and not yet out.  Time to look
>       around again.
>
>       Corel 2.5--Corel 2.5 is roughly equivelent to the 2.0/2.1
>       version that was for Windows, but with the goodies (Chart..)
>       that came with 3.0.  Unfortunately, these goodies are all
>       *Windows* applications, and Corel has said in at least three
>       seperate comments to the media that they will *not* be porting
>       3.0 to OS/2.  This makes buying the OS/2 version silly,
>       because it has no future.
>
What is this nonsense about "has no future"?  The company has announced that
they are skipping version 3 and going strait to version 4 for OS/2.  Their
stated reason for doing so is that they wish to avoid the further delays that
would be caused by releasing another version in between.  This does NOT mean
that they have no future plans on the OS/2 platform.


>
>> Would be neat to see a version of Improv for OS/2, I really like what
>>I have heard/read about it.
>
>
>       Improv would likely have been easier to port to OS/2 than
>       to Windows, because OS/2 is much closer (threads, blah)
>       to NeXtStep than Windows is.  The fact that they didn't
>       do so (nor have they mentioned plans to do so) does not
>       bode well for OS/2.  All of the top apps at this point
>       either have better Windows versions or no OS/2 version
>       at all--Corel, Adobe, Lotus, MS, Aldus, Quark--not exactly
>       a healthy sign.
>
>
>
>> Actually, I have a benchmark somewhere around here where Windows
>>clocks in at just about 2 - 3 percent better from what I remember. It
>>is definitely much less than 10%.
>
>
>       Call me silly for not trusting such a benchmark.  I surely
>       doubt that it';s any of the benchmarks Windows users use
>       to gauge the relative performance of Windows on various
>       machines--in particular, I'd bet that it did a lot more
>       disk access than was appropriate.  (Where OS/2 shines,
>       S_H_I_N_E_S my friend.)
>
I have seen damn few benchmarks that I would really trust.  This aside, when
everything is working properly I have noticed no significant differences in
operating speeds between Windows under DOS and under OS/2.  (Windows 3.0 that
is)  Somethings are a little faster, some are a little slower, but all in all,
there simply isn't a huge difference *anywhere*.  Certainly nothing that would
suddenly be so slow as to impede one's work.  I think that all the comparisons
of "speed" between WinOS2 and Windows are people just being trite about the
whole thing.  Unless there is something wrong with how the system is
interacting with your computer, the difference in overall speed is for all
real life purposes, negligable.


>
>> True, 8 months is a bit too long. But, seriously, do you really think
>>MS would have allowed IBM to get away with releasing OS/2 2.0 with 3.1
>>support even before 3.1 was released?
>
>
>       IBM has code access, not "Hey MS, can we take a peek at that
>       code, puleeze??" access.
>
>
>> Well, on a 386-33 with 8 meg it takes about 5 minutes. After that,
>>sure you can switch applications, but since that app will probably be
>>well behaved they will let WfW get it4s piece of the processor, and
>
>
>       It's worse, of course, if you're using a lot of Truetype
>       fonts or graphics.  I have to say, the way Windows handles
>       printing, while several steps up from DOS, is still pretty poor.
>       The spool should be a spool to the print driver, not just
>       a raw-data spool.  I.e. Word should pass the text and graphics,
>       etc, to Windows as text and graphics, and a nice, friendly
>       print spooler should handle the rest.
>       (the current situation is almost like that, but not..)
>
>
>> That4s something that really shines under OS/2. I can format A: and
>>B: and at the same time be doing copying on my HD.
>
>
>       Like I said, who cares?  I don't format more than 1 or 2 floppies
>       a year, I can't see that as a clever or even relavent argument.
>       The NeXTs at school slow down to a crawl when formatting a
>       floppy too--surely that hasn't had a big impact on NeXT sales..
>

Yeah, they're just everywhere!  (sarcastic joke for the humor impaired)

>
>> Yeah, well, he wasn4t the kind of person who would come by my cube,
>>look at the screen over my shoulder and point out where he wanted the
>>changes made.
>
>
>       Bet he didn't use a computer himself, huh?
>
>       Ah well.  Hey, it's his expense.  I used to see this kind
>       of thing going on all the time in the civilian Navy offices
>       in Crystal City--people would print a ten or twenty page document
>       and find one typo, have it corrected and then reprint the
>       entire document (even though 19 out of the 20 were identical)
>       because they threw the original copy away--and then repeat the
>       process.
>
>
>> Who would really have use for all of NT4s feature on the desktop? Not
>>many people/companies that I know of.
>
>
>       The same might be said of OS/2.  If OS/2 added security
>       (including login), Unicode and finally got some apps, it
>       would be a harder choice (I do not need, nor want, networking..)
>
In most cases security is rather pointless unless it is a multiuser system.  I
certainly don't need to be logging on to my own PC.  Besides there are
security products availlable.  (granted they aren't great, but they will keep
most rif-raff off the machine)  Also tell me honestly, do you *really need*
Unicode.  Granted OS/2 should have it, (and probably will someday) but I don't
know too many people who when investigating a system the first (or even tenth)
thing out of their mouth is, "Does it support Unicode?"  Heck it is amazing
how many people are unaware that Unicode exists.  Also, I challenge you to
walk into a store and buy a single NT application.  I have seen OS/2 apps in
stores.  Granted, very few, but they are availlable.  The same cannot be said
about NT.  Right now there simply isn't a choice.


>
>
>--
> Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?
> Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?
> ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
> ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
>

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||