From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 is NOT Crashproof!
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:32:23 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <mcdonald.531@aries.scs.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D.
 McDonald) writes:
>In article <1992Nov23.022519.10677@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu
 (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>
>>Note the followup, please.
>
>>In article <mcdonald.527@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D
. McDonald) writes:
>>>OS/2 later   .... never tried it, don't intend to until its bug free
>
>>That really doesn't seem to be all that realistic.  Every nontrivial
>>piece of software is bound to have bugs of one sort or another.
>
>Oh my not this again. Brevity. Brevity. I just didn't say "until it is
>bug and problem free enough that it works OK for me". And you last
>statement is PURE POPPYCOCK. There are lots of very non-trivial programs
>that are bug-free. TeX for example. The latest versions of some of the
>programs I have posted to the net for another. My production scientific
>codes for more. Maybe **your** programs have bugs. Some of mine might.
>But others don't.

I'm sorry, but I have yet to use a program, that once I dealt with it in *any*
serious depth, that I could not find something I regard as a bug.  (And I do
mean bug, not just a feature I don't like)  In addition it is rather arrogant
to claim that your code is bug free.  What makes you such a special programmer
that you can write bug free code when the rest of the world still can't?  I'm
sorry if I sound a little harsh here, but I deal with this attitude a lot and
it really strikes a nerve.
>
>>Moreover, the question of whether a given piece of software has bugs
>>which impact your own use is entirely dependent on, well, you
>
>Exactly. Brevity man, brevity. OS/2 is presently simply not ready for prime
>time .. it be ready, it has **at a minimum ** to be able to run Windows
>3.1 programs ... every last one ... properly .. and this includes
>printing documents which use True Type fonts. Second, it has to **fully**
>support all my video cards at the resolutions and modes I desire to use;
>this includes my ATI Ultra Pro Localbus in all its accelerated modes.
>It should be able to switch modes without rebooting the computer.
>It also has to get the reputation that when some company like ATI
>comes out with a hot new video card, that card will come with drivers
>for OS/2 ... fully supported ... in the box, just as it does for Windows.
>
If Windows is "ready for prime time", then OS/2 sure as hell is.  It doesn't
*need* to run Win3.1 stuff.  And when Windows can run "every last one"
properly, then I will expect it out of OS/2.  Now OS/2 is lacking in drivers
and this really is inexcusable, but then *no* system, even Windows supports
*all* hardware.  I have 3, yes 3 TIGA based graphics accelerator sitting in my
room unused.  Why?  No driver.  Only one has Windows drivers and Windows sure
as hell doesn't have any.  In additon, when did the ATI Ultra Pro Localbus
come out?  I hadn't heard of that particular piec of hardware, or are you
privy to things the rest of us don't have?  (This is more of a question than a
sarcastic comment)  Heck, If I am not mistaken though, it took card vendors
quite a little while to include Windows drivers with their cards on a regular
basis.  That sort of thing takes a while.  You don't think they included
drivers with video card for the first version of, say Autocad, do you?  Of
course not, that sort of thing takes a while.

>Actually, we  ... the world ... can easily tell if and when OS/2
>is a success .... when it meets that last test, its a success. That means
>that manufacturers take it seriously. Today they don't.
>
Hmm, million and a half users (give or take a few hundred thou), yeah, sounds
like a big flop to me.  Look I can name at least 20 fairly substaintial things
I would just *love* to see in OS/2 right off the top of my head.  I can name
even more for Windows.  Do I think either of these systems are a "failure"
because they don't do everything I would like or think that they should?  No
that would be silly.  OS's *never* do everything we would like out of them.
First judge OS/2 on what it *can* do.  (and it can do a lot)  Then worry about
the things it can't.  (plenty of those too, but that could be said for any
system)
On a final note, obviously a lot of people and companies are taking it
seriously.  Anything over a million users is nothing to sneeze at.  We have
been seeing the press realize that it really is a product worthy of at least
our attention and sometimes our dollars.  We are seeing an ever increasing
number of developers and manufacturers making products for it.  Look around,
and you'll see that OS/2 is here to stay and a lot of people like it.  No it
isn't even close to perfect, but it is a damn good system which serves many
people very well.

>Doug McDonald
>

-- 
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]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8580 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2783