From: SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
Date: 28 Aug 92 04:49:48 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

In article <1992Aug26.171916.1012@datascope.com> jld@datascope.com (Jay L. Davis) writes:
>From: jld@datascope.com (Jay L. Davis)
>Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
>Date: 26 Aug 92 17:19:16 GMT

>You are missing the point. Windows NT is not a released product. You are
>charging people to do your debugging.

So.  The people who buy the NT SDK are also getting the Final product.  $69
dollars + s/h is a damn good price for the OS and a decent complier, any
way you look at it.  MS is not forcing anyone to buy the NT SDK.  They have
stated time and time again it is buggy and intended for development.
Actually, the reports are that the win32 section is quite stable.  MS is
telling the customer exactly what they are getting.  This method of beta
testing allows smaller devlopers to get into the act and opens the testing
process to anyone interested.

>It is bad enough that so many
>supposedly tested products are released and end up wasting a lot of my
>time. And while $399 isn't expensive, there are many other costs
>involved.

Don't those costs apply to devloping for any other OS.  No one is claiming
that you can pay your $399 (or $69) and be ready to develop NT on your
present machine.  However, for those with the machine, the SDK represents a
good deal.

>But the real question is WHY BOTHER? Right now it looks like OS/2
>is well on its way to being the next base PC OS. 

That is an opinion, and a very shakey one at that.  I don't want to get into
arguments about sales of various OSes and such, but I think that it is safe
to say that the race for the control of the desktop is *far* from over.
It looks like it is very possible that no one OS will dominate the PC world
like DOS once did.

>If I am going to risk
>developing for a new operating system, it is going to be OS/2 not
>Windows NT. This "deal" by Mircosoft seems to be driven by one thing and
>one thing only, desperation.

I would call it great marketing.  Look at the list of available programs for
OS/2.  I'm sorry, but I just don't see the major vendors in the market yet.
Lack of OS/2 2.0 specific apps is really holding OS/2 2.0 back.  MS seems
determined not to make the same mistake.  Many vendors are already committing
to producing NT apps.  Seems like the the marketing strategy is paying off.

>Besides, it is much easier to convert a program
>from OS/2 to Windows NT or UNIX or both than to try to convert anything
>from the DOS environment (assuming the program is written well to begin
>with). 

Yes, but its much eaiser to convert a program from windows 3.1 to NT.  And,
if you write for windows 3.1, your program can run under win 3.1, OS/2 2.0,
and NT.  So, by developing for win3.1, you maximize market and have a product
that is easily ported to NT.  In addition, if OS/2 does take the market by
storm, I keep on hearing about these great win 3.1 to OS/2 conversion
programs.  Sounds like a winner to me.

>It would really be nice if X Windows was standard on OS/2, then
>applications could move between UNIX and OS/2 extremly easily. Perhaps
>someone will write an X Windows API for OS/2 and a PM API for X Windows.

NT will have features that would seem to make porting from Unix far 
easier than OS/2: built-in TCP/IP, Winsock (VERY close to Berkly sockets),
the POSIX API...  

>Jay Davis

-Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)