From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Here's some Advocacy for you.
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:16:02 GMT

In article <1gfonnINNeds@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland) writes:
>Ahh, sorry. I forgot to mention, I live in Australia, all our software
>is priced way over the top, quite often running about 1.5-2.5 the US
>price, the $1000 is an Aust. figure.

	Off thread, but why is that?  I realize that there'd be some
	price boosting, but ~2.5x the US cost??



>Hmm, the 8.3 problem really only exists if you use DOS, and seeing as I
>moved to a real operating system to give up that habit.... the same with


	Unfortunately, since most of what you get to run under
	OS/2 is really running under DOS or Windows, the problem is
	still there.  I think the NT dual-name scheme is much more
	sane than the OS/2 Stealth FileName(tm) scheme.  I'm sure
	it could be implemented in OS/2, but it isn't (and probably
	wont be).


>windows support, the support they give now is adequate enough for me, as
>I use *VERY* few windows apps.  For me OS/2 has been solid enough, I


	^^^^^  Exactly.  I agree completely.  If all you run is DOS
	and OS/2 programs, you should go with OS/2.  Even if NT were
	out right now, it wouldn't make any sense to go with NT for
	such purposes because it will (at best) be equal to OS/2
	but require more resources.  
	
	DOS only users gain almost everything from OS/2 (except for
	programs that use incompatible 32 bit extenders).  They 
	gain multitasking, better performance (disk access==zoom!)
	and some modicum of integration (cut and paste).  Sure,
	the resources required doubles or quadruples (dos only
	users--typically 2mb of 4 mb machines), but OS/2 more than
	pays them back for this..
 
	On the other hand..

	Users are switching to Windows more and more, and
	Windows support on OS/2 is, at best, weak.  I wish IBM 
	would get the 2.1 version out the door (3.1 support, etc.) 
	because that would really make my christmas season.

	It does not make much sense for someone who primarily
	uses Windows to switch to OS/2 as it is now, because
	(like switching to NT from OS/2 to run DOS) they only
	gain one thing (the ability to prevent one bonkers
	Windows app from destroying others), and lose a bunch
	(speed, SPEED [gfx drivers], TT, some compatibility, 
	resources required go up with no positive change in performance..)


>they are not worth the extra money, and when you are a student every
>cent counts.  BTW what is Unicode? I have seen some mention of it before
>but don't yet know what it is.


	I am a student.  Now and then I find enough money to
	splurge, but normally I have less money than the typical
	Jr. HS student.  

	I'll let someone else tackle Unicode.  Suffice to say,
	it is a much saner solution than code pages, and it delivers
	more (support for non-romanized languages) than cp's ever 
	could.

	Is there a Unicode newsgroup?


>_IF_ support doesn't appear, and to a large extent I think it already
>has, but if everyone stops supporting OS/2 in the future, then and only


	^^^ Already has?  What makes you think that?  As far as 
	I can tell, the current "support" is all words and no 
	deliveries, which means it's promises and vapor.  



>then will I change my choice of operating system, unless MS price NT
>reasonably (or give me a hefty student discount), because I won't be
>able to afford NT.


	I assume there will be upgrade prices.  I will probably not
	be using NT myself unless I get my own CDROM drive--and them
	the price of the beta ($69) would be too much to resist.




-- 
 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've got my flame proof jacket, how about you?  
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy