From: jim@juvat.UUCP (Jim Kunzman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: RE: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.4
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 20:06:45 GMT
Organization: Headhunters (80th TFS, USAF/PACAF)

Brian, thanks for the comparison between NT and OS/2.  I hope you
continue the effort.  I think perhaps a couple of adjustments are
in order, however, as follows:

>The lists below are of features in the BASIC system package.
>			***********
>
>Features currently in OS/2 2.0 but not in Windows NT
>  

You're missing:

	Runs OS/2 2.0 programs.

>	Mediocre Windows 3.0 support (NT's is currently poor).
	
I would hardly call Windows 3.0 support mediocre, unless you base this
on the fact that Windows 3.0 itself was a mediocre product.  :-) Sold
well, yes, mediocre, yes.  Although I don't have tons of Windows
programs, the ones I have run as well or better under Win-OS2 as under
Windows 3.0.  Of course if the program crashes, it doesn't take the OS
along with it!

>	Generic wait on multiple events/semaphores of different types.
>		This is helps prevent deadlocks.  Consider the classic
>		deadlock example: Two processes, P1 and P2, both want
>		to access tape drives A and B.  P1 locks A and waits for
>		B, P2 locks B and waits for A. Deadlock.
>		With the generic wait facility you say wake me when
>		I have both A and B.  This mechanism prevents many
>		deadlock problems.
		
OS/2 supports three types of semaphore: event, mutex, and muxwait.
All three may either be named or anonymous.  The example above
describes a mutex semaphore.  Although OS/2 does place some limitations
on mixing semaphore types, in reality, this would almost never (if ever)
be done.  Implementing this "feature" however, would be trivial using
existing calls.

BTW, the example you provide would be much more easily achieved using
the file system.  A better example would be for (near) simultaneous
updates of a file in a file system, update of shared memory, or a
window update.

>	Pen Support.

As you note later, pen OS/2 is also in the works.  Since neither
product is released, I would say it is a wash.

>@	An NT user can change their environment (e.g.) PATH without
>		having to reboot for it to take effect.

The same effects can be easily achieved using wrappers, DOS and OS/2
batch or rexx commands, to kick off programs.  Obviously, it should
only apply to the current session and any new sessions, else it would
be a bug.  Overall, this is a good feature, though.  I hope IBM will
consider it for a future version of OS/2.  IBM's AIX has several
dynamically configurable options like this which I'd love to see put
into OS/2.

>@	NT can generically use more than 16 megs of memory.
>		OS/2 only uses the memory above 16 megs as
>		a form of fast cache.

Not true.  Perhaps on ISA machines, but I don't believe it is even
true with all ISA machines (perhaps Tim Sipples can help here).  It
certainly isn't true on recent EISA and MC machines.  Any ISA 
limitations would probably apply equally to NT and OS/2 since they
both face the same hardware limitations, i.e. 16-bit DMA.

># changed both headers below to say "in the fall" as both companies
># are now using that term in their official announcements.
>
>OS/2 2.0 will add the following in the Fall.
>
>       Catch up to NT ...

Since NT is not a released product, how can OS/2 catch up to NT?  I
would change the wording to mask any apparent bias.  Just drop the
phrase.  Your credibility will go up and flamage will go down.

You mentioned that if you add TCP/IP support to OS/2's memory
requirements that the two are comparable.  This brings up a point,
can NT be installed without TCP/IP support and thus reduce its 
memory requirements?  If so, how about other features, say DOS
and Windows 3.1 support?

Finally, I really do like the list.  It's mostly objective and is
a good start to comparing the two operating systems.  Once you 
remove personal biases and present the list as "just the facts
ma'am" you will provide a very useful post.
--
Jim Kunzman, jim@tct.COM
----
OS/2 2.0 - 1,000,000+ copies sold.  Sweet dreams Mr. Balmy...