From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 because!  (was NT: Why?)
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:27:59 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep30.004820.15289@hellgate.utah.edu>, brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@
cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>...
>>MS's on the net seem to think that NT does everything OS/2 does but
>>more.  This is not the case.  I will assume that most of us believe
>>that whoever rules the Intel platform has won the game already.  With
>>that in mind, OS/2 has these important thigns in its favor that NT
>>simply is not going to have or have in the near future:
>
>First of all I want to point out that I very much believe that OS/2 is
>a subset of NT.  In all the discussion I've ever seen on this group...
>only 3 points of potential importance have I seen that OS/2 has that NT
>will not have from day 1:  Excellent VDM's, WPS, and REXX.
>You list the first two, but left out REXX.

OS/2 a subseet of NT?  NOT!  Even one thing that OS/2 has that NT doesn't
negates your arguement.  The fact that NT was designed as a more powerful
system doesn't mean that a system with less power is a subset.  Please find
out what a subset is first.
>
>Now to deal with your points:
>
>>
>>NT will not be able to run DOS programs as quickly or well as OS/2.
>>NT chose to be airtight (not a bad choice but this is the result).
>
>The vast majority of DOS programs should work under NT without problems.
>There is no need to run DOS networking or multimedia drivers as
>there is under OS/2.
>Only in the area of games do I expect any problems... and as
>even the pre-beta was able to run 1 of the 2 I tried... I'm not sure
>even this will be that much of a problem.

Oooohhh.  Two games.  Wow.  Try about 30 and then I'll be impressed.  50% just
isn't good enough.   In addition, what if I don't need, multimedia drivers or
DOS networking?  Not everyone does.  If I do need networking, what if I don't
have the resourses to run NT?  What do I use then?  For these people, OS/2 and
maybe Win3.1 looks to be a much better choice.
>
>>
>>NT is going to have the ridiculous program manager and file manager
>>back.
>
>This is clearly a two-edged feature.  A user migrating from Windows
>does not need to learn anything new and for many if not most
>users this shell is fine.  If WorkPlace shell was not so complex
>and if it's operation had been better thought out, then perhaps
>you would have more of a point, but I think it likely not to
>factor in most user's decisions.

So what if you don't have to learn anything new.  The Win GUI has no power.
Especially compared to a system with NT's capabilities.  In addition if you
think that the WPS is overly complex, then you have little business using a
powerful system like OS/2 or NT.  As Einstein said, "Things should be as
simple as possible, but no simpler"  The Win GUI is too simple minded.

>  For "power-users" this can be
>a factor, but having used WPS for several months now... I don't
>find I miss it when running under Windows 3.1 and Windows NT.
>Personally I'm quite content to wait for someone to implement
>an alternate shell with a simliar flavor for NT. (And remember
>that Cairo will be out in '94 -- it's shell looked similar
>to WPS... but hopefully will be better thought out.)
>The idea of WPS is great, but its implementation is lacking.

Great, out in '94 for a system that isn't released yet.  Quite frankly so
what?  Cairo has zero bearing on anything.  It is quite irrelevant at the
current time.  If you are going to claim that the WPS is lacking, at least
come up with some decent examples.

>
>>
>>NT is going to run Windows programs probably only as well as OS/2 does
>>(I have the beta with win 3.1 support and seamless windows 3.1 sessions
>>are very fast now).
>
>Perhaps it will handle Windows program as well once 2.01 comes out (I
>remain skeptical).  But what about a year from now?  It looks like IBM
>will take 9 months to get Windows 3.1 support into OS/2, and they have
>sources...  what about the next time when they don't?  And don't say
>that OS/2 will have all the apps it needs by then...  Windows 3.X and
>its derivatives will clearly be the mainstream platform for some time
>to come.  Most apps will be there first.

Nine months?  I have it now.  (the beta, it's free give it a try)  In addition
it is due to be released in October.  Where is this 9 months?  Talk about
FUD...
>
>>
>>So MS people out there, why should we, the users who have the machine
>>to run NT choose it over OS/2?
>>
>>More Apps?  The bread and butter apps will be out for OS/2 before NT
>>and OS/2 runs all windows programs I have.
>
>I see no evidence that the "bread and butter" apps will be out for OS/2.
>A few of the major companies that tend to support multiple platforms
>have said they will be there, but there will be nothing like the
>selection available for Windows 3.X, or even the Mac anytime
>in the near future.
>
Would you like me to send you a list?  There are quite a few applications that
are not very far from release.  And if you think that OS/2 will not have many
of the "bread and butter apps"  then you are sadly mistaken.
>>
>>To make money?  MS makes most of the money on Windows.  ISV's have more
>>money making potential in the OS/2 market IF it succeeds.
>
>What basis do you have for this statement?
>Windows apps will pass the sales of DOS apps this year.

Yes, and I would bet a huge chunk of those sales are for MS apps.  What he
says is true.

>Microsoft is far from the only company receiving a windfall from
>this market.  Early sales figures of course were higher for MS, but
>then they had their apps there first.  You can bet that Borland, Lotus
>and WordPerfect won't let that happen again.

Current sales figures are still higher for MS.  That isn't likely to change in
the near future.  MS is the big benificiary in the Windows market, everyone
else is usually there to try to stay competitive.  OS/2 gives them a chance to
get ahead again.

>Most ISV's don't make things that MS makes -- how can the OS/2
>market possibly have more money making potential?

MS produces virtually every major kind of application there is.  Most of them
for Windows.  How are ISV's going to compete directly with that kind of
presence?  They can't.  They have to look for alternatives, and OS/2 is the
best alternative right now.

>Money making potential is directly proportional to customer base
>and Windows 3.X/NT is clearly the larger base.

Making money is NOT directly proportional to the user base.  User base is only
one factor.  (albiet a very important one)  Also, NT has no base yet and you
know it.

>BUT doesn't that imply that the NT apps don't use all the
>fance features?  Who cares... with the 30-40% speed up
>from having a Windows 3.X app ported to NT... AND that app
>is actually being available... NT users will be quite happy until NT class
>OS's are the mainstream.  At least NT users will _have_ native apps.

And OS/2 won't?  Your statement is not only false, it is a lie.  You get the
same speed increase from a simple port to OS/2 and you can run it right now
anyway.  In any case, NT will have even fewer native apps then OS/2 for quite
some time.

>Even if OS/2 eventually does get an app base it will be limited
>to those features that Windows 3.X has, as that is the larger
>app base.  Only if OS/2 displaced Windows 3.X would this fact
>not hold... and I seriously doubt OS/2 can displace Windows 3.X.
>
It isn't limited at all by Win3.1.  It has its own capabilities which far
outstrip those of Windows.  I can do things with my OS/2 apps that Windows
simply can't do or do as well.  It doesn't need to displace Windows to get its
own apps.
>>
>>Network support?  Novell is the standard and will continue to be and
>>its support for OS/2 is solid.
>
>And Novell support won't be there for NT?  It's already being
>developed... remember how long it took for Novell to put it on OS/2?

Not long at all, after OS/2 2.0 came out.  1.x was a waste of time, but 2.x
isn't.  In addition, who said Novell support won't be there for NT?  But that
was not his point.  His point was that OS/2 will have no trouble with LAN
support.

>The only thing currently different w.r.t. to Novell and OS/2 is that
>a Novell server is planned that will run on top of OS/2.
>1) Just what will be its relationship to LAN Server?  Is IBM going
>to abandon it?

Where did you get this FUD?  Why would IBM abandon this?

>2) It's not here yet nor is it close to release.

Present evidence please.

>3) Even if it was here why would this affect NT?  NT and Novell will
>clearly interoperate.

No more so that with OS/2.  You really love FUD don't you?

>  NT's networking comes with the base package, so
>all NT boxes can talk to Novell servers.  DOS 6 will come with integrated
>networking... it will clearly be able to talk to NT servers.
>Likewise Windows for Workgroups will be able to talk to both.
>4) Microsoft and Novell are said to be negotiating a similar deal
>for NT.

NT's comes in the base package.  OS/2's comes seperately.  So what?  They both
can do it so there is no advantage there.  In addition, I have seen a beta of
DOS 6, there is no integrated networking.  I don't know where you got that.
OS/2 can talk to Novell servers as well.  (Given the right tools)  Where is
the advantage?  More FUD...

>
>>
>>Multi-platform?  Who cares.  Any manager who suggests putting WindowsNT
>>on a sparc so that they can run word for windows won't be a manager for
>>very long.
>
>I'm amused at this one.  Do you think that DEC, SGI and Sequent
>choosing to support NT at this early stage is unfounded on their part?
>SGI is already shipping systems.  DEC employees are running around
>saying that NT will "save" them.  There are several new vendors
>making ACE compliant multi-processor machines.

ACE compliant?  ACE is for all intents and purposes dead.  MS is distancing
itself from it, Compaq is gone and the other vendor who followed them are
buggin out slowly but surely.  Multi platform is nice, but the Intel platform
is where the real battle and money is.  NT will have to compete with a heavily
entrenched Unix on workstations and it will not be easy.  Furthermore, Sun
sells by far the most Workstations, and they are going to ship their own
system that has just as much potential.  You named three vendors who are
planning to ship NT.  There are a lot more who aren't inclusing 3 of the
biggies.  (Sun, IBM, and Next)  Their decision to support NT is a solid one,
but don't kid yourself into thinking that that alone is going to make or break
them.
>
>...
>>Brad Wardell
>
>Now my turn.
>Why should I chose OS/2?
>There are three "strong" points, Excellent VDM's, WPS, and REXX.
>The excellent VDM's are more than a bit overkill... and it's not
>clear yet that NT's DOS support will not be adequate, or even good.
>
I love it.  Take a feature that is inarguably excellent and turn it into a bad
point by calling it overkill.
Furthermore, no we don't know anything about what the final DOS support will
be like, but it sucks right *now*.  I don't have anything better to base this
on and neither do you.


>WPS and REXX are just application programs.

There is more to it than that and you know it.  The WPS provides a *good*
universal interface for OS/2 stuff.  That is very important.  Also REXX
provides a common scripting language for OS/2.  Something which NT lacks.  But
of course you didn't see a need to mention that did you?

>WPS is a nice idea, but falls short of being all that much better
>than the Window 3.1 (note the 3.1) versions of Program Manager/File
>Manager.  In fact, until IBM improves the speed of the drive folders,
>I would argue it's inferior.

It does more and often does it easier.  How is this inferior?

>REXX is the remaining feature... it's the one I can't knock down
>especially since seeing Visual REXX.  While REXX is nice, it has
>an awful lot of historical uglies... and again Cairo will have
>"Object BASIC".

You really are scraping here.  What relevance does Cairo have?  None.  It will
not be released for at least another year.  Besides if you want to talk aobut
historical uglies, Basic has more than its fair share.  A little educational
language that got taken *way* too seriously.

>
>So in short OS/2 has two features WPS and REXX both of which will
>will have alternates from MS in NT in '94.

What releveance does possible alternatives in '94 have?  If you base your
decision on such things you are a fool.

> Third parties will clearly
>be putting out shells similar to WPS (and probably better thought out).
>And there are already REXX versions for NT in beta... which, BTW
>are already integrating advance version of OLE 2.0.

Yes, in beta.  They will mostly be everyone's own implementation of it and
they will have incompatibilies.  Having REXX is a lot different than having a
standard scripting language.

>  In short this
>means that this REXX will be BETTER integrated into NT than REXX is
>into OS/2.

Oh this is too rich.  Where do you get this conclusion?  That is FUD.

>  OS/2 programs must specifically integrate REXX on a per
>program basis.  The way OLE 2.0 is designed any program that takes
>advantage of OLE will be able to use the REXX _or_ any other
>scripting language the user chooses to use.

Would you mind explaining this?  That is rather over optimistic.
>
>Everything else that OS/2 has... NT has NOW!

Talk about lies.  I can offer two non-technical feature's right away that NT
doesn't have.  A user base and any commercial applications.  In addition, NT
doesn't have ANY of those three features you list right now so by your own
addmision, you are lying.
>
>Now what does NT offer over OS/2?
>First and foremost:
>       Has a cleaner, more modern design than OS/2 2.0.
>               This is extremely important and very hard to describe
>               in a short space.  Essentially it means that added on
>               system features such as "Stacker" is MUCH easier to
>               do.  For example NT has dynamically loadable/unloadable
>               file system and device drivers.  This is a result of
>               its design... OS/2 could add this feature, but it would
>               have to be hacked in.
>
A cleaner design?  Yes most certaintly.  This has been beaten to death.

>               Maintenance of NT by MS will be much easier. This means
>               less bugs.  New features will occur sooner.  MS intends
>               to release sources to the research community allowing
>               the latest and greatest research to flow into NT.
New features will occur as soon as the company gets to it.  The design of the
system is only part of that.  Saying that NT will have less bugs is FUD,
because version 1 of ANY system has bugs.  NT will be no exception.
>
>       ISV support
>               Features like all system API calls that take strings,
>               take UNICODE strings make a lot of difference to ISVs.
>               Microsoft has carefully recruited a much broader base
>               of support than IBM has for OS/2.
Have they?  I am quite certain that I can name more ISV's for OS/2 than you
can for NT, so how is this true?

>               Vendors making products for the vast Windows 3.X market
>               can EASILY expand their market by doing a quick port
>               to NT.
Fine, you don't seem to realize that those who do this will loose sales to
those who don't take the easy, quick and dirty route.  Besides, in a fairly
sizeable number of cases, it is just about as easy in OS/2 as in NT.  I'm
certain I can find a number of developer's willing to attest to this.

>                If you consider that the likely developer
>               platform for Windows 3.X apps will be NT, then it
>               should occur to you that, that in itself will
>               encourage the ports of these apps to NT.  In truth
>               many of these will be made on NT using a subset
>               of the API (such as Win32s) and then "ported" to
>               Windows 3.1... I mean this will only make sense...
>               it's far easier to debug an NT app.  Even if the
>               eventual target is a native 16-bit windows app...
>               it is easy to make the same source code work on
>               both.
This is true.  (for once)
>
>       Peer-peer file and printer sharing.

This is availlable for OS/2.
>       RPC
>       TCP/IP
This too.
>       Multimedia
This too.
>       E-Mail API (X.500, can use X.400 as a transport)
>               Now people will be tempted to say that OS/2 has this
>               too, but they are optional and expensive.  There will
>               be much less incentive for developers to make apps for
>               OS/2 to use these features
>
In NT they are built in and expensive.  What's the difference?

>       32-bit OLE
>               Just as NT does not have REXX and WPS... this is the
>               "biggie" underlying feature that OS/2 doesn't have.
>               OLE 2.0 will allow far more flexible shells and
>               scripting than provided by either REXX or WPS.  And use
>               of more than one simultaneously will be possible.  In
>               short, rather than the kitchen sink approach of WPS
>               features, object handlers can be chosen to fit the the
>               abilities, needs, and wishes of the user.  Scripting
>               languages can be chosen to fit the preference of
>               users... i.e. I'd like a C-like one, some might
>               prefer a BASIC one, and of course some would prefer
>               REXX.
I believe it is possible to run multiple shells on OS/2.  (Why you would want
too is another matter)  What prevents you from picking the tools you want for
the WPS?  This isn't difficult.
>
>       Logons.
>               Anyone that shares a system will appreciate the value
>               of this feature.  Larger sites will appreciate the
>               C2-level security.
C2 is *hardware and software*.  NT alone cannot provide this so this is simply
FUD.

>
>       DOS, POSIX, OS/2 1.X and NT console apps can output to the same window.
>               This is an important example of where NT's
>               compatibility is better than OS/2's.
NT's DOS and OS/2 compatibility is worse than OS/2's and you know it.
>
>       More low-level OS features (e.g. memory-mapped files).
>       Symmetric multiprocessing support.
>       NTFS
HPFS.  So what?
>       POSIX  (1003.1 -- the system calls)
>       Runs on more than one architecture.
>               This set of features appeal to several large niche
>               markets.  Realistically speaking, OS/2 is two years or
>               more from having these.
>
OS/2 was never supposed to.  Please stick to the architecture in question.
>Finally...
>OS/2 2.0 is a kludge of 16-bit and 32-bit calls.  It will be
>quite some time before IBM can get it to a portable state.  It is
>missing a fair number of major features.  Unless a complete rewrite is
>undertaken it will always be a hack...  and hacks are hard to
>maintain.  It's API is already cluttered with historical problems
>from failed 1.X ill-thought out features.

NT will have it's share of 16-bit calls.  It will have to to have backwards
compatibility.  NT has it's own historical problems from Windows.  (i.e. a
rotten GUI)  Please give equal time.

>
>NT has one of the most clean modern designs of any
>commercial OS available or announced.  It has a feature set that
>is ready to take full advantage of modern systems.
>It is inherently portable and extensible.

This is true.  (Though it sounds like a MS add)
>
>Wouldn't you prefer that the better OS win?
>Five years from now would you prefer to be fighting the uglies of
>a hack (i.e. the future equivalents of the 640K barrier), or using
>an OS that was designed to be extended?

No Brian, I prefer that the most appropriate OS win.  NT has some things that
I like and some very important ones which I don't.  I cannot run the SDK in 8
megs effectivly, and I have zero evidence other than MS's word that it will
run well in 8 megs.  Sorry but I don't trust MS.  Until I see some solid
evidence that it will, I will count it as a  problem.  NT doesn't have an
adequate GUI.  OS/2 does.  This is another strike against it.  Third, its
DOS/Windows compatibility sucks right now and once again, all I have is MS's
word that it will be good.  That is insufficent.  While I hate DOS and
Windows, they are necessary evils right now, and I am not willing to give up
all that much to run them.  NT is a well thought out system and much of it I
like, but I am not going to go running pell mell over to it because of a
number of features which I don't need and a bunch of MicroSoft promises.  I am
giving it serious consideration, but a bunch of obvious FUD like this from its
supporters and MS doesn't go over well with me.  I do not like the way MS is
marketing this system, but it is pretty obvious that some people such as you
have bought into it whole heartedly.  Take a breather Brian, your objectivity
has gone right down the toilet.
>
>Brian
>--
>C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
>University of Utah                             United We Stand
>Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
>

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy