From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Information Week: OS/2, one of 1992's Top Products
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 09:14:08 GMT

I just posted an article criticising the article posted by Heeren--now
I'm going to criticise another criticism of the original article.  :-)

In <1992Dec23.232638.16561@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <pathak-231292164232@virtual.mitre.org> pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
>>From Dec. 21 of information week [copied without permission]
>>Article titled: 1992's Top Products and Services
>>The 10 Most Likely To Succeed
>>OS/2 2.0
[...]
>>Windows, and OS/2.  Processing 32 bits of data at a time improces
>							  ^^^^^^^^
>>multitasking functions and reduces system crashes compared with Microsoft's
>   ^^^^		^^^	     ^^	      ^^^   ^^^     ^^^^ 
>>DOS or Windows.  For instance, portable computer users of OS/2 2.0 can send
> ^^^    ^^^^^^^
> 
>	1.  32 bits doesn't have jack to do with 
>	"improving multitasking functions

Agreed, although you can run more and bigger tasks in 32 bits.

>	2.  Nor does OS/2 crash less than DOS

Look, it's as simple as this:  both operating systems will crash if, and
only if, you crash them.  Neither one is going to crash just sitting
there.  OS/2 is harder to crash than DOS is.  A DOS program can access
any part of memory that it wants, it can write to random tracks and
sectors on the hard drive, whatever it wants.  A stray pointer in a C
program can demolish DOS.  With OS/2, you're going to have to work a lot
harder to bring down the entire system.

The other side to this is that programmers have had a decade to learn
the quirks and foibles of DOS.  Whereas, a lot of the OS/2 stuff that's
appearing is ports done by programmers who are still learning the API. 
Your average DOS program is version 7.3 of some trusty old faithful. 
Your average OS/2 program is, in fact, if not in name, version 1.00.  :-)

>	3.  Nor does 32 bits have to do with any of it.

Yeah.  Though that doesn't mean that I don't like 32 bits!!  :-)

>>a DOS file by modem to their home offices in one window while
>>simultaneously writing a letter in a Windows word processor.  The OS/2

>	A windows user can do the same.  

If he's lucky, and the programs that he's running are well written,
and/or if he's using a *real* multitasker, like DESQview, underneath
Windows.  Otherwise, this will usually be true, but cannot be
guaranteed.  :-)

[the OS/2]
>>model will likely become a standard in corporate computing where such
>>advances in flexibility and mission-critical platfroms are imperative for
>>users.

>	Frankly, I wouldn't hold this prediction any higher than
>	I'd hold the ones you see in the enquirer.  They obviously
>	don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Strictly speaking, yes.  Although I'm sure that 32-bit multitasking
systems will become the standard in the not-too-distant future.  But I
don't expect to see a clear winner in this arena for some time.  Neither
OS/2 nor any of the other systems that are out now, or are coming out in
the next 3-4 years.
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | "Imaginary guitar notes [...] exist only
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers |  in the imagination of the imaginer" --FZ
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy