From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 08:24:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <1992Sep3.234501.28636@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>Features in OS/2 2.0 GA but not in the pre-beta Windows NT

Other ones that have sprung to mind:

        Separate cache mechanisms for each supported file system.
                This allows for more efficient caching, at the cost
                of using more RAM.

        Optional direct access to hardware from VDMs.

        Runs in GUI mode without the WPS
                This is a separate feature from the ability that OS/2
                has to run without the GUI at all.

I'm also curious about the applets that come with NT.  The applets are
certainly part of the base system in OS/2.  How does NT's current editor
stand up against EPM?  Can you run a shell in an editing window, like
you can in EPM?  Can you boot into the editor, like you can with OS/2?
What about things like the diary, and the to-do lists, and the alarms?
What about the games?  8-)

>	Object Oriented Shell (WorkPlace Shell)
>	
>	Great DOS support

Geeze, we get great, lengthy details about the obscure features of the
system queues in NT, but these two are simply dismissed with a casual
one line each.  How about some details?  What are the features of the
WPS shell that NT lacks?  (I have never used Windows, so I really don't
know.)  What makes OS/2's DOS support great?  What makes it better than
NT's?  (I've certainly never seen NT...)  If this list is to make any
claims towards a lack of bias, it should include details like this.

>	Mediocre Windows 3.0 support (NT's is currently poor).

Hmm, I've heard a lot of people claim that OS/2's Win3.0 support is
quite good.  Many claim that Win-OS2 is better than Win3.0 itself,
although not as good as Win3.1.  How does that get rated as "mediocre"
support??

(Disclaimer:  I've never really used Windows *or* Win-OS2, so I cannot
really comment on this sub-topic.  But this would seem to be, at the
least, a point of contention, worth marking with a bang `!' character.

>Features in the pre-beta Windows NT but not in OS/2 2.0 GA

Here we have the flip side of one I mentioned above:

        Uses single caching mechanism for all supported filesystems.
                Uses less RAM than multiple caches, less opportunity
                for bugs with only single program to maintain.
:-)

I would like to suggest that the reasoning behind this list is a bit
askew.  Comparing an unreleased system with a released system is all
very well and good, but there's an important point being ignored here.
Microsoft is willing to make buggy betas available (with appropriate
warnings) to the general public.  IBM is not.  It seems like this list
penalizes IBM for this, to some extent.  

I realize that there is no other way to make a list like this at
present.  However, it might be worth mentioning which unreleased IBM
feature have been seen in demos and such, since these presumably *would*
be in a package like the "pre-beta-OS/2 CSD" if IBM released "pre-beta"
stuff.  These features could be labelled: "running, but unreleased", or
something like that.  This might give us all a more realistic picture of
where things stand.

However, I have to applaud Mr. Sturgill's efforts, both in creating this
list, and in overcoming his own biases to a large (and increasing)
extent.  I am honestly curious about NT, even though I have no desire to
run a "pre-beta" of any OS right now.
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy