From: CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Subject: Re: More Biased Reviews From ZD
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:35:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.203539.16323@njitgw.njit.edu>
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
 
>>I'd like to pose you a question.  Supposing that Windows 3.1 currently runs
>>just fine on my system.  (It does.)  Further suppose that I have no trouble
>>with stability with it.  (I don't.)  Further suppose that I run almost only
>>Windows applications.  (I do.)  Given these conditions, what can I gain by
>>moving to OS/2?
>
>The better multitasker.  I don't know about you, but while doing
>ZMODEM downloads in Windows 3.1, I can't do much in other applications
>without causing large amounts of tramsission errors.  Sometimes, they
>lock my Windows-based terminal program, forcing be to CTRL-ALT-DEL in
>order to get it out of memory.  True, under Windows 3.0, I'd have to
>reboot to do this, but under OS/2, I don't get the errors in the first
>place.
 
Well, since you asked.....<g>.  I use Procomm Plus for Windows, and have
absolutely no trouble with v.32bis downloads while using any of my other
applications. Perhaps you should give "the latest and best" comm program
a try.
 
>instance, I like to work with 2 or 3 command prompts open at once.
>Under Windows, three DOS boxes will usually kill the system - so I
>don't do that any more.  Windows doesn't crash - but only because I've
>changed my style for it.
>
>The OS shouldn't force you to change the way you'd like to work.
 
It doesn't force me to change.  Personally, I avoid command prompts when
at all possible, as I find them to be the least efficient way for me to
do the things I do.  To each his own, however, and if OS/2 is what you
need, then by all means go to it.  I'm just trying to point out that
Windows is a perfectly adequate solution for myself and many others.
 
>>I own a copy of OS/2 and have spent quite a few hours using it to get a feel
>
>Have you tried using it to run your Windows apps?  Even in full-screen
>WIN-OS2 sessions, you're probably better off.  You'll get the improved
>memory management, VDM support, and you won't need DOS or Windows on
>your hard drive.
 
Yes, I've tried it, and found it somewhat lacking compared to real
Windows.  The only way to take advantage of OS/2's protection is to run
each Winapp in it's own copy of WinOS2, which means waiting nearly forever
(at least thats what it seems like) for each to load, and another eternity
when switching between the two.  If you want the speed of real Win, you
have to give up the protection, in which case you might as well be running
the real Windows.
 
>What OS/2 apps are "last years" apps?  Only the ones from Microsoft.
>And this is because Microsoft has pledged themselves to the eventual
>destruction of OS/2.
>
>Many other companies have continued their support of OS/2 and OS/2
>applications.  For instance, the DeScribe word processor.  True, much
 
Which is almost laughable when compared to W4W or AmiPro (IMO).  I'll
turn this question around and ask which OS/2 apps *aren't* last years
apps other than DeScribe.
 
>of the OS/2 applications are OS/2 1.x apps, but most of the Windows
>apps currently for sale are Windows 3.0 apps, so there's no effective
>difference.
 
Au contraire.  New Windows applications such as W4W, Excel, AmiPro,
Procomm Plus for Win, etc, are the latest in software technology.
 
>You make many blanket assumptions here.  Who says that the current
>crop of Windows applications are the best available?  Latest doesn't
>mean a thing - I still develop applications with Microsoft C 6.0,
>because version 7 - the "latest" version - is crippled with respect to
>OS/2 development.
 
Sorry, I'm a user, not a developer, so perhaps you and I are using
different types of applications.  IMO, the latest Windows applications
are among the most powerful yet easy to use programs that have been
developed to date.  Again, that's just my opinion, but then so is
everything else I've written, so no big deal....
 
>And your argument will also apply to NT whenever it gets to market.
 
Who said anything about NT?  I'm talking about OS/2 and running Windows
applications.  Windows does it better, in my opinion, and I see no
advantage to moving to OS/2.
 
Brian.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy