From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:21:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.162606.25023@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>Why does NT have to be release before it starts cutting in
>on OS/2 sales.  My guess is that the first good beta release that
>has all the magazines raving about it will stop OS/2 sells dead
>in its tracks.
>

Sure thing.  A beta (read *bugged version*) is going to stop sales of a top
15 selling software product "dead in its tracks".  It's a good thing you
don't try to make a living with predictions like this.

>>
>>You're very quick to write off IBM products due to missed deadlines,
>>but can you (just for once) use the same rule to measure NT by?
>
>OS/2 is not only an inferior product, but IBM has repeatedly proven
>that it cannot market it.  Things can change but they had better do
>so fast.

True, as far as the marketing goes.  OS/2 is far from an inferior product,
but that's a matter of opinion, obviously.  The word "Windows" springs to
mind when you say inferior, and that's *my* opinion.

IBM's marketing has sucked as far as mass marketing goes.  Their grass-roots
stuff is great, but that's a piss-poor way to market a product.

>>>Yes but NT is far closer to the "ultimate OS" than OS/2 is.
>>
>>Yes, and it's far closer to requiring the "ultimate computer" as well.
>
>No... it's requirements (in terms of the market it's aimed at) is
>actually somewhat less than OS/2's requirements.

When I can actually run NT on my machine, I'll believe you.

>OS/2 with TCP/IP in 8 megs is a dog.  Presumably NT will actually
>run well in 8 megs in it's final release.  This cannot be know yet,
>but based on experience with the pre-beta, this looks like it will
>bet the case... and NT give far more features in this same memory
>usage.

*cough* *cough* *bullshit* *cough*  When MS calls 8 megs a minimum for an
operating system, I look at it as I would ANY other "minimum" spec, in that
you do not want to run a system like that.  The pre-beta works  in 12 megs,
and I don't expect the release to work well in 8 megs by a long-shot.  Try
again later.

>The idea that NT will require substantially more resources than
>OS/2 is a myth.  Even believing IBM's recommended memory figures
>NT doesn't require more memory on a networked system -- even
>in its pre-beta form.  As the pre-beta already has 95% or more
>of NT's final functionality... it's a good bet that NT will need
>less memory than OS/2 2.0 when configured for equivalent functionality.

The reason why NT *will* require substantially more resources than OS/2
is because it offers a page full of features neither I nor Joe average user
needs.  I don't want to log in to my own computer.  I don't have or need
peer-to-peer networking.  I don't know what the hell C2 security is, and
I probably would if it were that important to my PC.  So what if I can choose
not to install this stuff, I'd still have to buy it.  Granted, there are
many corporate users or computer system managers who would love this stuff.
They're also the ones who can requisition the computer systems required to
make use of such heavy firepower.  As for me, OS/2 works great, and has what
*I* want.  I can still run all my dos programs.  To me, that is 95% of
the functionality of the OS, and NT simply doesn't and won't have OS/2's 
quality there.  NT is not going to kill OS/2, as it's the best dos
multitasker around, and NT will never have that claim to fame.

>Brian

Ted

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy