From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: is NT really NEW technology?
Date: 15 Aug 92 12:56:42 MDT
Keywords: NT Unix OS2 DOS Blither
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <92Aug15.171228.21321@acs.ucalgary.ca> bstone@acs.ucalgary.ca (Blake Stone) writes:
>>>>You say that NT will lose because UNIX and X can do a lot of
>>>>the things that NT can do, well, I say it's the other way
>>>>around.  NT can do the things UNIX and X can do, and MORE!!!
>>>>(blatant advertisement just to fan the flames ;)
>
>>>Yeah, whats the "alot more?".  
>
>> Over X: / Over most X:
>
>If UNIX was limited to running X-Windows as a front end I'd
>agree.  It's doomed.  On the other hand, some of us are running
>NeXTstep which I'll address instead.

Wow... I'll take another look at NextStep... I believe it's probably
still a bit behind NT, but clearly it is a contender.
(That doesn't let any of the other Unix variant off the hook though.)
Question... what is NeXT doing wrong?  With features like
that they ought to be kicking ass in the Unix market (which isn't
that big to begin with)?
Originally they cost too much and did not offer that much more...
but I've heard they fixed the hardware cost.
Is NeXTstep 3.0 for 386/486 out now?

You've got a few things confused, but as some of them go in NeXT's
favor, you probably won't mind.

(Note... the Mach that NeXT uses is different from the Mach that OSF/1
uses.  Next acquired Mach when it was still a monolithic kernel and
therefore has reasonable performance.  OSF/1 is a single server version
of Mach sitting on top of a micro-kernel... this has real performance
problems. [Which NT's design avoids.])

>
>>         Pen support.
>
>You got me.  I'm convinced, however, that the pen will find its
>real usefulness not with desktop machines but with things like
>Apple's Newton.
Agreed somewhat, but as Microsoft pointed out at the developers conference,
handheld devices 2-3 years from now will easily be capable of running NT.

>
>>       Source and binary compatiblity with a GUI currently in
>> 	the hands of a horde that even the most skeptical
>> 	number at 4,000,000. (Win32s)
>
>Win NT is NOT binary compatible with all Win 3.1 apps, nor is it
>source compatible.  NeXTstep runs its own apps (I haven't counted
>lately, 600+ apps?), XWindows apps, Macintosh (via the Executor
>emulator), MS-DOS (via Soft PC) and soon will run Windows
>acceptably (Soft PC 3.0).
Sorry, you're wrong here, you probably just haven't seen the information
yet.  As a part of Win32, Microsoft is bringing out Win32s which
is a DLL you can distribute with you app that is for Windows 3.1 users
that will allow an Windows NT binary to run under Windows 3.1.
The only caveat is that not all NT features will be available and thus
you must code a bit more carefully.
The apps running under Windows 3.1 will be 32 bit (and thus
will work only in enhanced mode).

As to source code compatibile... indeed they are... Microsoft has
gone to great pains to make it possible to use one source code set
that will go both to Windows 3.X and NT.
It is true that existing Windows 3.X apps will need some minor changes,
but they are reasonably minor.

>
>>         OLE
>
>NeXT's distributed object system provides the basis, while their
>Copy / Past and Link provides a simple to implement mechanism.
>3.0, of course!
I suspect you underestimate what OLE can do... plus you quite likely
have not seen OLE/2... OLE/2's specs are due out soon.
Then again... maybe I underestimate NeXTSteps Paste and Link.

>
>>         Scripted GUI testing program.
>
>Oh joy.  Journalling is built into NeXTstep, but is it really all
>THAT useful?
It's very useful... you mean NeXT has it and is not using it, or that
you don't use it?
Without it, thorough testing of GUI apps is a tedious nightmare.

>
>> Over Unix:
>>         Ability to fsck gigabyte volumes in a few seconds.
>
>Like most systems, NeXTstep doesn't fsck unless it needs to.
>Does Win NT take care of the same array of problems that fsck can
>fix?  Impossible to tell until it's too late.
I think you misunderstand... the "fsck" under NT is of course not done unless
needed.  The difference is that the file system is structured to make
the "fsck" fast, and no it does not take care of the same array of problems
as Unix fsck, as it never allows them to happen to begin with.
(Essentially NTFS's structure has enough of a "log-based" file system
flavor that it keeps sufficent state to know what was in progress.
It's a hybrid that sits somewhere between the Berkeley fast file
system and a log-based filesystem.)

>
>>         Ability to run Windows 3.X applications.
>
Does Soft PC come with the base package?

>> 	        Ability to run OS/2 1.X character mode
>>		applications.
>
>I'll let you know when this starts keeping me awake at nights.
True. (Though it does mean you can use OS/2 1.X Brief.)

>> 	        No system table limits (i.e. no limits on proc
>>		table size, etc.).
>
>Not sure offhand.  Any Mach bigots out there who can answer?
We have Mach in house inside the research group I work for... it
does still have numerous such limits

>>         Per process control of page attributes.
>
Mach can do this too. (I.E. NextStep probably can too.)

>>         Defined E-mail API.
>
>Yup.
I'm truly happy that they've done this... I'm not sure why
there isn't one on any of the other Unix's.  It would
sure make for a better selection of mailer agents.

>
>>         Named Pipes over networks.
>
>Mach ports addressable via the nameserver.  Pipes are soooo
>passe.
:-)

>
>>         Common adapter interface for ethernet cards.
>
>Ethernet on the motherboard (NeXT systems only), support for a
>wide variety on NeXTstep 486.
I'm refering to NDIS, where you don't have to know about system internals
to write a driver.

>
>>         Dynamically loadable/unloadable file system drivers.
>
>Yes.
Really, unloadable too?  I'm not talking about at boot time.
I'm impressed if they've done this.

>>         Installation program easily licensable from the OS
>> 	vendor.
>
>It comes for free with NeXTstep.
Bravo! NeXT!  It makes things much easier for the users to only have
to learn to deal with one installation procedure.

>
>>         Cost.
>
>Please.  Win NT is still looking like $600 list, plus the
>compiler etc... yes?  It's not that different.  NeXTstep 486
>lists at $995 and includes FAX support and so forth that's
>missing from NT.
Microsoft has said definitely that NT will be less than $500 list
(this was said at the SF NT Dev. Conf).

>>         Asynchronous I/O.
>
>To what?
All I/O can be done asynchronusly... i.e. you issue the async
write, continue along in your program, and be signaled when the
system is ready for more data.  Berkeley-based Unixes have this
feature.

>
>>         Ability to write platform independent device drivers.
>
>Errrr... not platform indepdant.  Any platform, so long as it is
>from Microsoft!  NeXTstep drivers work on any platform, so long
>as it is from NeXT.
What I mean here is that most device drivers can be written
such that there is one set of source files, and that driver
(except for a small header file) will work on all platforms.

>
>>         Global (i.e. combined I/O and VM) cache.
>
>Not sure.
This was an early feature of Mach, so NeXT quite probably has the feature too.


All in all NextStep holds up pretty well against NT.
However it's definitely the only Unix that does... you other Unix
platform users out there... come on you babies!!! I want
to fight against the unarmed! :-)
Go ahead... SysVR4.2 "exists" as much as NT does... let's do a
comparison -- Snicker Snicker!!
Pretend the new version of Solarius (damn, forgot how to
spell it) is out too!!

Brian
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy