From: jstewart@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: is NT really NEW technology?
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:55:20 GMT
 <1992Aug14.193408.5614@novell.com> <1992Aug14.204102.17817@hellgate.utah.edu>
Organization: Wright State University

>>Yeah, whats the "alot more?".  
> 
> Over X:

	But not having X compatability is a big DISADVANTAGE.  Is it going to
have it's own X type windowing system.

> 	Speed.
> 	Size.

	NT does not look tiny at this point and it's only getting bigger.

> 	Ability to list fonts.
> 	Printer support.
> 	Multimedia support.

	What is multi-media stick figures and beeps?  When I see a standard
supporting a realistic system then I'll jump on the MM bandwagon.

> 	Pen support.
	I'll tell you this is important to me, really important
	(can't you smell the sarcasm).

> 	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)
	When I see either I'll believe it, from what I understand it is 
neither now.

> 	OLE
> 	Scripted GUI testing program.
> 
> Over most X:
> 	Scalable fonts.
> 	A single defined user interface (i.e. no Motif/OpenLook wars).

	I like diversity, I the user can pick my favorite, and the app designer
can pick whichever one is more appropriate to their app.

> 	Fast hyper-text help system.

	Quite a few Unix's now have CD-ROM based full Doc sets not just 
dimpy help files.
> 
> 
> Over Unix:
> 	Ability to fsck gigabyte volumes in a few seconds.

	Have you seen this in action?

> 	Ability to run Windows 3.X applications.
> 	Ability to run OS/2 1.X character mode applications.
> 	Base package comes with C2 security.
	
        I attacked this previously.

> 	Printer support such that the spooler understands the
> 		capabilities of the printer.

	The printcap seems to allow this, though I will admit it is 
unfriendly.

> 	Fully integrated internationalization abilities.
> 	Access control lists for most system objects.
> 	No system table limits (i.e. no limits on proc table size, etc.).

	This would be interesting name your source.

> 	Sparse address space support.
> 	Per process control of page attributes.
> 	Object-oriented, from scratch, design.

	Then how come it comes with the pathetic win 3.x user interface, why
don't they take advantage of the great god of object orientedness.

> 	Defined E-mail API.
	What's SMTP?

> 	Named Pipes over networks.

	But does it have berkeley sockets?

> 	Common adapter interface for ethernet cards.
> 	Dynamically loadable/unloadable file system drivers.
> 	B-tree directory structure (large directories have fast lookup).

	At the cost of compatability with the normal file system?

> 	Installation program easily licensable from the OS vendor.
> 	Cost.

	Since when do we have a final cost on NT.

> 
> Over most Unix:
> 	Define tape API.
> 	Asynchronous I/O.

	What kind of asynchronus I/O?

> 	Dynamically loadable/unloadable device drivers.
> 	Memory mapped files.
> 	Ability to write platform independent device drivers.

	I really want to see this one, if it's platform independant than it's
not a device driver.

> 	Threads (and corresponding syncronization methods).

	One of the few advantages I see, but then OS/2 has these.

> 	Adminstration easy enough for the average user to use.
> 	MicroKernel design.

	Unless we're running multiple OS servers I don't see the big advantage.

> 	Ability to run DOS apps.

	I've always wanted to run DOS apps on my 30,000 dollar workstation, let
me tell ya, but then I can get softpc for most of these workstations.

> 	A defined interface to system statistics and quotas.

	How does unix manage these w/o them being defined?

> 	Symmetric multiprocessing.
> 	C2 level security.

	Once again, this ain't just S/W.

> 	Base package contains peer-to-peer file and printer sharing.

	I don't think I've seen a unix w/o lpr.

> 	Global (i.e. combined I/O and VM) cache.
> 	Majority of kernel code pageable.

	Is it cause it has a 2 gig kernal :) :) :)

> 	Support for PC networks such as Novell, Banyan Vines.
> 	Remote booting.
> 	Remote installation and maintenance.
> 	Access Control Lists. *
> 	Internationalization support. *
> 
> * Repeated from above, but in the general case.
> 
> If you claim that I'm wrong about the list above and want to respond
> please restrict yourself to ONE existing, named, commercial version of
> Unix per message.
> 
> Brian

	I guess I'd have to say Ultrix for my "allocated" unix.