From: bangell@cs.utah.edu (bob angell)
Subject: Re: Why Windows is a better bet than OS/2 2.0...
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:43:38 MDT
Followup: comp.os2.misc
Distribution: usa

>
>A lot of people have asked questions about the differences between OS/2 2.0
>and the coming Windows NT system. I just came across a column in the 
>Washington Post Business section dealing a bit with this issue. I, too, 
>have been asking myself which way to go (i.e., with MS Windows or OS/2),
>and have made the decision to stick with Windows. Some of the reasons why
>will become clear below...
>
>*********** Excerpt from Washington Post Business section ************
>
>	...Meanwhile, Microsoft Corp. shipped Windows 3.1 this week. It's
>	more of a stalking horse for a trio of Microsoft products coming
>	at the end of the year than it is a direct competitor for OS/2 2.0
		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I will believe this when I see it!  (BTW, I just had to deal with MicroSh*ft
today, and was not too amused by how well they act like a _Large_ Corp...
kind of like IBM back in the mid 80's...)  

>	   OS/2 2.0 can address memory and storage using 32 bits, compared
>	with 16 for DOS and Windows 3.1. But Windows NT can address with
>	64 bits, giving it access to 4 gigabytes of random access memory,
>	eight times more than Windows 2.0.

whoopeeeeee!

>	  The coming Windows NT also has full government-specified
>	security levels built in and it can utilize multiple multi-processors.

I believe that it _was_ suppose to have this, but _does_ not.

>	OS/2 2.0 lacks the security features and is limited to a single
>	processor. 
>	   A 32-bit version of Windows for 386 and higher microprocessors is
>	planned, to be positioned between Windows 3.1 and Windows NT. There
>	is also a 32-bit version of MS-DOS in the wings, Thacher said.

well, plan on spending big bucks to upgrade to a 32-bit path and get all of
the software that must run on the 32-bit architecture...with the other 
operating system (which will be nameless for the moment) one has the flex-
ibility to run 32-bit/16-bit programs side-by-side.

>	   The strength of this lineup is that most of the same copies of
>	Windows programs, now and in the future, will run on any of the
>	versions...
>

again, when it happens, I will believe.

>************************** End excerpt *********************************
>
>Some final comments:  OS/2 2.0 is a great product. I've ordered it myself,
>along with Windows 3.1. OS/2 2.0 has a lot to offer, but, in my opinion
>(repeat, *MY* opinion), it's only benefit over the Windows line is that
>it is "here right now". 

Yes, it is a good product....and people with the proper hardware requirements
should take advantage....OS/2 is not suited for everyone, but it runs rather
nicely on a fast machine.

>
>With Microsoft's long term strategic plans for multi-platform Windows
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

since when has this been congruent with _mine_ our _your_ overall plans?

I certainly dont have the kind of money to shell out everytime MicroSh*ft
wants me to spend $50 + shipping on a .1 upgrade!  I am really getting 
tired of the feeding frenzy....and all of the unnecessary hype...

>development, along with it's different versions of Windows for high-end
>vs low-end markets, along with it's parallel plans for DOS 6.0 and up,
>along with it's superior marketing abilities, along with the huge
>momentum and customer base for Windows programs (and DOS, too),
>I think that Windows is the way to go, the way of the future.

Depending on the platform, it may just be that....but I will stick with 
flavors of UN*X and will continue to want OS/2 for the fast machines and
for those with smaller systems, Win3.1/Dos X.0 may just be sufficient for 
the masses.....

Well, enough has been said about 3.1 bashing in the Windows groups as well
as spreading OS/2 propaganda over here....so if you plan to follow-up, please
do so in the comp.os2.misc.* range of groups.

-Bob-

---
    -Bob Angell-         |    (sigs, the "ugly american" syndrome)
   "Had Mama Cass and Karen Carpenter shared that Ham Sandwich,
    they would both be with us today!" - Anonymous<Joan Rivers?>
       bangell@cs.utah.edu;bangell@cc.utah.edu;v-(801)583-8544
   [Standard Disclaimer: Speaking for the University of Utah, NOT!]



Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms