From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:06:37 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Oct11.200129.57317@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
...
>>>> Further the large number of subsystems + IBM's need to maintain its
>>>> reputation for supporting old features for a long period of time,
>>>>[...]
>>>> Any major new feature in OS/2 will have to be geared to be compatible with
>>>> the other platforms.  Imagine they have to support two of many
>>>> things already!
>>>
>>>It's funny how people rationalize the most imaginative arguments
>>>against reality when they want to be blind! OS/2 and NT are both doing
>>
>>Oh, so you are trying to be an asshole.
>
>I believe I once heard someone utter," Ahh, profanity.  The last refuge of a
>losing cause."

"Asshole" is profanity?  Besides... why am I criticized for hitting
back at an abusive poster?  All I talked about was OS/2's support of
compatibility.  This guy calls me blind, unrealistic, and a rationalizer
all in one sentance and you criticize me?

...
>>NT doesn't have someone else's multimedia, OLE, graphics API, font system,
>>printer drivers, etc to support; OS/2 does.  Worse OS/2 plans to add the
>>considerably harder to do Win32s and Win32 API's.
>
>When did IBM ever claim they were supporting Win32?  I have heard no such
>announcement.   IBM has added this stuff to ease transition.  They are not
>likely to continue forever in supporting Windows stuff.  They are not nearly
>as foolish as you seem to think.

From a posting by sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
	Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 01:28:11 GMT
	Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy

**Today IBM Chicago held its monthly OS/2 User's Group meeting.  This
**month's meeting was devoted, in large part, to a presentation by two
**OS/2 experts from Austin (mainly delivered by Don Crabtree).
**
...
**Now, where is OS/2 headed?
...
**In 1993 ("OS/2 2.x"):
**
**** Win32/Win32s API compatibility.  This was a surprise, frankly.  But
**it was there on the overhead transparency.
**
**[Just to editorialize, this could cut both ways.  On the one hand OS/2
**is essentially remaining a superset of Windows "forever," i.e. if you
**have OS/2 you can always run more.  Meaning it is more attractive for
**consumers.  On the other hand you might ask whether developers should
**write for the OS/2 API.  But, then again, developers don't dictate OS
**markets, consumers do.  If OS/2 is more popular, and, other things
**being equal, OS/2 users prefer native OS/2 applications over Win32
**applications, then developers with native OS/2 versions will have an
**advantage.  What would be truly bizarre (devious?) is if IBM
**implemented the Win32 API before Microsoft did, which is certainly
**possible with these new, modern OSes given that the API is rigidly
**defined.  BUT I DIGRESS.]
...
...
>>They are already saying they will add Win32s and Win32 support... this
>>is not new?
>
>Again where?  Win32s I seem to have heard something about.  Win32 I haven't.

See above.  Clearly you are not following things closely.

>>
>>>apps that already exist in users' hands. As more and more native OS/2
>>>apps appear, compatibility will be less and less of an issue.
>>>
>>>Saying NT is better just because it's better is a clearly redundant
>>
>>I never said NT is better (though it is). I said that OS/2, because
>>it has such a heavy compatibility burden, will have a hard time
>>keeping up with its competitors -- too many resources will have to
>>be dedicated to maintaining the compatibility and too many compromises
>>will have to be made in future enhancements in order to allow
>>that compatibility.
>
>You indeed have claimed NT is better innumerable times.  You seem to have this

Look... if you want me to continue to respond to your posts, then
you're going to have to be more reasonable.  When I said "I never said
NT is better", I obviously meant in the post the author was responding
to.  I of course have said that NT is better before... it is better, why
should I not say this?

>strange idea that OS/2 is some Windows wannabe.  It isn't.  It will ease

Funny most every feature announced for future OS/2 was announced long before
by Microsoft for NT.  At the COMDEX rollout, Lee Reiswig listed a set
of NT features (POSIX, etc) and specifically said that OS/2 would add them.
They are now saying they'll have Win32 and Win32s API's.  Sounds like
they "wannabe" like Windows to me.

>transition over the next year or two then probably go its own way.  I don't
>know about you, but I really don't mind my system being as flexible as
>possible.  Every system has to make comprimises to maintain backwards
>compatibility.  This includes NT.  If that system doesn't, its backward
>compatibility will stink.  This includes NT.

Surely you can see the problems of disk space and code complexity that
the huge level of OS/2 compatibility will entail.

>Stacy John Behrens

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))