From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:40:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.004820.15289@hellgate.utah.edu>,
brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>...
>>MS's on the net seem to think that NT does everything OS/2 does but
>>more.  This is not the case.  I will assume that most of us believe
>>that whoever rules the Intel platform has won the game already.  With
>>that in mind, OS/2 has these important thigns in its favor that NT
>>simply is not going to have or have in the near future:
>
>First of all I want to point out that I very much believe that OS/2 is
>a subset of NT.  In all the discussion I've ever seen on this group...
>only 3 points of potential importance have I seen that OS/2 has that NT
>will not have from day 1:  Excellent VDM's, WPS, and REXX.
>You list the first two, but left out REXX.
>
>Now to deal with your points:
>
>>
>>NT is going to have the ridiculous program manager and file manager
>>back.
>
>This is clearly a two-edged feature.  A user migrating from Windows
>does not need to learn anything new and for many if not most
>users this shell is fine.  If WorkPlace shell was not so complex
>and if it's operation had been better thought out, then perhaps
>you would have more of a point, but I think it likely not to
>factor in most user's decisions.  For "power-users" this can be
>a factor, but having used WPS for several months now... I don't
>find I miss it when running under Windows 3.1 and Windows NT.
>Personally I'm quite content to wait for someone to implement
>an alternate shell with a simliar flavor for NT. (And remember
>that Cairo will be out in '94 -- it's shell looked similar
>to WPS... but hopefully will be better thought out.)
>The idea of WPS is great, but its implementation is lacking.
>

     I don't really see the WPS as that complex, certainly not any
more complex than the Win interface is.  And, having used WPS for
quite a few months now, I find the Windows interface severely
lacking in features and usability.


>>
>>NT is going to run Windows programs probably only as well as OS/2 does
>>(I have the beta with win 3.1 support and seamless windows 3.1 sessions
>>are very fast now).
>
>Perhaps it will handle Windows program as well once 2.01 comes out (I
>remain skeptical).  But what about a year from now?  It looks like IBM
>will take 9 months to get Windows 3.1 support into OS/2, and they have
>sources...  what about the next time when they don't?  And don't say
>that OS/2 will have all the apps it needs by then...  Windows 3.X and
>its derivatives will clearly be the mainstream platform for some time
>to come.  Most apps will be there first.
>

     Well, I agree that Windows will still have more apps than OS/2
in a year, mostly from vendors who can't afford to support more than
one system.  I'm also not complaining about the amount of time it
took IBM to support Win 3.1. It seems to me that if IBM wants
to keep supporting the Windows upgrades in the future, they could
just make their VDM's capable of supporting it.  Then, they wouldn't
need to worry about sending out Windows with OS/2, or paying MS
royalties.
     Besides, IBM *will* get the Win-32 programs to run, so future
versions shouldn't be that hard to handle.

>>
>
>Now my turn.
>Why should I chose OS/2?
>There are three "strong" points, Excellent VDM's, WPS, and REXX.
>The excellent VDM's are more than a bit overkill... and it's not
>clear yet that NT's DOS support will not be adequate, or even good.

     I think you may be forgetting a couple of other things, too.
For instance, price, resource use (and requirements), and good
product support from IBM.  Add to this cheap upgrades (or free), and
long-lasting customer service (from IBM again), and I think you get
a pretty secure platform.  Applications *are* coming out, but it
does take a while.  NT doesn't offer *me* anything that I don't
already have in OS/2 (except a 69$ frisbee ;-)  ).
     It may not have as many apps as windows in a year, but it will
probably have a significant number of apps.  After it has been out
for as long as windows has, then we could probably make a good
comparison for vendor support.  Not everybody is going to move right
away, and some may never move.  Of course, that will leave the
market open as any analyst will realize, and the OS/2 users will get
a completely new program which has been specifically written to take
advantage of  OS/2.

>Now what does NT offer over OS/2?
>First and foremost:
>        Has a cleaner, more modern design than OS/2 2.0.
>

[  Brief explanation of design deleted   ]

     Sorry, I don't know much about it.  In fact, I would have to
hear it from an unbiased person in order to believe it.  Otherwise,
it's FUD (to me).  I can see that OS/2 probably has some odd parts
in it's design.  And when NT gets released and upgraded a few times,
it will probably be pretty sloppy too.  It's a simple fact of life.
When the next version of OS/2 (3.0) gets released, some of this will
probably be fixed.  And some more will be added on.

>        Peer-peer file and printer sharing.

available

>        RPC

available

>        TCP/IP

available

>        Multimedia

available

>        E-Mail API (X.500, can use X.400 as a transport)

(don't know anything about these, so I can't really comment)

>        32-bit OLE

  Isn't this going to be available in OS/2 sometime?  Maybe before
Cairo will be available for NT!  I can wait.

>
>        Logons.

  Doesn't do me any good.  My dog dooesn't know how to use a
computer (yet...).  Besides, this is slated for OS/2, also.

>        DOS, POSIX, OS/2 1.X and NT console apps can output to the same window.
>                This is an important example of where NT's
>                compatibility is better than OS/2's.

  ok.  Once again, I can't comment.

>
>        More low-level OS features (e.g. memory-mapped files).
>        Symmetric multiprocessing support.
>        NTFS
>        POSIX  (1003.1 -- the system calls)
>        Runs on more than one architecture.
>                This set of features appeal to several large niche
>                markets.  Realistically speaking, OS/2 is two years or
>                more from having these.
>
>

     Realistically speaking, OS/2 is probably two years from having
all of these features.  It will on the P5, and probably the powerPC
(whenever it comes out).  As far as I know, NT is also a few years
away from having these, too!
(I know,
I can look at the SDK (just not evaluate it) to see how close these
features are.  I'm waiting for the next release, which is due out
soon, before I bother installing it).

>
>Wouldn't you prefer that the better OS win?
>Five years from now would you prefer to be fighting the uglies of
>a hack (i.e. the future equivalents of the 640K barrier), or using
>an OS that was designed to be extended?
>
>Brian

   Yes, I would.  I would also like to get good support and not have
to upgrade memory, hard drive space, etc. every year to use it.
Free upgrades would be (are) nice, too.
   Sorry I had to delete so much, I'm just not much of a marathoner.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy