From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Date: 23 Nov 92 01:01:09 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Nov21.213610.8366@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (B
rian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.181435.17645@husc3.harvard.edu> chandoni@husc8.harvard.ed
u writes:
>>rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer) writes:
>>(from an IBM press release)
>>>  PC/Computing on Sunday named OS/2 2.0 co-winner of the
>>                                         ---------
>>>  operating system/environment award as part of its annual
>>>  "Most Valuable Products" (MVP) awards ceremony.  In
>>>  selecting OS/2 2.0 for this honor, the editors of
>>>  PC/Computing stated, "this is the operating system Windows**
>>>  3.1 should have been."
>>
>>Co-winner???  What product was the other co-winner... the NT
>>beta?  Or did this competition include OS's for other machines
>>(i.e. Nextstep or System 7)?
>
>No, the co-winner was Windows 3.1, OS/2 is not sophisticated enough
>to compete with Windows NT yet, nor is Windows NT released yet.
>I read the PC/Computing article, and it was soundly based.
>Here's the piece that deals with Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0
>[PC/Computing, December 1992, Page 190]

Suprise, suprise.  Gee who would have thought that they would pick Windows.  I
always get a laugh when these awards come out.  Even when I happen to like the
package in question, I usually find their reasoning to be flawed.  (Heck look
at all the "technical excellence" awards DOS 5.0 got last year.  What a joke.)


(description of arguements in favor of either system deleted)

>The truth is, all those arguments are valid. Is either Windows or
>OS/2 the ultimate operating environment? [No... that's Windows NT! :-)]
>Not by a long shot. We'll see improvements in both that take takes
>us closer to perfect computing, but that state of grace isn't here
>yet.  Are OS/2 and Windows both part of the future of computing? You
>bet. The days of the text-based interface are numbered. We all will
>be using a graphical interface within a few years, and both Windows
>and OS/2 will be the major players in determining what that
>interface is like.
>
>Ordinarily at _PC/Computing_ we pride ourselves on cutting through
>the mishmash of specs, claims, and spurious features in products so
>that we can make clear, no-nonsense recommendations that help you,
>our readers. But in this case, to choose either OS/2 2.0 or Windows
>3.1 over the other is to do you a disservice. It suggests you're
>better off committing whole heartedly to one of the environments.
>That's simplistic rather than helpful.

Quite honestly, that sounds like a cop out.  If the award is to be determined
on technical excellence, then judge it on technical excellence.  If it is to
be a popularity contest, then make it a popularity contest.  (You can guess
which would win in each case)  Since OS/2 can run *most* win stuff, I really
don't see how in a majority of cases you are losing anything by using it tho.
I think that PC computing is following the CYA school of journalism.
(CYA=cover your ass)
>
>In fact, the best situation for computer users is one in which two
>major companies are battling it out to create a better operating
>system, and the best step you can take right now is to use both
>Windows and OS/2.  You're likely to decide on one over the other,
>but that's not what's important. What is, is that you'll widen the
>horizons of you computing exerience an take two giant steps toward
>the future.

This is true and we all know this, but I don't think it excuses them.
>
>That's why this year we're splitting the honors: The winners of the
>MVP for best operating environment are OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1.  May
>they both thrive.

Well....  OK I can live with that...  (SMILE FOLKS!)
>
>--------
>
>One other note: in a recent article someone said that PC/Computing "threw
>Microsoft a bone" in giving Microsoft Windows for Workgroups the best Network.
>This is nonsense, WfW is the best peer-to-peer product around.
>
>Brian
>--
>C. Brian Sturgill                   I strongly encourage you to mail your copy
>University of Utah                     of Ross Perot's:  "United We Stand
>Center for Software Science            How we can take back our country",
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373        to President-elect Clinton.
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||