From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Date: 26 Aug 92 02:11:04 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <47470005@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM> glen@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Glen Robinson) writes:
>Brian Sturgill writes:
>>
>>   Do people like arguing with me because I don't bow and scrap before OS/2, 
>>   or is there something in that package I'm missing?  I'd gladly find ...
>No, I think they do it because you bow and scrap(e) before NT.

Can you give me an example of where I bow and scrape before NT?  It's
true that I'm a fan of NT, but then I was a big fan of OS/2, and would
like IBM to make it so that I can continue to be.  Things would have
been much different if that June CSD had come out in June.

From a personal standpoint, NT is closer to what I want, as the features I
have always wanted was a combination of Unix and Macintosh/Windows
3.0.  NT fits this bill very well. I.E. tons of neat, cheap GUI apps on
a "real" system.  X is a hack, so no Unix ever really fit the bill.
OS/2 2.0 came close, but it is not multi-user enough, and I'm not about
to buy into a multimedia API that no one will develop for.  It is also
not clear that it will have a good app base.
	     	      Oops insert ^ native :-)

From a business standpoint I would very much like to see both do well.
In general, I see Microsoft taking the necessary steps; IBM, ... it
depends on which part, in general IBM has done poorly.  I just read an
article in this month's Computer Shopper that said IBM is ignoring OS/2
because their real plan is Taligent.  I don't really believe that, but
the way IBM as a whole has treated OS/2, I don't entirely rule out the
possiblity.  This is the second article I've seen say this.  It's a
shame that IBM's followup on OS/2 has been so poor that they are
open to such accusations.

I don't understand this bow and scrape before NT comment-- I have used
both OS/2 2.0 and NT's pre-beta (and inhaled! :-)) extensively... I know the
features of both well.  While I miss the idea of WPS, WPS is too rough
around the edges to really let you like the implementation.  Further, I
have little doubt that there will be shareware shell Blah that emulates
the WPS for NT, I might even do such a thing myself.  WPS is just a
shell.  For example, NT comes with an app that is just as important to
me... an app that plays music CD's in my CD-ROM drive.  I already have
800x600 SVGA under NT.  OS/2 has been out for 4-5 months, and I still am
running VGA on my machine at work.  During the beta I didn't mind at
all...  it was after all a beta, but here NT comes along and has all
this stuff and it's not even in beta..  or if you want to argue, it's
in a beta level less than what OS/2 2.0 LA's beta was.
Why do people want to bash those telling/warning them about NT and its
nice features, rather than asking IBM why OS/2 is still missing even
more primative "normal" features?

I don't see how it is bowing and scraping to acknowledge a good
performance on Microsoft's part.  I'd quite happily do the same for
IBM... the difference is I can see that Microsoft is delivering and
therefore believe that they will deliver later.  IBM may have delivered
OS/2 2.0 "on-time", but I think there are few users that aren't
anxiously awaiting the bug-fixes.
Take for example the 32-bit GDI that according to John Soyring (as quoted in
the July OS/2 Monthly) was ready in March.
	So we got to the point in March where the 32-bit graphics
	engine was done.  They finished the coding, we finished the internal
	testing, and it was meeting specifications. ... 
If it was done, why do I still not have it 4 months later?
NT's 32-bit GDI is there now... and for the most part works well, I
know that because I have a copy... I don't know that for OS/2, even
though OS/2 has been "released" and NT hasn't. I don't have to ask if
Microsoft will have SVGA for the initial release of NT... they already
have the most common cards covered, and they're having a big device
driver conference months _BEFORE_ NT is even hoped to be out.  It's not
that I believe that NT is perfect, it is just clear to me that things
are progressing in a rational fashion; can you say the same for OS/2?
Does saying this mean that I'm bowing and scraping to Microsoft?

>
>Glen - R


Brian
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy