From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: \* IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big \*
Date: 12 Dec 92 21:50:37 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec11.144505.29307@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
 writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.084222.1405@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> admiral@jhunix.hcf.jhu.ed
u (Steve C Liu) writes:
>
>
>       It would have been better if you'd listed
>       them side-by-side, as this would have kept you
>       consistent (not a flame, just an observation).
>
>
>>      OS/2 2.0
>>      Good crash protection
>>      Object-Oriented file system
>>      Runs on 386/20 w/4 megs RAM and uses 31 megs HD space
>
>
>       Please.  Are you insane?  OS/2 on a four meg system is like
>       UNIX on a 1mb 80286.  It's a pathetic joke.
>       The processor speed is about right, though, since OS/2
>       still surprises me with it's efficiency (but not when
>       I consider something like the Amiga, which blows it to
>       smitherines)
>
Talk about a bogus comparison.  Even the smallest *modern* versions of Unix
generally require at least 4 megs and a 386.  In addition the post was just to
state what it *needs to run*, not to run well.  Sure running it in 4 megs,
sucks, but it does work.
>
>>      Available now
>>      Few *big commercial* apps
>
>
>       Few up-to-date apps would be more like it.  The biggies
>       (Corel, WP, ...) *do* exist, they are just pitifully behind
>       the versions for other platforms.
>
Really?  Is ObjectVision behind its Windows counterpart?  How about PFS/Works?
Not all the "biggies" are behind and since the release dates for most of the
"biggies" products are within the next three months, your statement is going
to be very wrong in a very big hurry.


>
>>      No SMP support
>
>
>       Any SMP will have to be retrofitted.  We've seen retrofitting
>       before (EMS to DOS, etc..) and it doesn't work very well.

Not at all.  Putting OS/2 on Mach is hardly retrofitting.  Remember Mach is
*already* developed and they are putting OS/2 on top of it, not the other way
around.
>
>       If OS/2 is going to take the Intel market, it is unlikely
>       that they'll need to implement SMP now or ever--the PowerPC
>       should be targeted at the people that will be buying
>       SMP Intel systems and should offer an equal or
>       greater price/performance ratio.
>
Then why do all NT advocates (like yourself) just love to hold this over
OS/2's head?  Like you said though, SMP is fairly irrelevant for the current
Intel platform.  Nor will it be very important for most desktop systems.
Since OS/2 is eventually going after severs in a big way though, it will be
important in a few years.
>
>>      No built-in networking
>
>
>       I don't consider networking a big deal, so I'm not
>       going to comment on it.  MS would be making a big
>       mistake if they didn't allow the user to just keep
>       that junk off the HD and out of RAM if they wanted to.

Here I agree.
>
>
>>      Does not have "creature comforts" like MM, SSVGA, etc.
>
>
>       What about MMPM? Not that anything *uses* it, but that's
>       mostly because there aren't any modern OS/2 applications.
>
Again, you are not telling the truth here.  I am compiling a list of "modern"
OS/2 apps.  So far I am at over 100 *released* commercial 32-bit applications,
and that is just after looking though 4 magazines.  Somebody just posted a
list of applications for OS/2.  I suggest you look at it before you make such
a foolish statement again.

>>      1.5 million copies shipped
>>      Price:$49-$139
>
>       If you're going to include the 'upgrade" prices here, you ought
>       to at least take a stab at what they'll be for NT.  I have no
>       doubt that MS will offer a ~$150 upgrade price to WfWG users,
>       probably a higher priced one for OS/2, Windows users, and
>       a third one for DOS owners..
>
OK what are they?  What's that you don't know?  Those are the prices for OS/2.
All we know about NT is "under $500".  Until we hear something else, you are
wasting your breath trying to predict the price.  Stick with truth, not with
baseless predictions.
>
>>      Windows NT
>>      32-bit Kernel that runs on Intel, MIPS R4000
>
>       DEC Alpha (it's been demoed).  *(1)
>
>.
>>      Built in networking
>>      SMP support
>
>       Not terribly valuable unless the Alpha PC's released are
>       SMP ready.  I don't see a big future in Intel based SMP
>       machines unless the Pentium makes it a lot easier than
>       the i486...
>
>       The real value of including it is that it will be done
>       right, and not wreak unknown compatibility/implementation
>       problems when it's tacked on.  Same goes for the networking
>       that's included.

Again your statements about OS/2 having SMP "tacked on" are baseless and
wrong.  Putting OS/2 on Mach is about the best way I can think of to give a
system SMP capabilities.  It is a *proper* way to do it, regardless of what
you might think of Mach itself.
>
>
>>      "Creature Comforts"
>>      I don't know about crash protection.
>
>
>       From what I've seen of the beta, the crash protection
>       is substantially better than OS/2.  They pay for this with
>       compatibility, but by release NT should be one of the most
>       stable OSs you can buy for the PC.  (Including the various
>       UNIX variations.) [on another thread, I've heard that
>       Interactive UNIX is really bad in this regard--anyone
>       know?]
No it isn't substantially better.  Depending on the machine it can range from
somewhat worse to somewhat better, but it is a beta and it isn't bulletproof.
As for its stability in release form, we will see when it is released.  Until
then we really don't know.  My experience with NT is that the base system is
generally pretty good and reasonably stable.  I've only seen the whole system
bomb once.  Wasn't a reproduceable error though, so I'm not too worried.  The
problem I've had with NT is that the apps just aren't stable yet.  Several
apps of mine crashed with normal use.  Granted, some were a little touchy
under DOS, but that doesn't really excuse NT.  In any case, it doesn't matter
how great NT's base system is if the apps you need to run until native apps
can be purchased don't work.  Under OS/2, in most cases the app will run and
generally will be stable.  Right now, I unfortuately can't say the same for NT.
>
>>      Runs on 386/20 w/8 megs RAM and takes up 40-66mb HD space
>
>       The processor speed would probably, necessarily, be higher.
>       8 megs sounds about right, though, if you can trust MS
>       (say, it'll be roughly equiv. to OS/2 with 6)

Remember, these are *minimum* requirements.  We all know what the real
requirements are.
>
>
>>      Available sometime in the future
>
>
>       In the computer world, 10 months is an eternity.  If it
>       really does take MS that long to get NT out of the house,
>       they had better do a really wiz-bang introduction
>       (something along the lines of releasing the MIPS, Alpha
>       and Intel versions all at once with PC vendors pushing them..)
>
It may even take more than that if IBM has their Mach based beta availlable by
then.  MS may have their way with the mass-markets, but they will have a much
tougher time selling to the business crowds.  Those are people who will not
take kindly to lots of broken promises and continually pushed back release
dates.
>
>
>>      Non-object oriented file system
>
>
>       Not sure what you mean by this.  The OS/2 file system is
>       *hardly* what I would call object oriented.  Oh, sure, you
>       have a pretty nice object oriented *shell*, but that's hardly
>       reflective of the file system (HPFS, in terms of "object
>       orientation" is no more so than FAT..)
>
>
>>      No SMP motherboards
>
>
>       True.  We can expect this to change now that there'll
>       be something to support them (look at the proliferation
>       of accellerated, low cost display cards).  I suspect it
>       wont be a big thing in the Intel market for a long time,
>       but the Alpha and MIPS systems ought to take advantage
>       of it--they're coming from scratch.
>
>
>>      Unknown crash protection (probably similar to OS/2)
>
>
>       Better.
>
Again depends on the system.  On a theoretical level I might agree with you,
but right now my experience is that it is roughly comperable to OS/2's.  OS/2
is able to keep apps from crashing at all, much better than NT right now, and
that is an important point to keep in mind.

>
>>      15 million copies of previous versions shipped
>
>
>       Important, but you should have listed this
>       under "applications" to be consistant with your
>       OS/2 column.  The reason I say this is that NT
>       is *assured* a large number of top-notch applications
>       at or soon after release.  OS/2 has a lot of promises
>       and only one real commitment (Lotus).

Let's not be confusing NT with Windows 3.x.  Win3.x is NOT a previous version
of NT.  They are a pair of related products, but the the biggest thing that is
the same is the name.  Win32 provides a convienent cross over between the
systems, but it in no way makes 3.1 a previous version of Windows.
Also the comments about OS/2 only having "one real commitment" are pure
unmitigated BS.  CA is porting their whole product line.  That's trivial?
WordPerfect has commited to releasing a version for OS/2.  Same with Borland,
Lotus, Novell, and almost every major developer except Microsoft.  You are
calling their *stated commitments* trivial?  Please do a little research next
time.
>
>
>>      Price: $500 (?)
>
>       Take a look at my comments on price.  If you are not willing
>       to guesstimate (and just take the maximum figure quoted
>       as a possibility) then just use "$???" which is about as
>       valid.

Under $500.  That is all they have said and that typically means $499.95.  Now
it may (in fact probably) won't be this, but don't be making half baked
guesses until you can back them up with some hard facts.
>
>
>Comments:
>
>       You should definately include two more items--
>       Windows performance and DOS performance.  By "performance"
>       I mean "speed" "compatibility" and "simplicity".  By
>       "simplicity" I mean "do you have to fiddle with obscure
>       switches and settings to get a program to work, or
>       not?"

Talk about a loaded statement.  If an OS/2 advocate responds to this, he looks
like he is promoting a system that is over complicated.  Cheezy tactic.  In an
case, in what possible way are the switches for OS/2 "obscure"?  What they do
is clearly labeled and further explanations are availlable through the online
help.  Having these switches here is an immense help and is a much better
solution than not having them at all.  Besides, NT is aimed at the high end
market where the people are supposed to know what they are doing.  This takes
away configuration options.  That is not a point in NT's favor in any way,
shape or form.  As for speed, every app I have run under OS/2 has been faster
or certainly no slower than under NT.  In addition, the compatibility of OS/2
to these apps is inarguably better.
>
>       If you were comparing the two (extrapolating to the NT
>       release version), you'd give NT much better support for
>       Windows (it's already as god as WINOS2, clearly), but
>       DOS support goes, hands down, to NT (and this isn't
>       likely to change).  The reason is how MS feels about
>       system integrity--I suspect that they're probably
>       not going to be badly hurt by this.
>
Since it tends to crash Windows apps more often then WinOS2, how on earth is
this better?  As for DOS, support, you comments are pure bullshit.  OS/2 runs
more DOS apps, and runs them more stable than NT.  Of the 7 apps I was able to
run with NT when I worked with it, 3 crashed and two were DOS apps.  (Procomm
Plus and Vpic)  Both work under OS/2 but didn't, at least for me, under NT.

Actually after reading your statement, it almost looks like a typo.  I hope I
am right and it was.
>
>>Which system do I use?
>
>       Right now?  Os/2 2.0 + SP and DRDOS6.0/Win3.1 (because
>       OS/2's Windows support is deficient).
Again, that is a not really true.  The apps run, they run usually how they are
supposed to, and the difference in speed is negligable in most cases.  How
this constitutes defficent support, I guess I'll never understand.  It isn't
great, but it most certainly isn't "deficent".

>
>       In the future?  Probably much of the same.  I would be
>       rather cautious about using WinNT 3.1 1.0... <starting to
>       look like ftp site numbers..>

Agreed.
>
>
>       Other:
>
>       I suspect that NT, when released, will be released for at
>       least Intel and the Alpha at the same time.  The Alpha systems
>       are really waiting for NT, and I can't help but think that
>       DEC, with mounting financial losses, must be getting pretty
>       frustrated.
>
>
>--
> Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?
> Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?
> ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
> ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
>


-- 
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]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy