From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:48:45 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep3.234501.28636@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>BRIEF EXPLAINATION OF WHY I SHOW THE BASIC SYSTEM PACKAGES FIRST
>
>The base features of an OS make a lot of difference in what sort
>of apps will be developed for it.  For example a recent freeware
>program for the Macintosh used sound clips from a recent Bush speech
>to randomly generate new speeches.  If it were not the case that
>all modern Macintoshes have sound support in hardware and software,
>it would have been much less likely the author would have gone to
>the trouble.  Another example, suppose there is a telephone package
>that answer/logs/places calls using a specialized board.  Under NT
>everybody has RPC, so it would not be surprising to find such a
>package having a feature that could alert another system via RPC
>that a call has come in, likewise it could send the notification
>(or even a WAV file of a saved voice-message) via e-mail as there
>is a built-in Mail API in NT and the MM features are there to play
>back the message under a Windows 3.X or NT system.
>
>As OS/2 currently markets features such as MM and RPC as options, how
>likely do you think it is developers would use them in main-stream
>applications, especially low-end ones?

I don't disagree with your point, but I think network support was a
bad choice of example.  The Mac software makes use of all this because
not only does the system support the sounds, the necessary hardware is
built in.

Networks involve hardware outlays.  Your example doesn't seem to carry
as much weight, since lots of money is spent by installations to get
the hardware necessary to use NT.  Of course, that hardware would have
to be purchased for OS/2 as well, so NT is still cheaper in that
regard.

A better example would have been the inclusion of MultiMedia for the
following reasons:

1) Sound cards are cheap.  Many many DOS users have them, since most
   games all but require one.  It is reasonable to assume that large
   numbers of home users (who are big time users of shareware/freeware) 
   will have this hardware.

2) CD-ROMs are getting cheaper.  It will be likely that users will
   have them in increasing numbers as the amount of CD software
   increases and the price of it decreases.  I'm not using this
   argument for networks, because a network implies at least one other 
   complete system to connect to - this isn't as justifiable in a
   small (like home) installation.  Again, this is my opinion.  I'm
   not knocking the value of home-LANs, but I think a home CD-ROM
   player is much more likely to get popular in the here-and-now.

If users have support for these things built in to the OS (or
available bundled at no extra cost by enterprising dealers), then the
small-time markets will pick up on it much quicker than if users have
to buy it.

Anyway, getting back to the point, I'm not disagreeing with your point
of more OS-built-in features being better, but I think you could have
chosen a better example than networking.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil which
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   abrogates some of the advantages of making a
 ((|,)                          disagreeable person keep his distance."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy