From: lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (m.l. gore)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Objectivity, name-calling, Os/2 NT, Windows, you name it...
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:44:40 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>>>
>>> NT's DOS support will be better than 1.X's -- IBM's OS/2 2.0 support, while
>>> good for some, is more of an overreaction by a frighten bureacracy, than
>>> a well thought out feature.  Consider also the testing/maintenace
>>
>>In other words, including excellent msdos support in OS/2 is an act
>>of a frightened bureaucracy, but including the same support in NT is
>>a wise design feature? Interesting.
>
>Are you just being an asshole, or did you misread my statement above?
>NT's support is better than that in 1.X.  OS/2 2.0 goes way overboard
>with 40 or so options. It's hard to configure, and it raises users level
>of expectation that all their DOS apps should work.
>Microsoft "learned their lesson", but they did not overreact like IBM did.

    WHo's the asshole here: the person commenting on a bogus statement, of the
    bogus statement's author name-calling the other guy for picking on the
    author's mistake/impartiality/lie? You tell me Brian.

    I don't want this to sound like a personal vendetta, but brian how the
    hell can you tell me that NT's support (so far) is better then old OS/2
    when it is not _proven_ that NT handels DOS well.

    Which is better: a DOS support that works only if the DOS program fits
    into certian standards determined by the settings of the OS, or DOS
    support that includes a variety of options that allow the user to try to
    configure a DOS program that is irregular, giving them a chance to run the
most amount of DOS programs available. Your logic here stinks, and is wreaking
of contradiction.
>>
>>Well there are x people out there running OS/2, and not a single
>>person running NT because it's still vaporware. Regardless of the
>>value of x, x>>0, thus the market for native OS/2 apps is tremendously
>>bigger than NT's.
>
>Odd... I'm running NT.  The beta starts in a few days. This is vaporware?

    Agreed, its not vapor ware, but FAR from a stable, product _as promised_ .
>
>Oh, so you are trying to be an asshole.


    Please Brian. Don't continue to call people assholes. If you want that,
    then I am sure your mail box will be filled with people who don't agree
    with some of your FUD. I know many colorful metaphores, but does that make
my points more valid? No. Name calling is a sign of weakness, either because
you have no ground to stand on, or no backbone to admit a mistake.

>
>>the same thing, coming out with new, 32bit os's, and including support
>>for older apps so people can make a smooth transition. (Of course,
>>the support is real with OS/2, yet-to-be-seen with NT). Pray tell us
>>why is it that OS/2 will collapse under the burden of compatinility,
>>while NT won't, if it's doing the same thing?? You are making a basic
>
>No OS/2 and NT are not doing the same things in terms of compatibility.
>NT's has simpler DOS compatibility and it also supports 1.X character
>mode apps.  The 1.X character mode apps are simple to support as their
>console subsystem is essentially a cleaned-up superset of 1.X character
>mode.  The 16-bit Windows apps are much easier to do for them
>as NT's graphics mode is basically a clean-ed up superset of the old API.

    You say simpler DOS compatibility. Is this by design, or in real life
    Brian? Again, from the info gathered by reading hundreds of your and other
    people's posts on NT, DOS support, as of now, is WEAK in function.

>>apps appear, compatibility will be less and less of an issue.
>>
>>Saying NT is better just because it's better is a clearly redundant
>
>I never said NT is better (though it is). I said that OS/2, because
>it has such a heavy compatibility burden, will have a hard time
>keeping up with its competitors -- too many resources will have to
>be dedicated to maintaining the compatibility and too many compromises
>will have to be made in future enhancements in order to allow
>that compatibility.

    Bull up to your eyes. You say it here and you posts are laced with it: You
    have always stood ground that NT was better. Of course, you foundations
    seem to shake continuously. A little honesty, please. Just once.
>
>Window 3.X and DOS 5.0 are not usable?
>Given the underlying design decisions, I think they are excellent products.
>Really, the only time I've seen Microsoft make an "unusable" product was when
>they worked with IBM on OS/2.


    Useable is strictly a matter of opinion. You tell me how the combination
    of a mediocre, outdated OS and a fancy memory swapping GUI that cannot
    multitask well, and can easily be brought to a halt, can be toted as an
    excellent product in a market where an OS exists that far surpasses these
    standards of 'excellence'?

        There are many aspects of M$'s own WIndows that are unusable. Let's
        see... background format, File manager, many Dos games, ...


    Some things it does quite well, especially given the heinous conditions of
    Dos, but lets not go overboard and lets these strengths cover up glaring
    weaknesses, but that would take objectivity, something you are convincing
    me that you lack, Brian.


                                            later,

                                            bvl
-- 

   ---------------------------------
  | Brian Van Lieu                  |    Lehigh University:
  | Lehigh University               |
  | lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu          |      Where the Men are Men,
  |                                 |
  | ' You can't change the world    |      The Women are Men,