From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:44:44 GMT
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Well, I just got off the OS/2 bboards, and I got bored, so here I am, an
OS/2 2.01 beta lover and ready to do battle. . .

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 2-Oct-92 Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2
and Window.. by Bill Coleman@hayes.com 
> System 7 features: 
> * Scalable fonts (Windows has, OS/2 not)
OS/2 comes with ATM built in, NOT Truetype like Windows 3.1 and System 7

> * InterApplication communication, with provisions for App to App
>communications using standard terminology (AppleEvents), on the same
machine
>or over a network. (Windows not, OS/2 not)

I guess not, what are the benefits? (Not a flame, I really want to know)

> * Support for "live copy and paste" between applications that aren't running
>   concurrently, or are running on different machines on a network. (Not, Not)

The first thing sounds alot like DDE and OLE, which both have.  The
second one, you're right.

> * Built-in support for standard 24-bit color, with automatic interpolation
>   to differing bit depths. The ability to support multiple monitors with
>   differing depths, and to change the depth on the fly. (Not, Not)


> * Human Interface Guidelines and standards sufficient to form consistancy 
>   between applications (Not, Perhaps)

IBM Cua (Common User Access(Something like that))  Recently revised in
1991- totally object oriented.  Workplace Shell conforms to this.  Check
out the CUA Demo IBM has.  It's cool. 

> * Built-in support for an SQL dialect (Not, Yes?)

Not sure, I'm not a big database person, we do have Extended Services
which comes with a Database server, I'm not sure about the standard
package.

> * Support for the localization of Sorting order, Data and Time formats,
>   currency, measurement, calenders and numbers (Not, Not)

Umm, what's this?  A control panel?  We have them.  They're all in Settings.

> * Standard support for temporal data, graphics data compression, both for
>   static and real-time graphics and sound. (QuickTime) (Not, Not) 
>   (Although Windows will eventually get QuickTime when Apple ports it over)

OS/2 may be getting the Intel thing for multimedia.  (Not sure, is the
Intel standard for hardware only? or is it for software too?)  OS/2
already has MMPM  Multimedia for Presentation Manager.
(This is only my opinion:  QuickTime isn't all that great.  I've seen
stuff on IIci's with 8 megs of ram, etc. (ie, a higher end setup)  and a
quicktime movie was demoed for me.  First, it was a small window, only
like 160x160(?), and what really got me was how jumpy it was.  That was
weird because there was _nothing_ else in memory.  That was the only
app.  Tell me if this is just really bad performance.)

> * Standard color picker (Not, Not)

Do you mean like a control panel?  Or some system level thing
controlling the pallette or something like that?  Control panels: yes.

> * Support for timing to the millisecond level (Time Manager) (Not, Perhaps)

Not sure.

> * Aliases. (Not, Perhaps under HPFS?)

Yep, they're called shadows though.

> * Automatic slot conflict resolution (NuBus and Slot Manager) (Not, Not)
>   ( MCA helps, but it isn't automatic )

In the PC world, hardware and operating systems are basically
independent of each other.  By this I mean that in the PC world, if you
make an OS with hardware dependence, then you risk not supporting the
thousands Taiwanese clones.  
BTW, tell me if I'm wrong, not all Macs come with NuBUS right?
Another point, I haven't really ever seen serious hardware conflicts. 
That's with an Ethernet card, and a Soundblaster, and all the extra
stuff that should be on the motherboard but isn't (drive controller,
video, actually, if you want to be technical, Ethernet too).

> * Power management for battery-powered machines. (Not, Not)

Win 3.1 has that.  I think it's called APM or something.  Not sure about OS/2.
  
> System 7.1:
> * Features to support virtually all known forms of written human
communication
>   using WorldScript. (Not, Not)

Well, I guess I shouldn't say this, but I will.  What's the real
importance of this?  Go ahead flame away.

> * Support for multiple scripts (writing systems) within the same edit field.

? Don't know.  Please explain.  Again, I really want to know what this is.

Now let me start. . .

Pre-emptive multitasking.  Yeah, I know it's been on the net before, but
I'll reiterate it's importance.  It's important so that one app can't
take over the whole system.  This is great for communications because if
one app doesn't release control to a background program doing file
transfer, you'll lose the transfer.  There are other things, but in a
world where networking and communications are becoming the norm (enough
so that System 7 includes basic networking, NT will be released with it,
WPS IS network aware (just doesn't include the apps), Windows for
Workgroups, and of course UNIX), preemptive multitasking could be needed
more.

Multithreaded operation.  This too has probably been on the net before,
but it's important too.  Example:  while in a word processor, I can
select print, and before the word processor is done sending the file to
the spooler, I'm back at my cursor and I can edit it or whatever.  There
are more examples of where threading is useful, but I'm tired because
it's now 1:30. . .

Last one, (Just to get your blood temp up to about 10000000000 degrees!)
NO COMMAND LINE!!!

Why do I want one?  How do you set a path for running programs in a
folder 5 or 6 deep?  You have to dbl-click, dbl-click, etc. . .  Just
set a path and type in the command, and you're running it.


Well, that should be enough.  Just a little bit more...
One, I won't even bother defending DOS/Win or even NT.  Their interface
blows chunks.
Two, I do like Finder.  There are just a few things I don't like about
it.  However, I do like the way its desktop is setup (Except the menu
bar)  The standard OS/2 desktop is sooooo disorganized.  Macs have the
drives in the top right corner, trash in the bottom right corner. 
That's what I've got in my setup.  Except I also have a printer object
which you Mac people don't.

I agree that the User Interface is MUCH more than just file management. 
I truly think that if the number of WPS-native apps was on the same
magnitude of Mac apps, then WPS would be much better and even more
integrated than the Mac setup.  Yes, the Mac setup is Excellent.  For
the most part (except those black sheep), it's very consistent, allowing
people to apply knowledge of one app to another.  Of course I'm only
speculating, but because WPS is actually an object oriented application,
I think that consistency could be much higher than in Mac. 
Unfortunately, there are currently maybe only one or two WPS apps out. 
I haven't seen any, except Describe which I use.  They are due out this
quarter or next, so we'll see how good a job IBM did with WPS.

Well, I'm rambling on so later. . .

Carl Jabido
cj00@andrew.cmu.edu
carl@captainjack.ws.cc.cmu.edu