From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Pause before you consider OS/2 (was Re: Win 3.1 not THAT great.)
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:25:12 GMT

First, to preface my comments, Infoworld was writing based apparently
on a beta version and without seeing the Comdex rollout (and Windows
3.1).  Anyway...

In article <10APR199216033656@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>>According to InfoWorld:
>>OS/2 2.0 will *not* be compatable with Windows 3.1

Lee Reiswig demonstrated Windows 3.1 (and applications) running
seamlessly on the OS/2 2.0 desktop using fresh-out-of-the-lab code.
It is widely rumored that Windows 3.1 support will be added in the
form of a CSD this summer, and that backward compatibility with
Windows 2.x (real mode) will be maintained (Windows 3.1 drops it).

>>OS/2 2.0 will *not* support SVGA or XGA graphics modes. (The
>>	 above poster's comments about OS/2 supporting a 32-bit 
>>	 SVGA engine, notwithstanding.)

Er, no.  Out of the box you might call OS/2 2.0 "SuperVGA-aware."
SuperVGA is not a hardware standard, thus individual vendors will be
delivering drivers (just as with Windows 3.x).  Trident has already
come through, others are soon to follow.  IBM will help distribute
such drivers.

(Incidently, I find it puzzling that "SuperVGA" is suddenly thrown
around like the name for a hardware standard when the press discusses
OS/2 2.0.  It is as if Windows doesn't require a driver from a
manufacturer.  Hmmm...)

Both VGA and XGA support seamless Windows on the desktop (i.e. full
support).  The 8514/A support is all there save for the seamless
Windows feature (you can still run a high resolution Windows desktop
-- or two or three...)

>>OS/2 2.0 Windows emulation will support only one Windows application
>>         per Window, and they are several orders of magnitude slower
>>	 than just running in Windows. You can switch OS/2 2.0 to
>>	 full screen Windows mode, and your Windows performance
>>	 goes way up.

The last sentence is true (which of course is the way you run Windows
itself; you can't run Windows applications alongside OS/2
applications, so why should there be a complaint when doing something
a different way than Windows is slower -- it's comparing apples and
oranges).  "Several orders of magnitude" is of course wild hyperbole.
If it were literally true we'd be talking about Windows running on
ENIAC.  The first part is flat out false (or at least the writer isn't
making any sense).

Incidently, it seems that a full screen Windows desktop running under
OS/2 2.0 running one or more Windows applications is faster than
Windows 3.0.  Whatever optimization Microsoft did in their 3.1 release
should translate just as well when IBM issues a 3.1 update to their
Win-OS/2.

>>OS/2 2.0 will not support full-blown pre-emptive multitasking for
>>         another 12-18 months. (Not sure what they meant by this,
>>	 but it didn't smell right.) At that time, Windows NT
>>	 will be on the scene.

No, that's multiprocessing, not multitasking.  But if I had to think
of a feature the vast majority of people DON'T need (and won't need
for quite some time) it would be this one.  Multiprocessing systems
are extremely rare right now, and the hardware standards need a lot of
work (translation: there are none).

Raise your hand if you have more than one Intel CPU in the PC sitting
on your desk (people with 487 chips don't count).  I think I see one
hand way in the back...  :-)

And about NT: first, we really don't know when it will come.  Or what
it will look like.  Or how much of a system it will require.  But,
honestly, how can you compare realware with vaporware (and "12-18
month" vaporware at that)?  Anyone remember the original release date
for Desqview/X?  Windows 3.1?  VisiOn?  Even OS/2 2.0 was three months
late.  Software companies have, for a long time now, seriously
underestimated the time required to complete a product and deliver it
in stable form.

>>Moral: If you are buying OS/2 for OS/2...great. Do it..multithreading
>>       is a good thing, and OS/2 has it. If you are buying OS/2 
>>       'cuz you want to run mostly Windows applications in OS/2's
>>       PM...you might want to rethink that.

No, I disagree on several grounds.  One is that DOS was left out.
OS/2 2.0 is a great DOS multitasker.  Quite excellent, in fact.
Second, if speed is the most important thing to you you can run your
Windows applications just as they run under Windows itself (i.e. on a
full screen Windows desktop).  It really doesn't make sense to damn
OS/2 for giving you an option not even available under Windows and
then criticizing it for executing Windows applications slower in that
mode.

If you're doing any Windows programming, OS/2 2.0 is a great place to
do it (because you can give Windows applications interapplication
protection, i.e. one won't bring other applications down with it).
Also, it has got a wonderful GUI called the Workplace Shell, which, as
Infoworld puts it, "Puts Windows to shame."

I really think the biggest hurdle is hardware, and you should be aware
of the requirements up front.  You need some hard disk space (how much
will vary depending on which options you select and how much already
on your hard disk OS/2 2.0 replaces).  You need a 386SX or better --
OS/2 2.0 doesn't operate on a 286.  You need 4 MB RAM minimum, and
more RAM boosts performance.  These requirements aren't unreasonable,
but there is a great deal of hardware out there not yet ready.
-- 
Timothy F. Sipples       Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu  List, available via anonymous ftp from
Dept. of Economics       128.123.35.151, directory pub/os2/faq, or via
Univ. of Chicago  60637  netmail from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET.