From: lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (m.l. gore)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 functions, overhead, NT, blah, blah, blah
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:11:02 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>I doubt seriously that OS/2 1.X's main problem was poor DOS support.
>OS/2 1.X had many, many problems.  It was designed for 286's but
>required huge amounts of resources (1.3 was an exception, but OS/2 by
>then had a bad rep... and there was Windows 3.0).  It was buggy.  It
>was slow.  It had no applications base.  It was highly proprietary and
>cost a lot.  It ran (or so most everybody believed) only on IBM's
>over-priced, under-powered hardware.

    Ageeed, though ancient history by todays standards.
>
>NT's DOS support will be better than 1.X's -- IBM's OS/2 2.0 support, while

    Un proved. Will BE is not acceptable. You said yourself that NT dos
    support is mediocre. Actually you said (paraphrasing) that you could run a
game or two. THis does not qualify as good support.

>good for some, is more of an overreaction by a frighten bureacracy, than
>a well thought out feature.  Consider also the testing/maintenace burden

    A-hem, bull paties. WHat kind of powder are you snifing. OS/2 2.o 's dos
    support is better then MS DOS 5 for 90% of applications (estimation.
    probably higher). Not that there isn't room for improvement, especially in
the area of communications, but what other OS allows you to run as many DOS
applications as you like, with a crach protected, though not infallible, shell?
Don't you DARE say NT, Brian.

 >IBM is picking up for OS/2 2.0 -- DOS -- even down to the hardware
>bits level, Windows 2.X, 3.X, Win32s, Win32.  It's possible in the
>near future that OS/2 may run well everyone else's apps, but it mainly
>means there is less incentive for people to make apps for the small 2.0
>native market.
    Of course if mighty Bill would make good on his promise for OS/2 support,
    you would be amazed at the amount of 'native' OS/2 applications, which
    there are quite a few already, would be made available.

    Unfortunately, for now, you are quite correct in saying that there is not
    much need to develope if WinDoze programs run well under OS/2. Of course,
    by saying this, you are indirectly stating that Win/OS2 runs these
    programs well, in fact as well as windows its self. Gee, for a minute
    there it could sound as if you Brian, were complimenting a good feature of
    OS/2. I think I need a drink. THis is too much for me to handle...

>Further the large number of subsystems + IBM's need to maintain its
>reputation for supporting old features for a long period of time, will
>mean that OS/2 development will lag more modern OS's. The back-
>compatibility burden will be huge.  The amount of back-compatibility
>also means a large overhead in disk space needs, more complicated installation,

    A little ironic how you talk about large overheads and quietly leave NT
    out of the conversation, you know NT, Never Too much...


>Any major new feature in OS/2 will have to be geared to be compatible with
>the other platforms.  Imagine they have to support two of many things already!

    Any any other OS that wants to be as powerful as OS/2 won't ? Come on
    already.

>While all users expect their past investment not to disappear immediately,
>experience in the Macintosh community shows that most apps still working
>after a major upgrade is sufficient.  Word from contacts inside Microsoft
>seem to indicate that DOS support in the beta is already well above the
>acceptable level.  (Only a few more days till the beta ships!!!)


    What> I though the beta was already in use by > 20,000. You ( and others) al
   praise NT, and have talked about it as if it was a beta. Now when the true
   beta is released, many of your former beta's shortcomings will be solved
   (though I wouldn't pat M$ on the back yet). I sure hope you (supporters,
   not just you) don't act as if these improvements make NT useable adn a
   marketable OS. IT is still far from the shelves, hence far from my hard
   drive.

   Once again, I beg you brian to try to salvage up some shreds of objectivity
   when posting. Whatever IBM did to you, or what you think they did to you,
   has no bearing on the quality of these products.


                                            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,