From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 13:09:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.231336.6516@gw.wmich.edu> 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:

>	Not "sophisticated" enough?  Come now, that's nonsense.
>It is not a released product and that is why it was not mentioned.
>Even if it was thrown out the door right now it would not likely have
>beaten out OS/2 2.0.  They would probably have said something along the
>lines of: "A great technological piece of software but without reliable
>DOS support and unremarkable Windows support, NT is clearly for a niche."


	I suspect that part of the reason OS/2 isn't getting rave reviews
	is that it's really "not there" yet.
 
	Windows is a joke to install.  run setup, swap disks.  No 
	matter who you are or what your system is, I doubt you'll
	fail to install--_properly_--on the first attempt.

	It is also a joke to learn to use.  Sure, the program manager
	is clumsy, and the GUI isn't so hot (although I truly enjoy
	using Word for Windows 2.0 or Ami Pro 3.0 a lot more than I 
	do using many Mac word processors--need to know something, but
	it slipped your mind?  Use help.) 

	It may not do many things well (i.e. as a dos multitasker
	it's a real dog, and windows multitasking--I do not care
	to argue this point--bites the big one.  It may be designed
	for cooperative, but the stupid programs tend not to be..
	Great alt-tab task switching, though..)..

	Aside from the multitasking aspect, it lacks a few other
	technical goodies that would make it more comfortable
	to use--i.e. smart refresh windows.  I don't know about
	anyone else, but I consider it pretty damn irritating to
	watch Corel Draw or MakeUp redraw their screens (slowly)
	just because another window overlapped theirs for some
	brief time.  I know this sucks memory, but it _should_ 
	be there.  It could be adapted to low memory systems 
	(i.e. if there's no memory, the system dumps the idea and
	goes back to the old way of having them smart refresh...)..
	Even on a 486dx-2 16 meg local bus system these delays
	(amazingly long for MakeUp, as a matter of fact--what is
	it with that program??) still waste time.

	OS/2 on the other hand.  A user is probably lucky if they
	get OS/2 to install on the first shot on any random system--
	particularly if that system is a good one--the kind ideal
	for running OS/2 but that OS/2 doesn't like--i.e. the
	new Gateway 2000 local bus systems, anything with a decent
	high-refresh rate video card, etc. etc. etc. On these systems,
	the user is lucky if they can get OS/2 to install _at all_
	without tech support (in fairness, they are probably able to
	get all of the files on the system--just not boot).

	It is _not_ the least bit easy to learn to use the WPS.  If
	I had to order the Program Manager, Mac, NeXTStep and the WPS
	in order of "someone can just sit down and use it" the WPS
	would come in tenth, right after the DOS command line.  Once
	you _learn_, of course, it is very nice [read: consistant, 
	which I consider _the_ most critical value]--but it's not 
	any less difficult to learn than a command line is, which
	is a serious knock against it.

	Further, the documentation--even if someone bought the 
	OS/2+Que "Using OS/2 2.0" package--sucks.  There is no
	more accurate description.  The documentation that came with
	my 1985 1.0 Amiga 1000 was vastly superior to this crap.
	I don't consider online documentation sufficient, especially
	if the user can't get the damn system to run do to one or
	two things in the config.sys file.  

	If the user is able to get it installed, and they 
	go through the tutorial, they should be O.K. but will
	still be making a lot of mistakes.  This is especially
	a problem because OS/2 must [should] be _shutdown_
	and these users are used to--if they get confused or
	are finished--rebooting directly or turning the system
	off, which causes problems.

	I have no technical problems with OS/2 at all, aside from the
	Win-OS2 support [which, even to someone who's got that "it 
	may be clumsy but it will let me run windows programs under
	OS/2 which is an amazing feat" thought in their mind, bites] 
	and the single thread message que bit (which has been beaten
	to death--Please, no one bring it up..).  I would like to see
	the system fully 32 bit coded and a lot less buggy (there
	should be _NO_ possibility of a program, no matter how 
	badly coded, knocking off others or bringing down the system--
	and this _does_ happen in 2.0  [and don't tell me it's not
	possible, because 1.3 was a lot more bullet proof]), but
	it's good enough for now.

	Is IBM really serious about os/2? (IMHO, they're suprised
	about it's success.  I honestly believe that one of the bigger
	reasons that they stuck with OS/;2 despite the abyssmal 
	sales/respect that <2.0 versions had was corporate 
	(or departmental) pride)...
	
	If they were really serious about OS/2, and getting it into
	the mainstream market, then they would fix _immediately_ the
	really basic problems--documentation and system compatibility.

	We hear a lot on here about this configuration and that 
	configuration being OS/2 clumsy or OS/2 "wont work quite right" 
	and so on.  If the system has memory that works (no errors)
	and a VGA compatible video card, a harddisk that works, a
	mouse and a keyboard--OS/2 _should_ install and _work_
	properly.  Let the user change his settings to higher
	resolution, whatever, ONCE IT'S RUNNING PROPERLY!  I can't
	think of any OS for the PC offhand that has this much trouble
	with hardware (DOS/Windows certainly has no troubles, but
	Coherent seems to work fine on just about any system, I don;t
	remember Xenix having these types of problems and I doubt
	the offerings from Sun and Univel have some of these weird
	flakes).  

	Once they did these two things--heck, the first would be 
	enough for the short-term--the situation would be much 
	more OS/2 friendly.

	Oh, yeah, they should change the minimum requirements on 
	the BOX to 6 or 8 megs.  This _IS_ different from MS's 
	rec of a 1 meg 80286--because most systems _ship_ with
	the MS minumum, but most do not ship with the OS/2 minimum--
	Joe User who has added 2 megs extra ram to his 2 meg 386
	machine is going to think, "Well, I added more than was necessary
	for X so it ought to run fine" -- not "Well, this is the 
	minimum requirement so it's probably a stupid corporate
	lie and I'd better have twice that" because he NEVER gave
	any thought to the Windows minimum req because it never
	came up--he's probably never given any thought to the 
	minumum requirement for _any_ piece of software 
	(i.e. Wordperfect) because his system ran it just fine.

	Maybe they're just sitting on their laurels waiting for
	the PowerPC.  Anyone know how / if OS/2 will tie in there?

	












-- 
 Robert Stephen Rodgers  ||  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu  || IRC: Yamanari
 --------NeXTmail-preferred!!--------------------------------------
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8532 comp.os.os2.misc:36790