From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 21:36:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.181435.17645@husc3.harvard.edu> chandoni@husc8.harvard.edu writes:
>rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer) writes:
>(from an IBM press release)
>>  PC/Computing on Sunday named OS/2 2.0 co-winner of the
>                                         ---------
>>  operating system/environment award as part of its annual
>>  "Most Valuable Products" (MVP) awards ceremony.  In
>>  selecting OS/2 2.0 for this honor, the editors of
>>  PC/Computing stated, "this is the operating system Windows**
>>  3.1 should have been."
>
>Co-winner???  What product was the other co-winner... the NT
>beta?  Or did this competition include OS's for other machines
>(i.e. Nextstep or System 7)?

No, the co-winner was Windows 3.1, OS/2 is not sophisticated enough
to compete with Windows NT yet, nor is Windows NT released yet.
I read the PC/Computing article, and it was soundly based.
Here's the piece that deals with Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0
[PC/Computing, December 1992, Page 190]

Never in the history of _PC/Computing's_ Most Valuable Product awards
have the editors pondered, argued, and even shouted as much as they
have in the debate over whether Windows 3.1 or OS/2 2.0 deserves the
top honors in our operating environment category. In a nutshell,
here's what all the yelling came down to.

Those rooting for Windows pointed to all the major improvements in
what has become the modern operating environment of choice:
TrueType, built-in sound and other multimedia support, 32-bit file
access, more speed, and better protection against crashes. Plus,
there was the avalanche of products for Windows 3.1. This past year
was the first in which more Windows software was sold than DOS software.
If 1992 was anything, it was the year of Windows.

OS/2 2.0 may be a technological achievement, but an operating system
can't exist in a vacuum.  There's no rush of software developers to
take advantage of OS/2'2 technological features.  Sure, it can run
DOS and Windows programs, but that's not the same thing. How can we
award an MVP to a product that failed to capture the enthusiasm of
software creators?

Fans of OS/2, however, point to the advantages it provides over
Windows: enforced multitasking, an enhanced file allocation table, a
high-performance file system, a more efficient flat-memory model up
to 4GM [actually 2.0 is limited to 512K do to the way 1.X back-
compatibility is handled], and the ability to run 32-bit applicaitons
as well as Windows and DOS applications. This is the operating
system Windows should have been.

As for Windows, OS/2 proponents say, it's just a pretty shell on top
of DOS (and one that users feel they have to augment with still
other shells). OK, Version 3.1 has some improvements over 3.0, but
not enough to deserve top MVP honors.

The truth is, all those arguments are valid. Is either Windows or
OS/2 the ultimate operating environment? [No... that's Windows NT! :-)]
Not by a long shot. We'll see improvements in both that take takes
us closer to perfect computing, but that state of grace isn't here
yet.  Are OS/2 and Windows both part of the future of computing? You
bet. The days of the text-based interface are numbered. We all will
be using a graphical interface within a few years, and both Windows
and OS/2 will be the major players in determining what that
interface is like.

Ordinarily at _PC/Computing_ we pride ourselves on cutting through
the mishmash of specs, claims, and spurious features in products so
that we can make clear, no-nonsense recommendations that help you,
our readers. But in this case, to choose either OS/2 2.0 or Windows
3.1 over the other is to do you a disservice. It suggests you're
better off committing whole heartedly to one of the environments.
That's simplistic rather than helpful.

In fact, the best situation for computer users is one in which two
major companies are battling it out to create a better operating
system, and the best step you can take right now is to use both
Windows and OS/2.  You're likely to decide on one over the other,
but that's not what's important. What is, is that you'll widen the
horizons of you computing exerience an take two giant steps toward
the future.

That's why this year we're splitting the honors: The winners of the
MVP for best operating environment are OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1.  May
they both thrive.

--------

One other note: in a recent article someone said that PC/Computing "threw
Microsoft a bone" in giving Microsoft Windows for Workgroups the best Network.
This is nonsense, WfW is the best peer-to-peer product around.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                   I strongly encourage you to mail your copy
University of Utah                     of Ross Perot's:  "United We Stand
Center for Software Science            How we can take back our country",
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373        to President-elect Clinton.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy