Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:30:23 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1993Jan04.184825.3260@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.111435.685@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> >
>     Steve, for what it's worth, I believe that Windows NT didn't run
> on your machine when you tried it.  I will not, though, that you
> didn't go through the installation process at all - you swapped in
> a hard disk, which could result in the system not being properly
> configured for your machine.  "Virtually" identical doesn't mean
> truly identical.

True.....but swapping hard drives between similarly configured PCs with
Inductry Standard parts is common practice. OS/2 doesn't mind as long as the
video card card and I/O adaptors are the same (IDE, not SCSI, etc)

> >and won't even boot up.
> 
>      Maybe this was caused by yanking the hard drive out of so many
> machines and swapping it into others?  All it takes is one good knock
> to hose a hard drive.

The hard drive is fine. It's just the files that have been corrupted through
repeated crashes. The owner has asked me to install his copy of OS/2 on it
before I return it to him. I'll have a go at it tonight. Hopefully, OS/2 will
be able to format over an NTFS disk........
 
Any advice here? :-)

> >If you are going to call me a liar, fine. But I get to say I'm no liar and
> >that I don't like you calling me one in a public forum. I don't for a moment
> >expect you to be big enough to apologise......but you do owe me one.
> 
>     I don't think you're a liar.  I do think that your attempts to
> generalize your personal experience with Windows NT to sweeping
> statements about Windows NT as a whole are FUD, and I've told you
> why.

Unless the quoting was messed up, it was Yamanari who made the statement i
objected to.....not you, Phil. Was it you?

I understand how you feel. You guys have put / are putting / a lot of work
into NT. But I am not alone in finding it to be not terribly stable on
various hardware.......
 
I have no doubt that one day NT will be a fine OS.....but my personal
experience and that of others i know is that the day is not coming in
March...and probably not before August...if then.

The main point of that original post was that MS had a lot of work to do to
get NT ready for market and that OS/2 was here now - and ready to work.

>      And so does Windows NT.  Steve, try getting the original CD, then
> install it properly on your machine and report back.  If you're still
> having trouble with it, I'm sure that someone in the beta program
> will be glad to listen to your bug reports.

My boss isn't very sympathetic to the idea of having 16megs in every
machine.....or even just mine. I had enough trouble just getting 8megs for
OS/2. The 8x1 simm --> 4x4 simm jump is a hurdle i doubt I will get over.
 
Those 4x4 simms are NZ$320 each down here......so the upgrade for NT would be
nearly NZ$1500 by the time GST was added to the cost of the RAM. Plus another
NZ$1,000 forthe additional disk space.
 
My machine won't see NT, I'm afraid. But OS/2 does the job just great on it,
so there is no compelling reason to get NT. 
 
That's not FUD, is it?
 
Steve

 

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand |      
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |        Space for rent.
+64 4 478 4714                          |   - cheap rates, nice location. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 b2.1 ****       |