From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is NT vs OS/2 really the subject?
Date: 10 Sep 92 04:42:03 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep9.131538.25269@hellgate.utah.edu>, brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@c
s.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.175602.840@debet.nhh.no> si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no writes:
>>Regarding the OS/2 vs NT or vice versa discussion...
>>
>>Is really Microsoft trying to go head to head with OS/2 with NT, or is
>>OS/2 not the main competitor?
>>
>>The following thing makes me ask...
>>
>>NT is clearly a server operating system, with a lot of things bundeled
>>which the traditional computer user with his PERSONAL computer will not
>>need. This is mainly in the network section.
>>
>>NT is very hardware demanding in its base package.
>>
>>NT does NOT run Windows 3.X and DOS programs well enough, and therefore
>>is not a competitor in the YET ANOTHER DOS MULTITASKER arena.
>>
>>Is really Microsoft aiming at UNIX with NT. Is it actually UNIX they are
>>trying to get at?
>>
>>Just wondered...
>>
>>Terje Bergesen (Mr.)  |  SI0_TB90020@debet.nhh.no  |  terjeb@blh.no
>>
>
>The the statement I've heard most consistently from Microsoft regarding the
>positioning of NT is that it for high-end desktop through high-end workstations
>and servers.
>
>Thus it is clearly positioned against Unix.  As to whether or not it is
>positioned against OS/2... it depends on how you view where OS/2 is positioned.

This sounds about right.
>
>If OS/2 really slims down to 4 megs, then clearly it hits a class of machine
>that NT is not designed for.

Again this sound right.  NT seems to aim higher than OS/2 currently does.
>
>One thing that was clear from MS's statements at the developer conference was
>that Microsoft viewed NT as THE OS for everyone 2 years from now.
>If you consider that in 1Q93 (when NT is likely to be released) that a 486SX
>25 with 8 megs and a 200 meg drive will probably cost right at $2,000... they
>are probably quite right.
>
The question is, does everyone else think so?  (smile everyone)

>I am not sure why you say that NT contains a lot of features that a Personal
>Computer won't need.  Networking is already quite common at most places.
>2 years from now, it should be reasonably common even in a home environment
>as people buy more than one computer.  In the interim... what makes you believe
>that NT won't have a selective install?  (It all ready has a minor one,
>in that you don't have to install all the networking.)  The networking
>in NT's base package is designed to make setting up a SMALL
>(< 2 dozen systems?) network easy.  This is perfect for small business and
>the adventurous home user.

NT does have a lot of feature that PCs don't need.  Symetric Multiprocessing,
high level networking, and innumerable others, that many PCs (particularly
those in the home) simply have no need for.  What small business will even
begin to tap NT's potential.  It makes more sense to buy a smaller system that
has only the features you need and that can grow instead of a large one which
you will never use to its fullest anyway.
>
>Logons (as I've explained before) are useful to anyone that shares their
>computer with another person as it allows separate Desktops, colors, etc.

True, but you don't necisarily need NT for this.  Many other system do it as
well.
>
>The OS-type features are helpful in attracting developers and lead
>to better quality applications.

True, but that has little to do with the rest of your post.
>
>RPC is a design methodology that works on the local system as well as
>remote ones.
>
>Symmetric multiprocessing isn't very useful to the home user yet, but 5
>years from now I'm not so sure.

C'mon.  The P5 will hit the market at the beginning of next year.  The 386
which is dominant now was introduced in 87.  Thats five years ago.  I do not
think we will be seeing many multiprocessor machines for quite some time.
>
>NTFS is simply a fast modern file system.

So's HPFS.  Big deal.
>
>E-Mail API's and OLE are clearly user oriented features.
These too don't require NT on your PC.
>
>In the end I would have to say it is designed for a personal workstation
>that's connected to the world.

Well, my machine could qualify as a workstation in the barest sense, and it
has almost all the features you listed above and a number pertaining to
conectivity you didn't.  I do not and will not require NT to do this, I run
OS/2.  Facts are, for PCs, NT doesn't really offer that much of an advantage.
(Workstations of course are another matter altogether.)


Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------