From: u1056905@aix00.csd.unsw.OZ.AU (Assaf Ungar)
Subject: Re: Request for general information on PCs ...
Organization: University of New South Wales
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:01:47 GMT

In article <BxJ664.Bs@syd.dms.CSIRO.AU> stuarta@syd.dms.CSIRO.AU (Stuart Andrews) writes:

>Windows NT will be a 32bit Operating system in it's own right. No DOS.
>
>And, if you have your ear to the ground, you will know that WinNT
>*is* OS/2 *is* WinNT. Microsoft and IBM have an agreement whereby
>all source code the two companies 'generate' within the next 18 months
>is fair game to each other. They *are* sharing the same source for the
>two products. Got it?

Wrong!! Although M$ and IBM have this agreement on sharing code, NT and OS/2
are based on two completely different approaches. I do not have the technical
info with me, but this has been largely discussed on comp.os.os2.advocacy
(and the likes).
Although NT was originally OS/2 3.0 - M$ not only changed the name of the
product, but is going in a different direction. So much so that it is not
clear at the moment whether NT will be able to run OS/2 2.* applications (I
am pretty sure it can run 1.* apps).

>And now for some personal opinion (all that other stuff is published,
>documented truth)
>
>Win3.1: "A very impressive package. Much more powerful than Win3.0,
>         stable, nice. Very good."
>

I can't argue with you here as my 3.1 experience is pretty limited (spent 
10 hours at the most on it, however, my 4 months of 3.0 completely put me
off it).

>OS/2  : "A half-a-job, poor-man's GUI based OS. Feels shoddy, looks
>         like it was banged together in a fortnight. Stuff all useful
>         features. Un friendly. A crock of shit. Takes the wonder out of
>         why they signed that agreement w/ Microsoft doesn't it?"
>

Hmmm.... what are you basing you opinion on?? I have been using OS/2 2.0 for 
the last 6 months and can tell you that it is the best move I've ever made !

OS/2's WPS (Work Place Shell) is brilliant - it is similar in many ways to
the Mac interface (it was licensed from Xerox, I believe, who were the original
invetors of it). It let's you do basically everything you want. You can have
nested folders as well as drag and drop capabilities for everything you want
basically. It is EXTREMELY flexible - you can make it look like anything you
want - if you prefer Windows' GUI, fair enough, just make it look like it,
if you prefer Mac - go ahead. If you don't like the icons provided change them
you can change everything, every icon (not like in windows where you are 
stuck with the Program Manager icon, for example).
Everything goes on the desktop - you don't need a program manager. There are
many more features which you have to see to understand, but I think it puts
the Windows' GUI to shame. No wonder Norton Desktop is selling like
hot cakes ;)

I don't want to make this another .advocacy group, so please keep this argument
short - if you want to find out more info, please go to the OS2 and Windows
groups :)


>
>au revoir
>
>stuartb, a psuedonym
>stuarta, the *real* stuarta
>
>
>
>-- 
>"Somebody thought of it                 #    "I do not agree with what you say
> And someone believed it                #     But I will fight to the death for
> And look what it's done so far"	#     your right to say it"
>                  (Kermit the Frog)     #               (Rumpole of the Bailey)
>################################################################################
>Stuart Andrews
>stuarta@syd.dms.csiro.au
>Opinions posted here are mine and do not necessarily comply with those of CSIRO

See ya later. Assi.
u1056905@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au
A VERY Happy OS/2 user !!!