From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Re: Windows NT: The Other side of the coin
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:50:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.215713.22059@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:

[ ...flames deleted...]

>Bad points about Windows NT (in no particular order):

Let me do a short term - long term discussion here...

> 1. Few native applications: Currently, there are probably only about
>    100 available applications that are written to the Win32 API.

This occurs with all new OSs.  The important point is whether a new OS
will gain apps in the long term.

> 2. Requires lots of resources: The current beta requires a little over
>    50 MB for a full install (including swap file).  It also requires
>    8 MB of memory, but it'll be slow.  (Some guy on CompuServe had it
>    running in 6 MB, but said that it crawled.)

Slowness in 8 MB is bad news for NT.  As I (and others) stated in other
posts the jump to 16 MB is expensive due to the four-way interleave in
many motherboards.

> 3. Mediocre DOS subsystem: The DOS support in the NT beta is not finished
>    and it shows.  Also see 5. and 6.
>
> 4. Mediocre Win16 subsystem: The 16-bit Windows support in the NT beta
>    is slower than native Windows 3.1.  Also see 5.

This is short term in WRT the beta.  What matters here is how the support
(i.e. compatibility, speed, etc) will be in the long term (when NT is
released).

> 5. Backwards compatibility:  Due to the secure nature of Windows NT, some
>    types of applications will not run without rewritten drivers.
>    These include:
>
>    a. Applications that directly address hardware, such as FAX cards,
>       scanner cards, or terminal emulation cards.
>    b. Applications that rely on their own disk drivers; for example,
>       applications that increase hard disk capacity.
>    c. Applications that directly address disk drives; for example
>       disk maintenance applications.
>    d. Applications that rely on their own graphics device drivers
>       to address the hardware; for example some slide production software.

Not allowing apps to directly address the disk drives is understandable
since these apps may not be aware of what environment they may be in and
inadvertantly destroy something okay in DOS but not okay in OS/2 or NT.
Besides, HPFS and NTFS have a different layout than FAT FS and I don't
see how important it is to emulate the FAT FS internal layout on these
state-of-the-art FSs just for the benefit of a few system utilities.

Does NT have a boot-from-disk feature like OS/2 2.x?  This may be
important for people that need to load a block device driver.

> 6. Stability: The Windows NT October beta crashes once in a while.  In my
>    experience, and that of most others, this is almost entirely related
>    to the DOS subsystem.

Short term here.  Just as long as it gets fixed in the release.

> 7. Cost: It is remotely possible that the final release of Windows NT
>    will cost $499.99.  I doubt it, though, but a lot of OS/2 advocates
>    like to believe that.

Long term here.  A short term deal (like get the beta for $69 and get
the first release free) does little if NT is expensive in the long term.
It will be bad for NT's success if a user has to pay a lot of money for
bug fixes and upgrades.  If the price of NT in the long term is favorable
then people can worry about price in the short term (like some special
introductory price or cross upgrade, etc.).

OS/2 2.x has a favorable long term cost.  In my case, I received OS/2 1.3
in February 92 at its new price of $99 (as opposed to the former price of
$349).  I got my upgrade to 2.0 for free (some people bought OS/2 1.0, 1.1,
or 1.2 for ~$10 at swap meets to get this free offer!!!).  I can get bug
fixes and system enhancements for free if I needed them (for me, all I
needed was one video patch with GA for my brand new video chip that came out
after GA).  I got the Service Pak for free (even though I didn't need it!).
I can get free IBM applets and information from software.watson.ibm.com or
its mirror site at ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (like the electronic version of the
Redbooks, and shiftrun.exe that I just got yesterday).  If I needed 3.1
support, and needed it early, I could have gotten a Win-OS/2 3.1 beta in
October for free.  All this for just $99.  In the future I might expect IBM
to charge for upgrades but I *never* ever received free stuff from a company
like this!  MS might have to match this to make NT attractive.

> 8. Limited installed base: I would guess that there are only 50,000 or
>    so people with the NT Beta.  Actually, I'd guess a bit higher, but
>    it's not significant.

I can understand the low numbers since it is a beta, but I don't see a
large number of people using it in the long term.  The "advantages" that
NT has over OS/2 will not matter to most people.  I think that if they
need more than DOS or DOS+<whatever> they will go to OS/2 over NT.  When
NT is released it will have a hard time playing catch-up with OS/2's
installed base, and it will have to match OS/2's pricing and compatibility
just to stay competitive.

> 9. No new shell: Windows NT comes with Program Manager.  However, the
>    capability exists to add other shells such as NDW.  (NDW is planned
>    for NT).

This is more bad news for NT in the long term.  The point of buying GUI
software is to use the GUI.  I think it makes little sense of advertising,
say Windows 3.1, as a GUI system then having users dump the GUI for a
replacement!  NT inherits this bad feature from Windows, unfortunately.

I suspect that the most popular NT app will be replacement shells made
by independent vendors.  Perhaps the money made on these shells will
exceed the sales of all DOS apps in NT's first year.   #8^)

>10. Limited driver availability: A large number of video cards and other
>    types of hardware are not yet supported with the current beta.

Short term here.  New software usually means few drivers.  Why can't
hardware makers make drivers early?!!  MS and IBM are not nobody!

[ ...semi-flame deleted... ]

>Note that some of these problems also apply to OS/2 2.x (any version).
>I welcome other people's input on this list, especially how you see
>OS/2 compare in these areas.
>
>     - Mike
>
>P.S. - I apologize for posting information about NT in this group, but
>       I'm sure the people that have a problem with it won't mind this
>       particular article.

You posted advocacy-type info about NT here, so that is okay.  Just as long
as no one posts discussion-type info about NT (which would belong in some NT
discussion group) in an OS/2 group.  Examples of NT discussion that would
not be welcome in this OS/2 group is like:

   ``>Where can I get the NT beta and a pizza?
     >Thanks in advance...''

   ``Oh, just call 1-800-xxx-xxxx for NT, and xxx-xxxx for Pizza Hut.
     Hope this helps!''

or

   ``>>I know what HPFS is and NTFS is, but what is ETFS?''

   ``>Evil Timothy F. Sipples :-)''

   ``dont mention name to me.  he very bad person.  he spread FUD
     about our NT.  he is fiend.  he not deserve to live in america.
     send him to foreign place.  i am american since born, but evil
     sipples must be born jupiter or sun.  who stand up to such evil?
     even if we chase evil sipples out of america, some NoS/2 person
     take his place.''

or

   ``>Did anyone hear about the new game applet someone wrote for NT?''

   ``Yes, I installed it yesterday.  In this game you must battle the
     Evil Sipples and his band of Amigoid-like OS/2 users.  They have
     been blinded by the greed of IBM.  Beware:  don't be fooled by
     the Evil Sipples.  He "acts" nice and helpful, but be scared -- be
     very, very scared.''

i.e. when two or more NT people talk to each other.

-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151)    ::  .--.
::   for OS/2 software & information.  Get    :: (OS/2)
:::: the OS/2 FAQL   /pub/os2/all/info/faq :::::  ~--~