From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: os/2 and nt
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:46:38 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In message <2986#accucx.cc.ruu.nl>, nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de
Vries) writes:

BdH>Actually, no. Given the problems that OS/2 has with supporting backlevel
BdH>OS (Windows, DOS) in addition to its own code, I'd say that the  efforts
BdH>are probably about equal. OS/2 has the advantage in terms of the  amount
BdH>of existing code; NT has the advantage of a considerably cleaner  design
BdH>without having  to maintain  the campatability  with other  systems that

NEDV>NT is SUPPOSED to become DOS, Windows and OS/2 1.3 (no PM) compatible. I
NEDV>fail to understand the advantage of less compatibility than OS/2 you
NEDV>mention. I have to admit MS limits itself to the to 100 Windows and DOS
NEDV>apps but that leaves enough problems to solve.

The advantage (as such) is that  support for OS/2 1.3 was designed  into
the NT  system, unlike  OS/2, where  support for  Windows 3.0  had to be
reverse  engineered.  That's  why  Windows  support in OS/2 goes through
seperate screen  groups, has  seperate video  drivers, etc.  The Windows
support isn't part of the kernel design. Backlevel compatability was was
part of the NT  kernel design, apparently. You'd  have to ask Letwin  or
one of the NT gurus for more details, though.

BdH>OS/2 does. Obviously, OS/2 was here first. But I'd say that NT is pinned
BdH>at  about  a  year  behind  OS/2.  Given  that  NT  is considerably more
BdH>ambitious, I'd put them at about an equal footing.

NEDV>OS/2 is not standing still either. The Mach kernel planned to be used
NEDV>will give it more platforms than NT, stuff like B2 security, multiprocessin
NEDV>(symetric I believe) and POSIX compliance are in the queue as well. That
NEDV>does make OS/2 as ambitious as OS/2 I think.

I  spoke  with  Bob  Blair  of  IBM  (head  of  their  OS2POSIX   group)
specifically  about  the  point  of  Posix  conformance.  IBM's official
position is  that it  is a  "future direction".  That could  easily mean
1997. IBM  has _no_  official plans  for Posix  support within the short
term.

BdH>And from what we've seen of NT, porting an existing Win3[01] application
BdH>to it is no worse or better than porting the same application to OS/2.

NEDV>Correct. In both cases (in a while, not now) recompilation will be possible
NEDV>In both cases utilizing native features (especially Cairo/WPS) will take
NEDV>some rewriting.

Writing portable code that supports specific OS features has always  had
this problem, though. It isn't unique to OS/2 or NT.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Shopping tip: Shoes are $.85 at bowling alleys.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044