Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: DOS/Win compatibility: How important is it? (was Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta)
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:34:39 MST
Distribution: na,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <Qeq6SI200WB644qmoN@andrew.cmu.edu>, jyri+@CMU.EDU (Jyri Virkki) writes:
> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>> Jyri writes:
>> >I am not willing to put up with anything less powerful than unix.
>> 
>> My, my, what a power user you must be! :)
> 
>A flawed implication. Why should I, or any user, choose to use an
>os that is less capable, if a better one exists?

Because the *application* you want to run is unavailable except on
the less capable os?  For instance, DOS is much less "powerful" than
Unix, but there are some things I run on DOS that Unix (or whatever
weirdo variant I find) can't handle.

> The better one can
> cover everything the lesser one can, and more. Even if you don't use
> the extra power 98% of the time, it's still there for those 2% when
> you do need it.

With *software*, this statement definitely does not hold.  I assume you
want everybody to learn unix, because even though 98% of the PC-
owning population would be lost at sea trying to learn it, the other 2%
would take full advantage of its power?  Or, everyone should be using 
dbase IV instead of Windows Cardfile to store their rolodex?

> So instead of having to go to great contortions to
> overcome the limits of the bad os, you simply keep doing your work.
> Which is more efficient? Me, I'll take the powerful os.

As an app user, not a programmer, I'm happy to say that most of these
contortions are hidden from the user, so no big deal.  I really don't
know how Paradox 4.0 for DOS uses protected mode to run in, but I do
know that it runs quite fast.  Same thing for writing the original
Lotus 1-2-3 in assembly code: it doesn't hinder me from doing my work,
although it was undoubtedly a bear for the programmers.


Now, we were talking about compatibility, right?  Let me see if I can
sort out the issues here.  Additions/corrections welcome.

1) OS/2s near-perfect DOS and Windows compatibility:

Possible Advantages:
	Little or no software replacement needed.
	Use of virtual machine means program crashes don't kill the OS.

Possible Disadvantages:
	Adds to base OS's code size/memory requirements.
	Always having to play catch-up (eg., flap over Win 3.1 CSD).
	Little incentive to build 32-bit OS/2 apps.

2) NT's not-so-perfect DOS and Windows compatibility:

Possible Advantages:
	Less time devoted to creating and debugging "compatibility code."
	Win32s implies easy porting of Windows 16-bit programs.

Possible Disadvantages:
	Massive/painful uprooting of old DOS software.
	Why stop at the top 100 DOS apps?  Why not 500?  1000?
(Incidentally, I would appreciate someone posting the actual announcement
of this "top 100" story.  I've heard people saying that the memo never
existed.)

All in all, even though I'm not an OS/2 booster, I do have to worry
about how MS is handling the NT compatibility issue.  If the "top 100"
statement is true, I think MS's credibility will be damaged a lot by
reports from people whose favorite little DOS app wasn't one of the
lucky 100.  My philosophy is, "Do it right, or don't do it at all."

On the other hand, I'm not really sold on buying an advanced OS just
for getting a super-duper DOS/Windows multitasker.  OS/2 does well if
you use it like that, but I am not convinced that the software suppliers
are creating programs taking advantage of OS/2's unique features.  I'm
worried about OS/2's success if IBM can't pressure software companies
to develop for OS/2 the way MS is pressuring them to develop for NT.

Any other ideas?
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."

"[George Bush is] the most ruthless white man in the history of the planet."
	-- Richard Ben Cramer, author of _What It Takes_
"The President scores much better than Bill Clinton."
	-- Dan, comparing Bush's record of marital infidelity to Clinton's
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy