From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: An open letter to PC Magazine
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 13 Apr 92 10:38:04 CDT

Everyone / Anyone:

Richard E. Hodges asked me to repost this letter on comp.os.os2.misc and CIS.
Richard hopes others will voice an opinion to PC Magazine.  He does not desire
to be a lone voice.

Bert Moshier


                   AN OPEN LETTER TO PC MAGAZINE

                        Richard E. Hodges

               University of California, Los Angeles
                               and
                    Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Disclaimer: These are my personal views and do not reflect the official 
position of my employer. I am not an employee, consultant or 
stockholder of IBM Corporation. I do not have any financial interest in 
DOS, Windows or OS/2, or in any applications programs designed for 
use on these systems.

INTRODUCTION

I have just read the April 29 issue of PC Magazine and strongly 
disagree with the observations and conclusions of Michael J. Miller in 
comparing Windows and OS/2. This letter provides a point-by-point 
rebuttal to the main points that I have found objectionable in two 
articles by Mr. Miller. This will be addressed below.

In contrast, the article "OS/2 2.0: Does It Fulfill the Promise" by Joe 
Salemi provides a fair and honest appraisal of OS/2 2.0. Joe Salemi 
has done a masterful job learning the facts and presenting a useful 
overview of OS/2. His feature article and additional sidebars, "Guided 
Tour of the Workplace Shell" and "Debunking the Myths of OS/2" are 
refreshing in that they directly report the facts without introducing 
personal preferences and bias. It is indeed rare to find a journalist 
that maintains his objectivity when evaluating operating system 
software.

Another highlight of this issue is the short piece by William F. 
Zachmann, "32-bit GUI Alternatives."  Mr. Zachmann has clearly and 
accurately delineated the key reasons that OS/2 is more appropriate 
on the desktop than any currently available versions of Unix. As a 
person that uses Unix based systems frequently, I can personally 
confirm that Mr. Zachmann's evaluation is correct. It is useful for this 
information to be summarized for those who may have heard of Unix 
but do not have first hand experience with the system.

Finally, Charles Petzold's piece on Windows NT holds some academic 
interest, but seems inappropriate in an issue devoted to currently 
available desktop operating systems. This article is particularly 
inappropriate in view of Microsoft's statement that NT is a server 
operating system, not a desktop system. Furthermore, Microsoft's 
abysmal track record on meeting an announced delivery date with 
systems software causes one to seriously question the credibility of 
statements such as, "Microsoft is predicting the retail release by the 
end of 1992." This credibility is stretched even further by the fact that
to this date, Microsoft has not yet produced a reliable multitasking 
operating system. 

WINDOWS ENTERS ITS PRIME;
OS/2 IS A FASCINATING TECHNOLOGY BUT A DUBIOUS CHALLENGER

My complaint with Michael J. Millers article is primarily centered on 
his general recommendation of Windows 3.1 over OS/2 2.0. I can 
appreciate that Windows 3.1 is useful to people with relatively modest 
requirements or low end systems which cannot run OS/2. However, for 
those of us who have more capable hardware, there is no need to be 
stuck with the limitations of Windows. Thus, rather than make a 
blanket recommendation as Mr. Miller does, it would be more 
appropriate to recommend the system that is best for a particular 
class of hardware. It appears that Mr. Miller feels compelled to try to 
justify his dubious recommendation. In what follows, I will identify 
some comments that appear to be designed to support a prejudiced 
conclusion.

I wonder why Mr. Miller says, "... developers can write 32-bit 
applications, which theoretically can be faster than 16-bit applications
normally created for Windows or OS/2 1.x." THEORETICALLY? This is 
not a theoretical hypothesis: it has already been proven with 32-bit 
DOS extenders and with beta versions of 32-bit OS/2 applications that 
32-bit flat memory model programs are from 50% to 100% faster than 
16-bit segmented memory model programs. One would expect the 
editor-in-chief of PC Magazine to be well aware of this fact. From the 
context of his statement, it appears that Mr. Miller is attempting cast 
some shade of doubt on the established fact that 32-bit applications 
run faster and thereby cast doubt on the potential of OS/2.

Mr. Miller observes that, "From a technical standpoint, OS/2 2.0 does 
appear to be a 'better DOS than DOS.'  Of course, the same can be 
said of DESQview, which is simpler to install, or Windows." This is 
complete nonsense! Does DESQview or Windows allow one to boot 
different versions of DOS simultaneously? Virtualize device drivers? 
Multitask sessions under the control of a preemptive time slice 
multitasking system? Provide true protection between DOS sessions? 
Can either DESQview or Windows truly be called a "better DOS than 
DOS" as PC Magazine concludes OS/2 is? Of course not! The 
statement that DESQview is "simpler to install" also needs 
examination. I have known Ph.D electrical engineers who specialize in 
writing complex computer software who spent days setting up 
DESQview and QEMM and getting all the device drivers plugged into 
the correct holes in memory. OS/2 automatically handles all of this 
tedious setup. The statement about installation is false.

Finally, I question the basis for Mr. Miller's conclusion that, "General 
users probably will not find OS/2 a compelling environment because of 
the complexity and size of the environment (a full installation requires 
about 30MB), the relative difficulty of installing and maintaining it, and
the lack of many applications native to OS/2."  I wonder if Mr. Miller 
even reads the articles that appear in PC Magazine? OS/2 is inherently 
designed to be easy-to-use, as explained in the article by Joe Salemi. 
Even if it takes 30MB of disk space (Mr. Salemi's article states that, 
"Realistically, OS/2 will eat up about 18MB to 20MB on a average 
system.") if one wants an easy-to-use, high performance and rock solid 
system then the price is greater disk space. Many people are willing to 
get a larger hard disk and some additional RAM if it makes the 
computer easier to use. And where is the basis for the claim that OS/2 
is difficult to maintain? There is no justification given for this 
statement. In my experience, I find exactly the opposite is true. You 
just turn it on and it works. And it keeps working. OS/2 is more 
complex than DOS in the same sense that a Ford Taurus is more 
complex than a Model T Ford. More complex does not imply more 
difficult to use and maintain.

Mr. Miller suggests Windows as an easy-to-install, easy-to-maintain 
and easy-to-use system. He states, "Windows 3.1 makes it safe to 
jump in the water." Question: If Windows is so easy to maintain, then 
why does PC Magazine run a Windows column covering all kinds of 
nitty-gritty details of memory managers, PIF files, special config.sys 
settings to avoid UAE's, and the like? Evidently, it takes alot of fine 
tuning just to make the system work. OS/2 doesn't require all this 
constant tweaking - it just works. If Windows is so easy to install, then 
why is PC Magazine compelled to devote pages 195 to 235 to all kinds 
of special "tips" to help people get Windows 3.1 working as they 
undoubtedly expect? Apparently, Windows is no simple matter to get 
up and running reliably, but Mr. Miller makes no mention of this fact. In 
the article on OS/2, Joe Salemi states that everything you need to know 
is a mouse click away on the Workplace Shell desktop. Does OS/2 
require special "tips" on avoiding system crashes (UAE's) as PC 
Magazine feels is necessary for Windows? Obviously not. On the 
contrary, Joe Salemi reports, "We tried to test OS/2's protection 
capabilities by deliberately inducing a UAE (Unrecoverable Application 
Error) in a Windows window. But our attempt failed completely with all 
of the Windows applications on the test system, including some that 
will crash when running under Windows 3.0. This is testimony to 
OS/2's stability." 

>From what is written in PC Magazine, it is obvious that Windows 
requires a considerable amount of fine tuning to make it work properly. 
On the other hand, OS/2 is not difficult to install. The statement that 
OS/2 is difficult to install is manifestly false.

Mr. Miller's remarks about lack of OS/2 applications is also 
questionable when considered in the context of comparing OS/2 to 
DOS/Windows. OS/2 provides better support for DOS programs than 
Windows does. OS/2 supports Windows programs. OS/2 supports 
OS/2 1.x programs, of which there are some very good ones. And there 
are many genuine 32-bit OS/2 2.0 programs already under 
development. These multi-threaded 32-bit programs will be far 
superior to anything showing up in Windows, and they will be available 
this year. Some major applications, such as Corel Draw!, Lotus 123/G 
and Lotus Freelance Graphics, are expected within a few months. In 
the light of these facts, does Mr. Miller conclude that Windows 
provides more choices for software support than does OS/2? The way I 
see it, OS/2 offers more choices, and better choices.


DECISIONS, DECISIONS

Perhaps the most unreasonable part of Michael J. Miller's article is 
the insert on page 115. First of all, the "Five reasons to buy Windows" 
should be ADDED to the list of reasons to buy OS/2. Look at what is 
stated:

COMMENTS ON "FIVE REASONS TO BUY WINDOWS"

1. "You can create documents rich with fonts, graphics and more." 
Same goes for OS/2. Soon you will even able to do it alot faster by 
using 32-bit applications.

2. " You can run multiple applications." You can do it even better in 
OS/2 because of the preemptive time sliced multitasking system and 
Super Fat and High Performance File Systems.

3. "You can combine applications." Same goes for OS/2.

4. "If you do not like Windows, you can always remove it." Again, 
OS/2's convenient selective install allows you to remove Windows 
support - the advantage is that you don't have to sacrifice DOS 
multitasking, improved network support, superior file systems and 
other OS/2 improvements that are provided to DOS sessions.

5. "All of the major developers are focusing their resources on 
Windows." Fine. OS/2 will run these programs. Note that many major 
developers are ALSO focusing resources on OS/2 32-bit applications, 
so you will have the option to run BETTER versions of their software 
instead of the old 16-bit Windows stuff.

COMMENTS ON "FIVE REASONS TO BUY OS/2"

1. "You bought into IBM and Microsoft's hype the first time around, 
and now you are stuck." HYPE? STUCK? This is nonsense. Those of 
us who have ENJOYED two years of genuine high performance multi-
tasking (and are not accustomed rebooting our machines several 
times daily) do not consider ourselves "stuck". We know that what IBM 
has told us is not "hype". The "hype" was foisted on poor suckers who 
got "stuck" with Windows 3.0 and suffered through nearly two years of 
UAE's and deplorable performance.

2. "You need to develop a high-end application that requires 32-bit 
processing and a real multitasking, multi-threaded environment." 
WHAT ABOUT THOSE OF US WHO JUST WANT TO BUY AND USE 
THESE "HIGH-END APPLICATIONS"? In other words, those of us who 
want to make proper use of the hardware that we ALREADY OWN! 
Lotus, WordPerfect, Borland, Corel, Micrografx, DeScribe and many 
other vendors will provide this capability very soon. Don't you think this 
is worth mentioning? And knock off the Windows NT smoke screen. 
That is a SERVER operating system.

3. "You need an application that requires multiple communication 
sessions." What does MULTIPLE mean? I just want to connect to a 
network, be able to run applications, communicate on a modem and 
format diskettes without my system crashing, balking or forcing me to 
become a junior computer scientist. OS/2 has been doing this for over 
two years. Windows has not, and still does not.

4. "You are an IBM-only shop." Oh, please. This is a veiled attempt to 
propagate the old myth that OS/2 only runs on IBM hardware. I'm 
writing this using OS/2 on a Toshiba portable! Why should IBM-only 
shops have the exclusive rights to a reliable and easy-to-use 
computer, while everybody else is relegated to use a system based on 
16-bit real mode segmented junk left over from the CP/M days.

5. "You are ready to meet the future today." THE FUTURE!  Get 
serious. We have had 386 machines for over FIVE YEARS and are now 
finally getting an operating system to take advantage of it. This isn't 
THE FUTURE. This is just getting around to running the hardware we 
already have at FULL SPEED. Why should I pay a premium to upgrade 
from a 20 MHz 386 to a 33 MHz 386 when the software is running my 
machine at HALF SPEED?

COMMENTS ON "FIVE REASONS NOT TO BUY OS/2"

1. "There are few applications."  Excuse me, but more applications run 
on OS/2 2.0 than on any other platform in existence. I am sure you are 
not aware of it, but there are some EXCELLENT OS/2 applications. Try 
out Freelance Graphics for OS/2. IBM's TCP/IP for OS/2 is as good as 
it gets on ANY system. PMX (Presentation Manager X-Windows) works 
great. Mr. Miller further states, "But the reason to choose an operating 
system access to unique applications." Well, that is ONE reason. Of 
course, as Windows users will tell you, it doesn't necessarily do you 
any good if the system can't run these apps EFFICIENTLY and 
RELIABLY. Also, some of us believe that multi-threaded 32-bit 
applications qualify as being unique since they (1) Run the 386 at its 
full potential and, (2) Minimize the appearance of the hourglass. The 
fact that these will be available IN ADDITION to nearly all the apps that 
run under DOS and Windows makes it even more unique when 
compared to, say, Unix, Macintosh, or DOS/Windows.

2. "Unix already offers a 32-bit multitasking operating system." Does 
Mr. Miller read PC Magazine? Try reading, "32-bit GUI Alternatives: No 
Contest." on page 193. If you read that article, you will learn that Unix 
costs over $1000, requires substantially greater hardware 
requirements, does not run DOS and Windows apps effectively and 
does not have a single standardized GUI. One could also mention the 
steep learning curve for a DOS user and the fact that Unix applications 
cost many times more than DOS, Windows or OS/2 apps - assuming 
one is available. Unix is not an issue.

3. "You can only run some Windows applications." Well, that is also 
true of Windows itself! OS/2 will run Windows 2.1 apps. Will Windows 
3.0? OS/2 will run nearly all Windows 3.0 apps including (as I 
understand it) all of the ones on the list of over 30 that Microsoft warns 
will not run properly under Windows 3.1. Really, this should be listed 
as a reason NOT TO BUY WINDOWS 3.1.

4. "The installation process is ridiculous." I totally disagree. If you can 
figure out how to insert a diskette into a floppy drive, then you can 
install OS/2. In my judgment, it is easier than installing DOS. It does 
take longer, but that is because the system is doing things that I don't 
have to do. A great deal of information must be loaded onto the disk in 
order to make OS/2 easy for a human being to use. This takes time. So 
what?

5. "You inherit the problems of three operating systems." Actually, you 
inherit the ADVANTAGES of two operating systems (DOS and OS/2) and 
three graphical environments (Windows, Presentation Manager and 
Workplace Shell) while AVOIDING THE DISADVANTAGES associated 
with all of them.  Again, Mr. Miller has made a misleading statement 
that misrepresents the situation.

COMMENTS ON "FIVE REASONS NOT TO BUY WINDOWS"

1. " You have to relearn your applications." Maybe not if you run OS/2! 
Just run it AS IS and learn more later if you like. This is not always 
possible with Windows.

2. "Windows is slower than DOS." With OS/2 you have a couple of 
options. The OS/2 DOS sessions are darned good. Also, when the 32-
bit OS/2 versions show up, you can learn them at your leisure and 
check to see if they are too slow. 32-bit OS/2 apps will narrow the 
performance gap with character based DOS programs, and should 
actually be an improvement over graphical DOS apps.

3. "There are still more DOS applications than Windows applications." 
Of course, as PC Magazine observed, OS/2 is "better DOS than DOS." 
Also, you can run DOS applications FASTER and MORE RELIABLY 
under OS/2 than under Windows. So, if this is a reason not to buy 
Windows, it could be a reason to consider OS/2.

4. "You do not have the hardware." I agree with Mr. Miller's comments 
here. You get what you pay for.

5. "If you want multitasking, DESQview does a better job with DOS 
applications." Not better than OS/2 - IF you have enough memory to run 
OS/2 properly. Again, this is another reason to consider OS/2.