From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:27:02 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

(Brian wrote the original and I am replying to him)  I am short on
time so I will keep this brief.
> 
> Now my turn.
> Why should I chose OS/2?
> There are three "strong" points, Excellent VDM's, WPS, and REXX.
> The excellent VDM's are more than a bit overkill... and it's not
> clear yet that NT's DOS support will not be adequate, or even good.
> 

	Since at this point we can only speculate, it certainly looks
like NT will not be giving out excellent DOS support.  Purely from
its design.  They chose to make sure NOTHING can screw up the system.
From a mission critical poitn of view, this is good, but from my
point of view, I want GOOD Dos support.  

> WPS and REXX are just application programs.
> WPS is a nice idea, but falls short of being all that much better
> than the Window 3.1 (note the 3.1) versions of Program Manager/File
> Manager.  In fact, until IBM improves the speed of the drive folders,
> I would argue it's inferior.

	
	On the machine required to run NT, the work place shell is
quite fast.  Not as fast as a Mac but considering what it does, it
is fast enough (key on this statement is that I consider a 386-33 with
8 megs to be the minimum platform for NT).  It is far easier to use
than the windows shell is.
	I didn't argue that Rexx was a wondrous feature but since you
see it as important, any feature that comes with the OS is going to have
more support than a third party add on (using your old networking comes
with NT argument).


> REXX is the remaining feature... it's the one I can't knock down
> especially since seeing Visual REXX.  While REXX is nice, it has
> an awful lot of historical uglies... and again Cairo will have
> "Object BASIC".


	Cairo is not going to be here until 1994 so this is irrelevant.

> 
> So in short OS/2 has two features WPS and REXX both of which will
> will have alternates from MS in NT in '94.  Third parties will clearly
> be putting out shells similar to WPS (and probably better thought out).
> And there are already REXX versions for NT in beta... which, BTW
> are already integrating advance version of OLE 2.0.  In short this
> means that this REXX will be BETTER integrated into NT than REXX is
> into OS/2.  OS/2 programs must specifically integrate REXX on a per
> program basis.  The way OLE 2.0 is designed any program that takes
> advantage of OLE will be able to use the REXX _or_ any other
> scripting language the user chooses to use.
> 
> Everything else that OS/2 has... NT has NOW!
> 

	Again, NT is not here yet.  Managers have to ponder whether
they should mvoe to OS/2 now or wait for NT.  They are not going to
wait utnil 1994 for NT to get OS/2's features.  OLE will be about on
par with NT by the time it is released.


> Now what does NT offer over OS/2?
> First and foremost:
> 	Has a cleaner, more modern design than OS/2 2.0.
> 		This is extremely important and very hard to describe
> 		in a short space.  Essentially it means that added on
> 		system features such as "Stacker" is MUCH easier to
> 		do.  For example NT has dynamically loadable/unloadable
> 		file system and device drivers.  This is a result of
> 		its design... OS/2 could add this feature, but it would
> 		have to be hacked in.


		You speak from a developer's point of view.  From
an end user's point of view, stacker will install itself just as easy
on OS/2 as NT.  Design of the OS is irrelevant to the end user (in terms
of your above statement).

> 
> 		Maintenance of NT by MS will be much easier. This means
> 		less bugs.  New features will occur sooner.  MS intends
> 		to release sources to the research community allowing
> 		the latest and greatest research to flow into NT.
> 

	As you probably can imagine, if MS does it, so will IBM and
vice versa.  AGain, from an end user's point of view this is irrelevant.



> 	ISV support
> 		Features like all system API calls that take strings,
> 		take UNICODE strings make a lot of difference to ISVs.
> 		Microsoft has carefully recruited a much broader base
> 		of support than IBM has for OS/2.
> 		Vendors making products for the vast Windows 3.X market
> 		can EASILY expand their market by doing a quick port
> 		to NT.  If you consider that the likely developer
> 		platform for Windows 3.X apps will be NT, then it
> 		should occur to you that, that in itself will
> 		encourage the ports of these apps to NT.  In truth
> 		many of these will be made on NT using a subset 
> 		of the API (such as Win32s) and then "ported" to
> 		Windows 3.1... I mean this will only make sense...
> 		it's far easier to debug an NT app.  Even if the
> 		eventual target is a native 16-bit windows app...
> 		it is easy to make the same source code work on
> 		both.
> 

	Most users that would be using an OS like OS/2 or NT are looking
for specific types of apps that require a 32bit OS.  These apps will
be out for both and out for OS/2 arguably sooner than for NT.



> 	Peer-peer file and printer sharing.
> 	RPC
> 	TCP/IP
> 	Multimedia
> 	E-Mail API (X.500, can use X.400 as a transport)
> 		Now people will be tempted to say that OS/2 has this
> 		too, but they are optional and expensive.  There will
> 		be much less incentive for developers to make apps for
> 		OS/2 to use these features
> 
> 	32-bit OLE
> 		Just as NT does not have REXX and WPS... this is the
> 		"biggie" underlying feature that OS/2 doesn't have.
> 		OLE 2.0 will allow far more flexible shells and
> 		scripting than provided by either REXX or WPS.  And use
> 		of more than one simultaneously will be possible.  In
> 		short, rather than the kitchen sink approach of WPS
> 		features, object handlers can be chosen to fit the the
> 		abilities, needs, and wishes of the user.  Scripting
> 		languages can be chosen to fit the preference of
> 		users... i.e. I'd like a C-like one, some might
> 		prefer a BASIC one, and of course some would prefer
> 		REXX.
> 
> 	Logons.
> 		Anyone that shares a system will appreciate the value
> 		of this feature.  Larger sites will appreciate the
> 		C2-level security.
> 
> 	DOS, POSIX, OS/2 1.X and NT console apps can output to the same window.
> 		This is an important example of where NT's
> 		compatibility is better than OS/2's.
> 
> 	More low-level OS features (e.g. memory-mapped files).
> 	Symmetric multiprocessing support.
> 	NTFS
> 	POSIX  (1003.1 -- the system calls)
> 	Runs on more than one architecture.
> 		This set of features appeal to several large niche
> 		markets.  Realistically speaking, OS/2 is two years or
> 		more from having these.
> 

	For the most part, IBm has announced all but the NTfS support
for OS/2 later on.  While I don't say that means it will be so, in
this argument I will use it since NT ins't shipping yet.  Most buyers,
however (end users) do not need these weighty features.


> Finally...
> OS/2 2.0 is a kludge of 16-bit and 32-bit calls.  It will be
> quite some time before IBM can get it to a portable state.  It is
> missing a fair number of major features.  Unless a complete rewrite is
> undertaken it will always be a hack...  and hacks are hard to
> maintain.  It's API is already cluttered with historical problems
> from failed 1.X ill-thought out features.
> 
> NT has one of the most clean modern designs of any
> commercial OS available or announced.  It has a feature set that
> is ready to take full advantage of modern systems.
> It is inherently portable and extensible.
> 
> Wouldn't you prefer that the better OS win?
> Five years from now would you prefer to be fighting the uglies of
> a hack (i.e. the future equivalents of the 640K barrier), or using
> an OS that was designed to be extended?
> 

	Most people don't consider DOS a hack and it is the most
widely used OS in the world.  NT is better designed but these things
are only nice to the developer.  From the end user, your argument
is moot.  OS/2 is certainly far from a hack.  
	Moreover, if you continue on the OS/2 platform, there is
hope of a better OS than NT is supposed to be, Taligent.  While I
am not going to bet my horses on Taligent, it is supposed to offer
everything NT can do but more.
	Only time will tell.  But your arguments fail to convince me
why OS/2 should be passed up and to wait for Windows NT.
	
	The far and wide vast majority of computer users run DOS
apps and some Windows apps (windows is catching up of course on DOS).
Posix, logons, and other things you mention are not of a concern to
them.  Even I, a "power" user am not particularly concerned whether
NT is better designed or has C2 certification.  
	When it comes to networking and the corporate business world,
people trust IBM and Novell and it is quite clear that Novell is
behind OS/2 moreso than NT.  

	NT seems to be a hodgepodge of good features but is not the
"best" at anything.

						-Brad

=================================
Brad Wardell  **Happy OS/2 2.0 User**
Project Director
Stardock Systems (SDS)
Western Michigan University
=================================


> Brian
> -- 
> C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
> University of Utah                             United We Stand
> Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
> brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))