From: jp776@macbeth.umd.edu (Robert S. Rodgers)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: PRO/CON on Mirrors (was Re: AmiPro for OS/2)
Date: 24 Jan 93 13:41:58 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1993Jan24.041730.4232@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>In <1993Jan24.001304.19923@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Jan23.150321.1@milori.ccit.arizona.edu> f67709907@milori.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan22.233940.1843@midway.uchicago.edu>, sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>>>> 
>>>> AmiPro for OS/2 2.0 will be full 32-bit, Workplace Shell aware,
>>>> multithreaded, HPFS aware, etc.  Ditto 1-2-3 2.0, Freelance Graphics,
>>>> and cc:Mail.
>
>
>>	Well, now.  Will it use Mirrors?  What, in this context, does
>>	"Workplace shell aware" really mean?
>
>Does it really matter?  I've heard some people saying that everyone
>should boycott and whine about programs that use Mirrors, but I think
>that this is ridiculous.  An app should be judged on its own qualities,
>and not on the API used by the developers!


	My real objection to apps that use mirrors is this:
	Mirrors is going to be compiled into the code of the program.
	As time passes, we can assume that newer, more efficient 
	versions of mirrors will come along and most of us (tired with 
	the lousy performance that Mirrors programs will likely 
	give--Word for PM used tricks very similar) will probably upgrade.

	As long as you're going to be running Windows code, why not buy the
	versions that are more likely to be less buggy, updated more
	often, and are only dependant on the quality of WINOS2 (which can
	be updated independant of the application) for efficiency? 

	The fact is, buying Mirrors-based products only encourages more of the
	waffling on OS/2.  

	So yes, it really does matter.  If they're using mirrors, chances are
	they're just having their Windows programmers do the job of quickie
	patches to a windows core.  A sure fire way to get a lousy, buggy product.
	It would not "matter" if it was printed on the box.  In cases
	such as that, I would simply buy the Windows version and move on,
	unless I had heard that it *specifically* supported OS/2 features 
	that outweighed the very-possible chance of ending up with a bug-ridden,
	slow, non-OS/2-consistent product.



>I see it as a way for companies to easily dip their toes into the waters
>of the OS/2 market.  Companies that use Mirrors, in fact, may be the



	Dip in, pull out at the first sign of trouble.  OS/2
	needs companies willing to sit it out and build a market,
	creating applications in the meantime that draw users
	to OS/2.  Mirrors products are the antithesis of this goal.
	How likely is it that a Mirrors app will run any faster than
	a win app under the 2.1 beta?  Under the 2.1 GA?  Not very,
	considering that the 2.1 that I've seen runs them at about
	95% to 101% of the speed (not, of course, seamless).  



	
>ones that need the strongest encouragment and response from the market
>to help broaden the OS/2 vendor base.  If their Mirror-based product
>doesn't sell, they may give up on OS/2, whereas, if it does well, they
>may switch to native API in a future version.  Thus, it might be argued
>that it would be better to buy a Mirror-based program if other things
>*are* equal.


	Wrong.  Buying a mirrors based product only encourages
	more of the same ("whatthey really want is just a straight
	port of the Windows version").  

	If they want a strong response for the market, they can write
	an OS/2 native versionwithout using a hack like mirrors.  Then
	they'll see a response.  If AmiPro is a native app, you can 
	kiss DeScribe goodbye.  


>But basically, I see the use of Mirrors as being *very* far down the
>list of qualities I'll look at when evaluating a program.  If someone is


	Speed?  Is the user interface OS/2 consistent?  Bugs?  

	All of these are not just program issues, but *mirrors* issues.


>IMO, one of OS/2's biggest strengths is all the options it offers--DOS
>and Windows *plus* native OS/2--and Mirrors is merely one more option. 


	Mirrors is just a sneaky way to sell Windows products to
	OS/2 users and fool them into thinking they're getting
	a real OS/2 product.


>It seems like some of the loudest shouting against Mirrors comes from
>anti-OS/2 crowd.  Do any other OS/2 *advocates* have any comments or
>opinions about Mirrors to share?


	It's always the anti-OS/2 crowd argument.  Some grand and global
	anti-OS/2 conspiracy, for instance, that keeps OS/2 apps (ha) 
	out of stores.  Some omnipotent pack of OS/2 haters that keep 
	IBM from creating even remotely clever advertisements, let alone
	honest ones.  

	Mirrors is a lot like computer companies that talk in their ads
	about the high quality of the parts, etc--and charge twice as much
	for the system.  When you get it home, you take a peek, and see
	nothing but the industry standard names that your friends clone
	has, but he paid 1/2 as much.


	<important:  all  mail to rsrodger@wam.umd.edu, mail to this
	account will not be read/replied.>


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy