From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Zachaman and NT and OS/2
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:52:09 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

> ...
>>beta usrs are doing much the same thing.  It is September and NT is
>>not looking good right now.  MS did OS/2 a favor by releasing NT so
> 
> What basis do you have for the statement "NT is not looking good right
> now?".

	Well, unless the NT you saw and I saw are completely differen,t
I would suppose that it is just a matter of opinion.  I had rather
high expections for NT and when the first thing that happens when you
see NT in action is the progman shell back and crashing using its
own tools (I know, it is beta and these things happen but the progman
shell in its own right being back was a major let down for me.)

> Ports from Windows 3.X to NT are trivial... I suggest you talk to
> a few more developers.

	PORTS are trivial.  But then again, there is a program
according to the press, by MicroGrafix that will take a Windows
program's source code and make it into a PM app.  It won't multithread
or anything like that but it is still a PM app.  A port is STILL
a port and that means the user still has to buy new software for
it or at least pay to upgrade.  Their EXISTING software must run
well or it is doomed.  To me, OS/2 is nice but if it didn't run
AmiPro 3.0, Page Maker, and my Dos apps it would be off my hard drive
fast.  But it runs them fine and I won't go to any OS that requires me
to immediately dump my apps or be crippled trying to run my old apps.



> 
>>3.1.  It is just as much of a hardship to make Windows run on it as
> 
> This is blatantly false. How can it as hard to port to an API that
> is mostly a superset?

	You answer your own question then, if it is so easy, then
Windows 3.0 support should have been in the beta and 3.1 progs should
have run well.  Of course, 3.1 progs might have run better if 3.1
didn't violate DPMI standards.  Obviously it is not trivial to just
"port" the API


>>on Dec Alpha based systems, Sparc Stations, etc, will be able to plop
>>in a Windows program and run it.  The NT beta is not good.  It has
>>more serious flaws than just not running 16 bit windows stuff.  It
>>does not run DOS acceptibly.  
> 
> Why is this a serious flaw in a developers release?

	Because everyone knows that bad DOS support will kill
the OS like OS/2 1.x died.  When the "release" is only a few months
away and MS has not firmly said that the DOS support will be as
good as running native DOS or at least extremely close it makes people
nervous.


> 
>>	Developers have to ask themselves, what is the compelling
>>reason to write for NT?  It doesn't run Windows they way they thought
> 
> Because they can write one set of source code that will run on
> all machines from the small-end desktop up through mid-range multiprocessors.


	But you forget, the IBM compatible platform covers such an
overwhelming amount of the existing computer platform that whoever
rules it, rules all (so to speak and exageration obviously).  Besides,
when NT is released with the progman shell any Unix user is going to
laugh at the question whether they should dump Unix and Openwindows or
whatever to the brain damaged Windows interface.  Who is going to
drop the conveniences of Unix's GUI's in favor of having to open
a file manager so that they can delete a file?  If NT came with Cairo
it might be different but as such, I don't see people dumping unix
so that they can try to barely use windows programs.  Moreover,
people don't pay $9000 for a sparc station so that they can use
Microsoft Word for Windows.  They buy a DOS machine for that.



> 
>>and OS/2 is here and does about everything NT is uspposed to do and
>>they KNOW it runs windows quite well and DOS beautifully. (Not that
>>OS/2 is without faults, I have spent many hours ragging on OS/2 2.0's
>>problems but NT clearly has more).
> 
> Now let me see if I understand your argument properly.
> Windows NT does not yet have good 16-bit Windows support or DOS support
> so developers should develop for OS/2?
> 
> 
	Basically that's about it.  OS/2 is truly the evolution for
the PC and Windows NT is revolution.  You can move to OS/2 a lot less
painfully than NT apparently.

(Good post Brian, very enjoyable talking with you.)

					-Brad


Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5102 comp.os.os2.apps:5937