From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: PRO/CON on Mirrors (was Re: AmiPro for OS/2)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:17:30 GMT

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!

I think that companies that use Mirrors should be supported just as any
other companies that develop for OS/2 should.  Your buying decisions
should be based purely on the qualities of the product.  If one company
puts out a whiz-bang debugging tool that uses Mirrors, and another
company comes out with a mediocre tool that uses the PM API directly,
I'll get the whiz-bang product.

If other things are equal, I might prefer to get a non-Mirrors product,
but other things are rarely equal.  I don't see Mirrors as a Bad Thing,
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
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.

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
going to produce a good program for OS/2, I'm interested, no matter how
they did it.  I don't care if it uses the OS/2 1.x text mode API, or the
Mirrors API or the PM API.  Once I'm a owner of the product, then I'm in
a better position to request enhancements, which might include switching
to the PM API.  But I'll use the best program to accomplish a given
task.  I'll use a DOS program, if it's significantly better than it's
native OS/2 competitors, so I'm certainly not going to balk at a program
that uses Mirrors.  

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. 
An option more for the developer than for the end user, but one that may
make it easier to widen the software base of native OS/2 in a short
period of time.

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?
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | "Imaginary guitar notes [...] exist only
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers |  in the imagination of the imaginer" --FZ
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy