From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: DOS/Win compatibility: How important is it? (was Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Distribution: na,local
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:39:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.203439.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>In article <Qeq6SI200WB644qmoN@andrew.cmu.edu>, jyri+@CMU.EDU (Jyri Virkki) writes:
>> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>>> Jyri writes:
>>> >I am not willing to put up with anything less powerful than unix.
>>> 
>>> My, my, what a power user you must be! :)
>> 
>>A flawed implication. Why should I, or any user, choose to use an
>>os that is less capable, if a better one exists?
>
>Because the *application* you want to run is unavailable except on
>the less capable os?  For instance, DOS is much less "powerful" than
>Unix, but there are some things I run on DOS that Unix (or whatever
>weirdo variant I find) can't handle.
>With *software*, this statement definitely does not hold.  I assume you
Well, Unix can handle it, it's just that no one has programmed it to.
Quibbling, I suppose.  Sorry.

>
>As an app user, not a programmer, I'm happy to say that most of these
>contortions are hidden from the user, so no big deal.  I really don't
>know how Paradox 4.0 for DOS uses protected mode to run in, but I do
>know that it runs quite fast.  Same thing for writing the original
>Lotus 1-2-3 in assembly code: it doesn't hinder me from doing my work,
>although it was undoubtedly a bear for the programmers.
>
Well, they are a big deal to some extent, even to the user.  If it takes
a programmer more work to create something, then he or she has to
charge more for it in the end, right?  Thus a programmer-friendly OS
would tend to produce cheaper software, all other things being equal.
Of course, all other things are not equal.  Unix software is expensive,
even though developers tend to like Unix as a platform, because the
market is small, and vendors have to have larger margins to make up for
smaller volumes.  Anyway, what the programmers like does have an effect
on the end user, is what I'm trying to say.
>
>Now, we were talking about compatibility, right?  Let me see if I can
>sort out the issues here.  Additions/corrections welcome.
>
>1) OS/2s near-perfect DOS and Windows compatibility:
>
>Possible Advantages:
>	Little or no software replacement needed.
>	Use of virtual machine means program crashes don't kill the OS.
>
>Possible Disadvantages:
>	Adds to base OS's code size/memory requirements.
>	Always having to play catch-up (eg., flap over Win 3.1 CSD).
>	Little incentive to build 32-bit OS/2 apps.
>
This seems mostly fair to me.  I'm an OS/2 user presently, and I'd like
to see some native apps, despite the good DOS compatibility, so maybe
there is some incentive to build the 32-bit apps.  If there's a market,
there's incentive.
>2) NT's not-so-perfect DOS and Windows compatibility:
>
>Possible Advantages:
>	Less time devoted to creating and debugging "compatibility code."
>	Win32s implies easy porting of Windows 16-bit programs.
>
>Possible Disadvantages:
>	Massive/painful uprooting of old DOS software.
>	Why stop at the top 100 DOS apps?  Why not 500?  1000?
>
Keep in mind that people don't like change.  If NT's DOS/Win support is
weak, that may stop people moving to it more than you think.  Actually,
I see a difference here between the corporate user and the home user.
The business is more likely to be willing to invest in new apps, so NT
will probably do well there despite poor DOS compatibility, while at
home, people don't want to replace all their software at the drop of a
hat, so perhaps they will prefer OS/2.  

>On the other hand, I'm not really sold on buying an advanced OS just
>for getting a super-duper DOS/Windows multitasker.  OS/2 does well if
>you use it like that, but I am not convinced that the software suppliers
>are creating programs taking advantage of OS/2's unique features.  I'm
>worried about OS/2's success if IBM can't pressure software companies
>to develop for OS/2 the way MS is pressuring them to develop for NT.

I bought OS/2 mainly as a fancy DOS multitasker.  I only hace one
Windows app, and one OS/2 app (and it's a 1.x), but I am still very
happy with OS/2.  I'd like to see native apps, but the old ones run so
well that I'm happy enough while I wait for them.  Meanwhile OS/2 gives
me a better way to use my old software. And all for $49.  Let me assure
you, I'm not paying any $495 for NT.

>Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
>f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."

-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy