From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 15:16:44 CET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Reply-To: AV@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Uithoorn - Netherlands
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <1992Aug22.153645.8453@hellgate.utah.edu>

In <1992Aug22.153645.8453@hellgate.utah.edu> Brian Sturgill writes:
>In article <OLAVT.92Aug22215004@ulrik.uio.no> olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:
>>(I have not seen NT, just read that the following information was
>>given to developers recently:)
>>
>
>>- It will not be possible to run all existing DOS and Windows programs
>>under NT.
>>
>>- DOS and Win 3.1 (!) programs that do direct disk access or uses
>>expansion boards will not run under NT.
>This is true.  PC Week has a good supplement this week on OS/2 2.0 and
>Windows NT.  In the end it is not possible to have C2 security and allow
>programs to directly access hardware.  OS/2 chose not to have the security
>thus allowing programs to access the hardware (which can (and does) allow
>DOS programs to crash the OS, or otherwise do naughty things).
>
>Windows NT forces programs to go through intercepted hardware accesses that
>are bounds checked, and then performed for the program.  This of course
>is slower, and only those device registers directly accounted for in the
>DOS subsystem can be used.  As I've said before OS/2 has NT beat hands
>down in this ONE area.  Again, referring back to my recent post proposing
>the direction OS/2 should go in.... OS/2 should seek the middle ground.
>Keep the DOS compatibility, and concentrate specifically on the Desktop
>user's needs.  OS/2 would need to lessen it's DOS support too if it were to
>try to fill the same area that NT is trying to fill (i.e. "real" security).
>NT has at least a two year lead getting symmetric multiprocessing and heavy-duty
>networking, and other high-end features in... OS/2 is better off not trying
>to be an NT-wannabe.
>
Sorry, I disagree with all you are posting here.
Are you suggesting that IBM should drop Lan Server (the 3.0 beta test
just started this week) and Extended Services?
Come on, you must be joking. Also, I fail to see why you cannot have
compatibility with DOS apps and security. The fact that NT doesn't
give it, doesn't mean it cannot be done. The DOS VDM's in OS/2 2.0
are capable of more than you seem to know about it.
About SMP: You must have missed the IBM/Parellan announcement.
What MS lead are you talking about?
Also don't forget the parallel database technology demo, IBM showed
on Comdex, fall 1990, running on OS/2.
Finally you seem to forget all about additional security that can be
obtained using client/server technology.
An 'NT wannabe': that will be difficult. It's more NT that tries to
become an 'OS/2 wannabe'.

>>
>>- Microsoft will no longer give any release date for NT (What a
>>surprise - it seems like it is delayed!)
>What an odd thing to say, Microsoft has never given a release date for NT...
>to this point, not even for the beta.  The program development schedule

(lines deleted)
Perhaps not, but for how long are we now hearing about NT?
And maybe there never was an official announcement, but MS folks
have been publicly mentioning all kind of dates.
>
>>
>>Olav Torvund
>>Oslo, Norway
>>Olavt@jus.uio.no
>
>Brian
>

Anton Versteeg - IBM - Uithoorn Netherlands - TEAMOS2 NL
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc