From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 08:26:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <1992Sep4.112606.26849@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <7dmn0ab.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>In <1992Sep3.234501.28636@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>>Features in OS/2 2.0 GA but not in the pre-beta Windows NT
>>
>>Other ones that have sprung to mind:
>>
>>        Separate cache mechanisms for each supported file system.
>>                This allows for more efficient caching, at the cost
>>                of using more RAM.
>I would regard this as a misfeature... the OS should dynamically
>shift such things according to demand, not some magic number the user
>has to twiddle. (NT does do the cache balancing itself).

I'm not talking about the cache sizes, I'm talking about having the
different cache *mechanisms* for each file system.  Which allows the
caches to be more efficient.

Besideswhichandfurthermore, it's still a feature.  You can like it, you
can dislike it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a feature. 
And it improves the performance of HPFS, so it's a good feature afaic.

>>        Optional direct access to hardware from VDMs.
>This is a feature? :-) Hmmm... you're right though, I'll add it to the
>list.

Yes, it most certainly is a feature.  It's a feature that happens to
mean that at the moment, I couldn't even use NT if I wanted to.  I have
enough problems actually *getting* the access I need under OS/2.

(Anyone got any ideas on how I can access the dongles my company makes
from within an OS/2 VDM???)

>>        Runs in GUI mode without the WPS
>>                This is a separate feature from the ability that OS/2
>>                has to run without the GUI at all.
>NT can do this too of course. (So can Windows 3.1)

Can have the graphics engine loaded (equivalent of PM), and a CLI shell
in a window, but no graphical shell (equivalent of Filemanager, or
whatever the heck they call the main windows window)??

That's certainly not the impression that I had.

>>I'm also curious about the applets that come with NT.

>I'm not getting into applets, madness lies in that direction.
>NT currently has approximately the same set as Windows 3.1.

Which means nothing to me.  I don't own Windows (any flavor), I don't
use Windows (even WinOS2), and I have *no idea* what applets come with
Win3.1.  Which is why I ask.

There's only, what, 20-25 applets that come with OS/2.  And I'm sure
that most of them must be the same or similar to the ones in NT.  But I
am very curious what the differences are.

I use many of the applets.  Several of them quite heavily.  This strikes
me as a very important part of any comparison of the two operating
environments.  At the very least, a comment like "OS/2 has a better set
of applets," or "NT has a better set of applets," would be nice.  Unless
this is an area where the two OSes *are* equivalent, in which case, I'll
shut up.  :-)

>>>	Object Oriented Shell (WorkPlace Shell)
>>>	
>>>	Great DOS support
>>
>>Geeze, we get great, lengthy details about the obscure features of the
>>system queues in NT, but these two are simply dismissed with a casual
>>one line each.

>NT has the same shell as Windows 3.1, I only put in details when things
>have proven unclear.  

It's unclear to me as it stands.  I don't have, don't use, and know
nothing about Win3.x.  So, saying that NT has the same shell means
nothing to me.

"Great DOS support" stated for OS/2 from a person that
>is biased towards NT -- doesn't say it all?

If I thought it did, I wouldn't have asked.

Really, I'm trying to get information, not trying to argue.  I enjoy the
list, and find it informative, except in some areas where I find it
unclear.  I'm curious about NT--after all, my company might give up on
dongles, or we might eventually be able to write a dongle-device-driver
for NT.  I'm not an OS/2 fanatic--chances are *very* high that I'll be
using *both* OSes within a couple of years.  I just want to see a
realistic and detailed description of the advantages and disadvantages
of *each* system.

>>>	Mediocre Windows 3.0 support (NT's is currently poor).
>>
>>Hmm, I've heard a lot of people claim that OS/2's Win3.0 support is
>>quite good.  Many claim that Win-OS2 is better than Win3.0 itself,
>>although not as good as Win3.1.  How does that get rated as "mediocre"
>>support??
>>
>>(Disclaimer:  I've never really used Windows *or* Win-OS2, so I cannot
>>really comment on this sub-topic.  But this would seem to be, at the
>>least, a point of contention, worth marking with a bang `!' character.

>Hmmm trying to start another war? :-) In all seriousness, it is not uncommon
>for people that use mainly Windows apps to leave OS/2 and use Windows 3.1
                                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^
Windows 3.1, yes.  But not Win3.0.  I saw some of your ideas on how to
rephrase this.  May I humbly suggest:

        Passable Windows (3.0) support (NT's is currently mediocre).

or maybe:

        Decent Win3.0 support, lousy Win3.1 support (NT's is poor).

>Further I'm rating both simultaneously... If the word I use for OS/2
>gets bumped up, the other one would too.

I have no problem with that.  If NT's is only a little worse than OS/2's
then this would be entirely appropriate.

>>Microsoft is willing to make buggy betas available (with appropriate
>>warnings) to the general public.  IBM is not.  It seems like this list
>>penalizes IBM for this, to some extent.  

>Yes, and rightfully so... why not complain to IBM about their lack of openness?
>(Certainly I have!)

Because I don't have a problem with it.  I have no idea why you say,
"rightfully so."  If you do have a problem with this, perhaps you should
state this fact at the top of the list or something, and mention that it
contributes to your bias.  I had no idea that you found this to be a
problem, and I'm certainly not sure why.

>>I realize that there is no other way to make a list like this at
>>present.  However, it might be worth mentioning which unreleased IBM
>>feature have been seen in demos and such, since these presumably *would*
>>be in a package like the "pre-beta-OS/2 CSD" if IBM released "pre-beta"
>>stuff.  These features could be labelled: "running, but unreleased", or
>>something like that.  This might give us all a more realistic picture of
>>where things stand.

>That is fine by me... send me what you definitely know of... they do have
>to have a time frame for when they'll be released though.

Well, I've seen several mentioned in the newsgroup, but haven't
encountered any myself (haven't been looking).  Perhaps others will
chime in with appropriate information here.  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!