From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:57:28 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University


[ The gigantic debate of Brad vs Brian deleted for reasons of extreme
 length.  If you wnat to read it, then read the other post...]

Continuation...

>>	Only time will tell.  But your arguments fail to convince me
>>why OS/2 should be passed up and to wait for Windows NT.
> 
> Your response shows that you had already made up your mind.
> I find it hard to believe that anyone can think that the design
> of an OS is unimportant to an end-user.  The end-user may not realize
> the importance, but it's important all the same.
> 
>>	

	I haven't made up my mind by any means.  I am not going to
straddle myself with a second rate OS by any means.  If NT blows the
socks off OS/2 then you can get I will be using it.  But nothing you
have said gives me reason to wait for NT.  Your arguments seem to
center around "design" rather than end user importance.  OS/2 gives
the developer plenty of "tools" to develop.  The Mac is certainly not
particularly easy to develop apps for.  
	On a 386-33 with 8 megs the WPS on the systems I have used
is acceptibly fast.  The file system definitely needs some speed enhancements
but I can gaurantee you that this will happen.  On the machine I type
this on (486-33 with 8 megs with os/2 2.01 beta -- using crosstalk for
windows seamlessly) the amount of disk crunching has dropped dramatically
and the file system opens a lot faster now.  To me, the interface used
is of extreme important because it makes working with the computer more
productive.  Now I know some windows users will disagree but I used
windows EVERY single day for 2 years.  Norton Desktop brought new life
to Windows but I must say that after using the WPS for 6 months that
it is certainly a dream come true on the IBM compatibles.  
	The first thing an end user sees is the shell and the Windows
NT shell simply way behind the competition.  
	
	Your claims of fewer bugs in NT is downright silly.  You can't
make a claim like that.  It has not even been released.  You might
well be putting in CSD's into it as well.  Windows so far has certainly
been far from bug free and DOS itself has had its share of bugs.


>>	The far and wide vast majority of computer users run DOS
>>apps and some Windows apps (windows is catching up of course on DOS).
>>Posix, logons, and other things you mention are not of a concern to
>>them.  Even I, a "power" user am not particularly concerned whether
>>NT is better designed or has C2 certification.  
> 
> Sounds like you're making excuses... I have trouble believing you don't
> care about Logons.


	I, personally like logons.  That is NT's single most aluring
thing to me.  I don't see it as making up excuses.  When IBM delivers
the posix and c2 certification I still won't care and neither will most
users.  

> 
>>	When it comes to networking and the corporate business world,
>>people trust IBM and Novell and it is quite clear that Novell is
>>behind OS/2 moreso than NT.  
> 
> Yes those with Bluified minds do seem to have trouble seeing beyond IBM.
> Fortunately they are a minority.
> What evidence do you have that Novell is more behind OS/2 than NT?
> Don't forget I'm in Utah... and I have friends that have friends as the
> saying goes.  I see no evidence that Novell is more behind OS/2 than NT.
> Remember that Novell (through it's spin-off Univel) is about to
> enter the high-end desktop market too.
> Microsoft has been quite careful to court both Novell and Banyan into
> the NT camp.
> 
	As for Novell, I won't even argue the point.  Just keep reading
Infoworld and the other mass amounts of trade journals you get and I
believe you will eventually come to the same conclusion.


>>
>>	NT seems to be a hodgepodge of good features but is not the
>>"best" at anything.
> 
> What possible grounds do you have for calling NT a "hodgepodge"?
> If you had studied its design, it would be clear to you that a lot
> of thought went into it.  The features that are there are well integrated.
> Things that are extra subsystems (like POSIX) are easily stripped off.
> 
	Well, its interface is acceptible but not the best.  Its
DOS support is acceptible but not excellent.  Its windows support will
probably be adequate but not excellent.  To me, assuming thta NT
runs on 8 megs like OS/2 does on 4 megs, I will have to run NT with
16 megs on our customers machines.  With that kind of hardware hit,
users DEMAND a return.  They are going to boot their NT on there new
p5 with 16 megs and load up a DOS multimedia app or Windows app and
rage, "This isn't better than OS/2 and I could have run that on a much
wimpier machine!"

	Sure, if NT came with a ton of NT apps free of charge that would
be different but it won't and people are not going to run to Babbages
and pick them all up.



	If you can tell me that on a 486-33 with 8 megs I will be
able to run 95% of my DOS apps without a problem and 100% of my
major Windows apps (Os/2 does) then I can see why people would move to
NT (myself included).  When I say run, I mean much better than a Unix
machine can do.  It had better run virtually all my DOS apps extremely
well even if that means video games.  
	(I'll post a debate on why NT should run video games on
another post so you don't need to respond to it here).
	

>>						-Brad
> 
> Brian
> -- 
> C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
> University of Utah                             United We Stand
> Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
> brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))

	-Brad again