From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.2
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:03:41 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug31.164630.13859@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>Also.... this is a list of features in the BASIC system package.
>
>If someone would like to make a list of features for the LAN Server
>OS/2 add-on, that would be great.  Please try to find out the
>list prices for these features... I only know the ones from memory
>a few months ago, and so don't really trust my numbers.
>
>Features currently in Windows NT but not in OS/2 2.0
>	
>	Multiple growable heaps.
>		A process can have more than one heap.  That heap can be
>		grown.  Classic example of use is you have a bunch
>		of data elements that are used in one part of your program
>		that needs to be dynamically allocated, but before
>		the end you no longer need that set of data and need to
>		free the memory.  Rather than free each element, allocate
>		a heap just for that data.  Do the allocations from that
>		heap.  At the end free the heap.

What's the difference between this and using DosAllocSeg (in 16 bit
code) or DosAllocMem (in 32-bit code) to allocate memory from the
system?  You can allocate a large block, deal with it as you wish (or
as your compiler lets you) and then do a DosFreeSeg/DosFreeMem to
release it back to the system.

I think OS/2 has this under a different name.  Does it matter where
the memory comes from?

>	Asynchronous I/O
>		OS/2 1.X had this feature but for unexplained reasons
>		dropped it in 2.0.  While you can do it with threads,
>		you can also multi-task in DOS... all you have to do
>		is write the code that intercepts the timer interrupt
>		and swaps the processes.

DosReadAsynch and DosWriteAsynch still exist in the 16-bit API.  They
can be linked and used with 32-bit code.  I'd look to see if there are
parameters on the 32-bit DosRead and DosWrite to allow asynchronous
I/O, though.  IBM may have merged a few API calls into one
multi-function call. 

I'll take a look in my Toolkit docs for an answer.

>	Generalized Registry. (database as replacement for '.ini' files)
>		Rather than have a "config.sys" and other initialization files,
>		all system data is put into a tree-structured database.j

Personally, I wouldn't consider this an advantage.  I like the idea of
having a text file for system configuration.  It makes it easier to
fix things up when I make a change that results in a useless system.

But you were comparing features, not comparing useful features.

>	Windows 3.1 support.

But you said that current Windows support it poor (in your description
of OS/2), so I'd call it even with OS/2's "Mediocre" (I consider it as
good as standalone Windows 3.0 in standard mode) Windows support.

>	SDK has C++

This isn't a base package feature.  I thought you said you were only
explaining the base package.  The SDK is an add-on.

>	GUI
>		Designed to help accellerators.
>			The internal routines have been changes so that
>			drawing commands are buffered and sent to the
>			underlying graphics drivers in a manner that
>			can take advantage of graphics accellerator cards.

In OS/2, the device driver handles this.  What's the difference?  Or
do non-accelerated boards get a performance penalty due to the
internal design optimizing for an accelerator?  Please explain.

>	Good _published_ debug hooks.

Again, not a base system feature.  Publications are separate and at
extra cost.

>	NTFS
>		Extensible Attributes

HPFS has EA's as well.  What is the difference here?

>		B-tree directories.

HPFS has B+-tree directories.

>	Fast Hyper-text Help System. (OS/2's is much slower.)
>		I've used both, NT's is faster, though it
>		has less features than OS/2's.
>		NT's is of course a variant of Windows 3.1's
>		help program (which is different from
>		the Windows 3.0 one).

Why didn't you list this among OS/2's features?  (more powerful, but
slower)

>OS/2 2.0 will add the following in September/October
>	Catch up to NT by having Windows 3.1 support.
>	Catch up to NT by adding a 32-bit GUI.
>	Catch up to NT by allowing 32-bit drivers.
>	Rumored to slim-down such that it might properly fit in 4 megs.

Why is this "rumored", while NT's additions aren't?  Also, OS/2's
features aren't a "catch up" to anything.  Why not just list the
features without throwing in the biassed buzzwords like "catch up to
NT by" and "rumored to".  Just write:

        Windows 3.1 support
        32-Bit graphics engine (not GUI, the WPS is already 32-bit code)
        32-bit drivers.
        Increased performance on 4MB systems

>Windows NT will add the following in September/October
>	Catch-up to OS/2 in 16-bit Windows 3.0 compatibility.
>	Smarter, easier to use OLE, first step toward Cairo.
>	POSIX  (1003.1 -- the system calls)
>	Win32s (Run NT programs under Windows 3.1)
>	Remote booting.
>	Remote installation and maintenance support.
>	NTFS
>		Symlinks
>		Sparse File

You mean that these features will be available when NT is released.
They're not really additions, since the first release hasn't shipped
yet. 
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy