From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: I am giving up on the Amiga
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:47:38 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Jul28.173645.6201@msi.com> bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras) writes:
> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> : The real problem with OS/2 is that it is an orphan product.  It is made
> : by IBM, and nobody buys from IBM (well, hardly anyone).  It's main claim
> : to fame is its ability to run DOS and Windows apps.  However, the August
> : 1992 Byte reviewed of OS/2.  The title of the article: "OS/2 2.0: A Mixed
> : Blessing".  Specific gripes listed including poor performance on a PS/2
> : model 70 25-MHz 386 with 6MB of RAM using HPFS, less than intuitive WPS
> : interface, elimination of a more popular shell from 1.3, and lack of
> : compatibility with significant Windows 3.1 apps.  The article also
> : claims that the WPS is eminently crashable.
>
> 1) Nobody buys from IBM?  Are you nuts.  IBM is a multi-billion dollar
> company.  And I guess the 700,000+ copies of OS/2 is in IBM's
> imagination too.
>

Look, I am buying a Dell 486 within the next two weeks.  I have done
a LOT of research to come to the conclusion that 80% of my complaints
with DOS boxes have been fixed.  I asked over 100 PC owners (the company
where I consult has this many PC owners) and not a single one recommended
one with the IBM label.

IBM's stock dropped at least $30 in the last 4 months.  Sales for them
are dismal, and they are only beginning to get into the clone wars.
There are a few fortune 500 companies that will always insist on the
three letters, so IBM will get _some_ sales.

700,000 copies is far from impressive.  3,000,000+ copies of AmigaOS
is far from impressive, too.  Windows sold 700,000 copies the first
day it shipped (likely).

> 2) The Byte article you quote isn't the last word.  John Dvorak in PC
> Magazine starts his columns with "I was reluctant to move to OS/2 2.0,
> but now I can't imagine using anything else."  Thats a pretty strong
> endorsement if you ask me.
>

No, the byte article is not the last word.  Dvorak?  I wouldn't believe
a single thing the guy had to say.  Period.  In the last 4 days, I have
read 10 different magazine reviews of OS/2 and they are all similar
in tone and content to the Byte article.

> 3) True OS/2 doesn't run very well on a system with less than 8MB of RAM.
>
> 4) The "non-intuitive-ness" of the WPS is subjective.  I have heard from
> others that they find it very intuitive.
>

Magazine reviews may lie, but they also influence (HEAVILY) the readership.

> 5) What Windows 3.1 apps were they talking about?  Excel 4.0, and....
> Hell, OS/2 2.0 runs Windows 3.0 apps better than Windows 3.1 does is some
> cases.
>

If you really want me to get the list of apps, I will.

> 6) The lack of stability of the system I will give you.  However, it is
> very rare to get an error that kills the whole system.  Even if WPS
> crashes it comes back up.
>

Sounds to me as if the articles are pretty much on the nose.

> : To quote:  OS/2's strengths are excellent DOS multitasking, reasonable
> : support for windows 3.0 software (note 3.0 not 3.1), and the native OS/2
> : environment which features robust protection, a 32-bit flat memory model,
> : demand-paged VM, and threaded multitasking.  It's weaknesses are performance,
> : stability, and ease of use.
>
> The performance you are talking about is opening windows, and starting
> Windows programs from the OS/2 desktop.  DOS programs are much faster
> under OS/2 2.0, even faster than native DOS.  Windows 3.0 programs are
> comparible, once you get them running.
>

I do not rate OS/2, personally, for performance.  I will say this, though.
I went to the store to see OS/2 in action for myself.  I will say that it
looks like the Amiga, with more resolution and colors.  Perhaps a better
thought out user interface, too.  However, the first thing I did was double
click on an app.  Waited a few seconds, but nothing seemed to be happening.
So I double clicked again.  Repeated this 8 times.  Finally the first invocation
came up and after a while - a significant wait - the other 7 invocations also
came up.  I could learn to train myself to wait, I guess.  But that's performance.

> : I have heard that you need at least a boot partition just for OS/2,
> : and from others that ALL partitions OS/2 access must be OS/2 format.
>
> You heard wrong.  OS/2 doesn't require the boot manager, not does it
> require you to use HPFS partitions.
>

I am glad that this is the case.  I might even get OS/2 just to test my
software for compatibility after all.

> : I have also heard that development of DOS software using OS/2 is
> : not a good thing to do (hard to test for true compatibility).  Same
> : is true if you develop Windows apps.  As well, when Windows 3.2 (or
> : whatever) comes out, you are going to have to wait for IBM to scurry
> : to be compliant/compatible again.  And MicroSoft is likely to do many
> : many things to sabotage OS/2 compatibility as time goes on.  And finally,
> : the DOS emulation requires config.sys and autoexec.bat garbage for
> : each command.com run...
>
> 1) Some companies use OS/2 for DOS development.  Compatibility is no
> problem because OS/2 can boot any version of DOS from floppy or a disk
> image.
>

Oh, I have no fear of being able to run existing DOS software.  My fear
is that when I move my software to a DOS box, it won't work well/properly.
I can "suppose" and reason all I want that my stuff should work, but I
would rather trust the machine than my "human" mind which is subject
to "human" error.  As well, I want to see my software work as my audience
will see it, not as 700,000 people living in an even more orphaned/limited/
reduced environment than the Amiga has.

> 2) Win-OS/2 is based on Microsoft Windows code, so there isn't any
> compatibility there.  Again you heard wrong.
>

Win-OS/2 is a side-branch of the Windows RCS tree, so to speak.  It
guarantees nothing.

> 3) Windows 3.2?  What's that?  I'm still waiting for Windows NT.  Anyway,
> by the time Windows 3.2 comes out, there won't be any reason for an OS/2
> user to use those apps.  They either will be happy with Windows 3.1 apps,
> or OS/2 2.0 apps.  No Steekin' Windows 3.2 need apply.
>

Windows 3.2 is just a name for the next version of windows that will be
popular (and much more popular than OS/2).  Judging from the great
improvement in windows from version 3.0 to 3.1, the next version is
likely to be a "must have" upgrade, whether it be Windows NT or something
suited for a cheap 20MHz 386SX box with only 4 Megs of RAM.


> 4) DOS emulation does NOT requite the config.sys and autoexec.bat garbage
> for each command.com to run.  I can just type command.com from the OS/2
> prompt and get a DOS prompt.  Each DOS session can be configured with
> many of the same options config.sys supplies, but in an easy to use
> dialog box.  That includes loading session specific device drivers.  Each
> DOS session shares that same autoexec.bat, so there is only one.
>

The above paragraph seems to have conflicting statements.  First you say
you can configure EACH DOS session, then you say each DOS session shares
configurations.  In any case, you still have config.sys and autoexec.bat
garbage.  And no matter what you put on top of MS-DOG, MS-DOG ain't pretty.

> There is however a config.sys that OS/2 itself uses, but that is not
> directly tied to DOS emulation.
>
> : I am not using a flamethrower...
>
> How about brains?
>

Had to throw in a personal attack for good measure?  Clever.

> --
> +-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
> | Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
> | (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         |
> |                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@msi.com            |
> +-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
>

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy