From: linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Why I'm sticking with Windows
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:55:19 GMT
Organization: NCSU CATT Prog

In article <1992Apr15.214354.22770@cs.mcgill.ca> becap@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian CAPSON) writes:
>I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you want to know what makes NT  
>leagues better than OS/2, you can find it out for yourself, the info is readily  
>available, and covers the topic in great detail.

I have read much FUD about NT, and when it comes down to it, there is very 
little that isn't already available now (most of it is available in OS/2).  The
supposed C2 security and multiuser support are two of its big features, but
multiuser OS/2 is already available from Citrix (if you really need it).  The
security, multiuser support, and portability is in Unix.  For that matter, OS/2
has been built with portability in mind as well.

>> Do you even know what features OS/2 has?
>
>Come on John. I'm getting sick and tired of your know-it-all condescending  
>remarks. Your ignorant reply to someone who disagrees with you is that they  

It sounds like to me that your are the conescending know-it-all.

>don't know what they're talking about. I assure you that I am fully aware of  
>OS/2's functionality, I've given it a full workout and have read all the specs.

What do you consider a 'full workout'?  It must not have been too much of a
workout if you are still satisfied with Windows 3.x. (IMHO)

>I have also used NT, and read its specs. NT definately is the better OS. Sorry.  

Where have you used NT?  Did you give it a 'full workout'?  What kind of 
machine was it running on?

>Now run along back to your little group so you can pat each other on the back  
>for being so smart while us Windows users wallow in our ignorance.

I haven't originated any of the threads here.  If I see something that I 
consider disinformation, or if I see a question about OS/2 that I can answer,
I will post.

>> >I'm not convinced that IBM does have access to the NT source, but if they  
>do,
>> 
>> Not only do they have access to it, they are still partially funding the 
>> project due to existing contractual obligations.
>
>Tell me John, where do you get your information? My sources at Microsoft tell  
>me this is absurd.

It is (relatively) common knowledge, and it has been confirmed by the IBMers on
the net many times.  It is included in the same 'family' of agreements that 
gives IBM access to Windows 3.x code and gives Microsoft access to OS/2 2.0 
code.

Your sources at Microsoft are wrong.

>I've told you, if you don't know what makes NT so great, Then FIND OUT about  

I've told you, I have seen as much about NT as anyone outside of Microsoft can
stand.  I don't see anything that makes it 'great'.

>it. You'll see, unless you've got your OS/2 blinders on, as I expect. The  

Why don't you take your Windows blinders off?

>notion of OS/2 having "hooks" for the things that make NT really stand out is 
>absurd. We're talking base-level design characteristics here.
>
>> If you're running DOS (patch upon patch) and especially Windows 3.1 (the $50
>> patch) then don't speak to me about OS/2 becoming a patch.  At least it is
>> here now.
>
>At least it's here now. That's great. 

That's more than we can say about Windows N(ot)T(oday) (maybe it it really
Windows N(ot)T(ommorrow))

>I guess that you really do have no idea what NT is about. I understand why it's  
>difficult for you to compare them then. NT will embody the complete Windows  
>API, including 16 and 32 bit implementations. That means that I can maintain  
>one set of source code, and recompile for 32 or 16 bit systems. Users can then  
>run my app on a PC. On an Iris Indigo. On a new DEC Mips machine. The NT  

I sincerely hope that this is more successful than POSIX (which promises the
same thing).  Don't forget that (depending on your app) you will probably need
different sources for big-endian and little-endian machines.

Also, to program in this Utopia you will need to program for the least common
denominator (16-bit Windows API), which means you will have to leave out
threading and certain other whiz-bang features which are supposed to be
availabile in NT (and are in OS/2 today).

>interface is totally redesigned, and it will appear on both the NT and the DOS  
>based versions of windows. Please read about NT before you start making snarky  
>and inaccurate comments about it.

Funny, everything I have READ about NT and everyone I have corresponded with 
that has seen it tells me that it still uses the same old, tire Windows 3
interface.

>You run Windows apps where you want, and I'll do the same. I will at least give  
>you the courtesy of not telling you that you are wrong, something that I wish  
>you OS/2 evangelists would have the social skills to do as well.

You should be able to see the difference in pointing out how OS/2 is a more
stable environment for Windows apps versus telling you that you are wrong for
running Windows apps under Windows.  (For that matter, didn't your previous
post imply that running Windows apps under OS/2 is 'wrong'?)

Truthfully, the tone of your response and your hinting of Microsoft contacts
indicates possible past/present/future employment by Microsoft.  If so, then
I can see why you might take it personally when someone (such as myself) points
out the flaws in Windows.

In the future, if you want to insult me and/or patronize me, please do it by
e-mail so I don't feel compelled to respond here where it apparently angers
so many.

John W. Linville




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  John W. Linville                Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                  |
|  #include "std_disclaimer.h"     E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu         |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------