From: spexet@engin.umich.edu (Dennis Robert Spexet)
Subject: Re: Why people bow and scrape before NT (long)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 17:32:08 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world 

In article <1992Aug26.121607.9974@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <Y=j-3#-@engin.umich.edu> spexet@engin.umich.edu (Dennis Robert Spexet) writes:
>>    My favorite one, which you love to brag about:  The C2-level of security.
>It is C2-level, not C2 certified... I don't really care if its ever certified
>or not, as a matter of fact what I really like is that it has logons, giving
>per-user customizations. As to C2 certification... get a life.

Perhaps you may not give a damn about whether or not the security claims
are rated by an independent firm, but you may rest assured that there are
many firms and agencies that are very concerned about such claims.  While
you may tell such people to "get a life", that is nothing compared to what
they would tell MS or yourself if you went into their office and tried to
claim that NT was C2-secure.

Until it's rated as C2-secure by someone other than MS or yourself, then it
cannot and should not be trusted as such.


>
>>2.  I suspect that you will not see too many "neat and cheap" GUI apps on NT.
>>    Other than word processors and spreadsheets, I think you are going to see
>>    workstation-level prices (read:  many thousands of $$$) for NT apps.
>>    This is merely speculation, though.
>Snicker!!!  The NT apps that are out already are priced normally... with
>as many developers as are headed to NT, I'm sure competition will keep
>the price down.

Which NT apps do you refer to?  I didn't know that there were NT apps out
in the marketplace yet.

Do not confuse reality with idealism.  While your claims of low-priced 
NT apps would be nice if they came true, you provide absolutely no evidence
to support your claims.  Until NT actually is released, and applications
that support the NT platform (as opposed to those that serve the Win3.1
or DOS or OS/2 platforms) are released, your claims are nothing but mere
speculation and idealism, and should be treated as such.

>>4.  Your comments about OS/2 and its multimedia API are not only arrogant
>>    and snide (my personal opinion), but they also seem to be largely
>>    incorrect as well.  Many people are developing for OS/2 and its MME, many
>>    of them in-house.  More people are developing for this than you think.
>It's simple, you have to pay $149 to get OS/2's MME... how will you
>ever get people to develop low and medium end apps?  Windows NT's MM is the
>same API as Windows 3.1's there are already apps.  3.1->NT porting is easy.

See above.  Until true NT apps exist, your claims are mere speculation.

>>WPS is more than just a shell.  It's a way of interacting with the user.
>Shell. noun. a program that allows users to interact with a system.

A shell may allow a user to interact with a system, but the shell in and
of itself does not constitute a GUI.

>>While WPS has many rough edges for now, I think it's a damn good thing that
>>IBM has included it.  The IBM personnel have various ideas on how the user
>>should interact with the machine, (i.e., how the GUI should work), and I
>>must admit that I think more of their "rough-edged" shell than I do of
>>Microsoft's "bug-free" one.
>Microsoft's shell is not bug-free, but even Windows 3.0's Program Manager
>was less buggy that WPS... and Drive Folders and File Mangler 3.0 have
>a lot in common in the area of bugs and speed.

Nevertheless, I would much rather use WPS/PM than the Windows GUI, though
I will admit that this is purely a personal preference.

>>As far as shareware shells go, WPS is going to be hard to beat.  It's got
>>more capabilities than you have observed.
>Ah... now you know what I've been observing... and you're worried about
>C2 certification... are you from the CIA? FBI? :-)

I work for neither of those organizations, though I must admit that C2
certification does concern me, since it is one feature that I would enjoy
seeing in an operating system.

>>I also have 800x600 SVGA video under OS/2.  Isn't it nice?
>Must have a trident card... otherwise you don't have seemless windows... that
>for many if not most users means it just doesn't count.

Nonsense.  I am running an Orchid Prodesigner.  While I do not run seamless
Windows, I run both OS/2 and Windows fullscreen apps just fine in SVGA mode.

>>NT is not even a beta.  It is, at most, an alpha-level developer's kit, with
>>the stuff you need to write NT apps.  You think more of NT than what it
>>really has.
>Wow... I use it every day... I must be having long term halloucinations...
>you'll save me won't you?

I'm not here to "save" you.  To be quite honest, I really couldn't care less
about your choice of operating systems.  I'm merely stating a point, which
you can take as you will.

I've seen both OS/2 and NT in action.  While NT promises to be one hell of
an operating system when it is complete, the fact that it isn't complete
is a factor that must be taken into consideration.

>>OS/2, for the most part, has the "normal" features you speak of.  NT is
>>missing most of the features you speak of.
>Where's my super-VGA... why don't some of my Windows programs run... why
>are they so slow there?

SVGA is already running on many boards, though not all.  As for Windows
programs not running, I claim that most of them do, with few exceptions.
Furthermore, consider that I could ask why NT will not run PM apps.

>Brian


-- 
D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu
Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    user68xr@umichum.bitnet
The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109