From: coxm@Software.Mitel.COM (Michael Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2, windows, NT, UNIX, what next?
Summary: I like SPAM
Keywords: OS/2, windows, NT, UNIX
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:08:13 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


  I'm getting sick of this OS/2 vs Windows/DOS/NT bashing.  Here is my goo . . .

   I started programming under OS/360 (release 20?), then Xerox Sigma 9,
then IBM/CP-CMS, then VM/SP, DEC RT-11, DEC RSX-11(and M), DOS, UNIX (lots
of flavours), DEC VMS, Windows, and now OS/2.  Included in there would be many
application packages (yes including TopView).  I've also worked with many
real time operating systems for embedded (PROM based) systems.

   That's my history.  IMHO I have yet to see a package which was fantastic
starting at release 1.0.  I've only seen two packages which were very good at
version 2.0 (OS/2 and BC++).  But the vast majority (including BC++) don't
really seem great until version 3.0.  I don't think any product can forsee
the problems experienced by users who "don't know what they're doing and just
want to get the thing to run" (no flames please, I am one (in the case of OS/2)
who didn't know what they were doing).  So it will take at least one major
release to fix the really big problems in any large system.  After the
second major release then the developer can concentrate on enhancing the
functionality of the system.
   OS/2 went on an unheard of pre-release testing phase.  I would/could only
expect NT to do the same.  IBM certainly has broken new ground.

   I have crashed windows 2.x and 3.0 hundreds of times (perhaps more like
thousands (some related only with DOS though)).  For windows/DOS I must have
averaged two crashes per day.  In the nine weeks I've had OS/2 I've crashed
it six times.  The robustness of OS/2 impresses me.  It's not perfect, but
then it's not yet at version 3.0 either.  For Windows 3.1, I cannot say (I've
barely worked under it).  I know people who do have it and some like it, some
dislike it, some have it and don't use it.  Certainly 3.1 under FAT runs very
well.  I run HFPS and OS/2 runs just as snappy.

   Windows 3.0 turned people onto graphical interfaces.  By people I mean the
average computer user at work, home (or garden :-)), or school.  It added a
graphical interface to the PC.  Not the first graphical interface, not the
best graphical interface, but it provided the moment with the required product
and at a good price.

   I personally find the OS/2 WPS to be more intuitive than Win 3.0.  In some
cases I also find it more annoying too (perhaps I should buy the books).  Some
co-workers I know find just the opposite.  It's all a matter of personal
opinion.

   In late March/early April I faced a delema:
1) Do I get Windows 3.1? or
2) Do I get OS/2?
Windows 3.0 was nice but I like pre-emptive multi-tasking and sending messages,
and client/server type systems.  So I opted for OS/2.  With the exception of
not supporting FrameMaker I've been very happy with my decision.  I now must
decide if I get Workset/2 or wait for BC++ for OS/2.

  When NT is released it will face the following problems:
1) it's a new product.  Full of bugs like any other.
2) for the MIPS machine, full DOS emulation is easier said than done (I would
   imagine man years of testing on this for thousands of DOS programs).
3) it's large, larger than OS/2.  I'm always shocked about people knocking one
   OS because it's large but liking another because it is large.  To me there
   are two reasons for an OS for being large:  better fault recovery, and more
   utilities/support/drivers.  Both are good.  I can understand if you have
   only 60Mb for a hard drive but the cost per Mb is quite cheap now.
4) because it is large it requires more memory.  Many people who have 8Mb now
   and are full, must upgrade to 4Mb simms for 16Mb for an additional support.

  To me if NT really provides functionality that I must have then I'll buy it.
POSIX conformance is nice but POSIX only is not enough.  If they supplied
POSIX, Motif, and PEX then I'd probably go for it.

   Like OS/360, Windows/DOS has it's place in computing history.  Technology has
moved on, so must the tools we use.  Windows/DOS is now an old (OS) tool.  OS/2
is my current (OS) tool.  Only time will tell if NT will be my next (OS) tool,
or something different.

Michael "only my opinions, I'll tell you someone elses for fifty quid"
-- 
Michael H. Cox      | ". . . but there is some hope of a constitutional
                    |  settlement"  Monty Python 1971
Mitel Corporation   | "My Canada includes Alberta, B.C., P.E.I., N.S., N.B.,
                    | Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Sask., Yukon, Nfld, and N.W.T."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy