From: jbodnar@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (John Bodnar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows NT humor
Date: 14 Dec 92 02:38:37 GMT
Reply-To: jbodnar@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (John Bodnar)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

According to rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari):
>	Truth in advertising?  From the company that claimed
>	"A better Windows than Windows?" (When Windows is *obviously*
>	3.1 and *not* 3.0).. Same companythat advertises somethingas
>	vacuous and ambiguous as "crash protection">

The "Better Windows than Windows" is subjective.  Here are my reasons for
believing this:

1) Gentle crash recovery.  OS/2 politely informs me that it's going to kill
the application.  Windows 3.1 does this only occasionally.  It brings up
the "Press Ctrl-Alt-Delete to end this application," but too often, it
doesn't work and resets the machine.  Under OS/2, I can run my Windows
applications in separate, protected VDMs, so I never (I repeat NEVER) have
had to reboot because Windows or a Windows application crashed.  This is
"Better Windows than Windows."

2) A better GUI.  I consider the WPS a better way to switch between
multiple applications.  Under Windows, I switch back to the Program Manager
and open a new application.  The Program Manager is always there, and it's
inefficient.  Under the WPS, each Windows program I run does so in its own
VDM, and I just Ctrl-Esc to switch between them.  This is "Better Windows
than Windows."

3) Better DOS multitasking.  I still use DOS programs, and OS/2 allows me
to multitask them along with Windows applications without performance
degradation.  This is "Better Windows than Windows."

You see, "Better Windows than Windows" means more than just performance.
All of OS/2's critics have agreed with the "Better DOS than DOS," but they
conveniently forget this when evaluating its Windows capabilities.  It must
be so only because Windows applications are dog slow compared to comparable
DOS applications, and so performance really becomes the only criterion.
Besides, Windows is a DOS program, so the "Better DOS than DOS" also
happens to apply to it (both figuratively and in real use).

>	Although I use OS/2, I am not moving to OS/2 apps, and I find
>	myself bootingto useit less and less because I really don't
>	much like the DOS applications I use under it (and I am
>	willing to admit how badly the WINOS2 support is--next 
>	to 3.1 onthesamemachine, it sucks--I didn't use 3.0 and I
>	don't know why I would start just because it runs under
>	OS/2..) 

You cannot conclusively prove than Windows 3.1 substantially outperforms
WIN-OS/2 3.0.  Even benchmarks in the trade rags have reached the same
conclusion: the performance difference is only about 10%.  Now, the lack of
seamless WIN-OS/2 drivers is a problem.  Windows 3.1 has an advantage here,
but it will evaporate in due time.

There is also a market to be found here.  How many OS/2 users will upgrade
their frame buffer based VGA boards (ET4000 based, ATI, Trident, Paradise),
etc. when Radius releases their XGA-2 card?  If the price is right, the
answer will be many.  Radius sees the opportunity to make money here, and
undoubtedly, other companies will see the same opportunity soon enough.
-- 
John Bodnar                          : Friends don't let friends use Windows!
The University of Texas at Austin    : But I'm still waiting for Microsoft
Internet: jbodnar@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu : Solitaire NT!  Heaven forbid, another
UUCP: ....!cs.utexas!ut-ccwf!jbodnar : productive user of OS/2 v2.0!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy