From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: os/2 bigot meets nt
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Distribution: comp
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 18:47:50 GMT

In article <199225.3155.6030@dosgate> "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com> writes:
>-> From: robs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Robert Suh) writes:
>
>-> Well, I can name lots of reasons...
>->
>-> 1) C2 Security - I know lots of places that Security of data on the
>-> PC or LAN is a MUST.  Can't have someone just walk up to a PC/Node
>-> and take a look at all the data on it.
>
>Are you under the impression that NT has C2 security?
>
NT is being designed to meet Government Orange Book criteria for a C2
system.  However, that is a *long* way from actually being certified by
the Government as "officially" C2.  Many purchasers won't care whether
or not it is an "official" C2, I suppose, but the Government itself
does.  Further, it is, of course, mostly the Defense Department within
the govt that is pushing higher security, and C2 is only a short-term
solution.  Several Unix vendors are preparing B-level OSes, and that's
what DoD really wants in the end.

>-> 2) Cross Platform - Wouldn't it be nice to be able to sit in front of
>-> either a PC, MIPS, Alpha, or almost any other system (Thanks HAL )
>-> and know that Windows NT has the ability to run on it?  I know thats
>-> a BIG Plus for some of the larger mixed - environment workplaces.
>
>How many people have even seen an Alpha?  The Intel world is where
>it's at.
>
I'd dump my Intel PC for an Alpha in a second if I could afford it.  And
actually, I heard that this cross-platform thing just means that there's
a version of NT for the Alpha, but the DOS/Win3.x software will run in a
version of Insignia's SoftPC.  I have seen this on the Mac and on Unix--
it sucks.  It only emulates the 286 instruction set, it's slow, and it
is just generally unacceptable.  It is *much* poorer that OS/2's native
DOS/Win3.x support (at least on Intel hardware).  So the only things
which are really cross-platform about NT are the OS itself and the API.
To really get any advantage out of hardware that you pay ~6x more for,
you must have a natively compiled version of your app.

>-> 3) Win32s - What more to say?
>
>How about "enables ISV's to write applications no more capable than
>they currently are under Windows 3.x, but pretend they're really
>NT apps"
>
That sounds about right to me! :-)

>-> 4) Multiuser support - Albeit, not so great as some variants of UN*X,
>-> but it's a lot better than what OS/2 offers 'out of the box'.
>
>Just like the Alpha....How many multi-CPU boxes do you see out there?
>The intel x86 market is the only one that counts, and cross platform
>compatibility isn't going to make a product succeed.  I'm sure
>having a Mac version available sells a few more copies of certain
>Windows apps (like in workplaces with PC's and Macs), but nothing
>to write home about and Macs far outnumber multi-CPU boxes.

Well, he said multi-user, not multi-processor.  However, NT's MP is more
likely to be real than it's supposed multi-user features.  The "is NT
multi-user?" thread has been beaten to death here before, so I won't
start it up again.  Still, while we're talking about MP, I think support
for it is a "good thing", because I suspect that with time we will see
more such machines, but at the moment, I have no need for it.  The
fundamental thing is, if I were shelling out the kind of $$ it would
take to get me a fast RISC MP machine, like say a four-processor Alpha,
I'd want to run something cool like OSF/1-- why waste all that hardware
on Windows?  It just seems like a truly weird idea.  Remember that the
buyers of such high-end hardware are *not* secretaries-- they are
scientists and engineers, and they have a little more sense and
technical awareness than the average PC user.

-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy