From: linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: A personal perspective on choosing OS/2 2.0
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:07:49 GMT
Organization: NCSU CATT Prog

In article <1992Apr14.154553.7658@midway.uchicago.edu> valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) writes:
>linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:
>
>>technical and practical ways.  They just want to share their discoveries with
>>those who rely on the highly-biased reports from the trade rags and have been
>>mislead.
>
>My position:
>I would love to have a GUI that meets these criteria (presented
>in no particular order)

First of all, Desqview it not really a GUI.  (You basically excluded Desqview/X
which I have heard of, but have yet to see.)

>	1) Fast (on reasonable hardware - i.e., my 386 SX/20)
>	2) Doesn't crash (very often)
>	3) Doesn't hang for long periods doing God knows what
>	   (hourglass cursor or no)
>	4) Compatible with all my old apps (and I do mean old - the
>	   modem program that I use was assembled in 1985, and it is still the
>	   best communications program I have ever seen anywhere,
>	   for any platform)
>	   I.e., when I want a good old DOS command line prompt to run
>	   good old DOS programs, I don't have to fight through heavy
>	   brush & shrubbery to get there.
>	5) Will run all the latest stuff as well.
>	6) Appeals to the technodweeb in me.
>	7) Is not too highly touted in the, IMHO, "highly-biased trade rags".
>	8) Multi-tasks w/o excessive overhead.  In particular (and this
>	   is sort of a restatement of #1), switches between tasks
>	   quickly.
>
>You want to know what program meets these criteria?  DesqView!
>(Actually, I had high hopes for DV/X, but now I'm not so sure...)

Do you know what else meets those criteria?  OS/2!  I'll go you one better:
OS/2 doesn't rely on DOS, so there is no 640K barrier (or obstacle, since 
you can work around the 640K barrier under DOS, you just have to jump through
hoops to do it).

>But, believe it or not, I'm not here to bang the drum for DV (stop by
>comp.os.msdos.desqview if you want to join me and others in doing so)
>
>What am I am here to ask is this: "Given the typical independent computer user
>(I.e., not a Usenet reader, and not a corporate MIS person, but rather
>someone who is a business user and is allowed, by his corporate culture,
>to choose his tools), who is reasonably smart, and who makes up in low
>cunning what he lacks in technodweeb knowledge, how is he to tell the
>difference between Windows and OS/2?"  They sure look a lot alike!

I don't think that WPS looks much like Windows, and they sure don't act alike.
To me, all you have to do is open 2-3 DOS apps and notice how Windows nearly 
dies while OS/2 chugs on.  There are lots of neat things to demonstrate the
difference, and they are all more/less appropriate depending on who you are
showing them to.

>They run pretty much the same programs.  And as one correspondent

Windows doesn't run any of the OS/2 programs I use or have written.

>pointed out, being able to format in the background is not of much
>interest unless you understand the underlying concepts (DOS re-entrancy, etc)
>and can thus see the significance of it.  Being able to format in the bg
>is not exactly a selling point per se.

Formatting in the background is just one example of how to kill Windows in a 
way that doesn't bother OS/2.

>I'm really serious about this.  I understand the technical superiority
>of OS/2.  I understand that, when it is really ready (which may be a few
>more re-writes down the pike), it will run Windows better than Windows.

Considering that OS/2 can isolate Windows apps from hurting each other while
still allowing DDE and cut & paste, etc, and can run Windows 2.x apps along
with Windows 3.0 apps at the same time (even allowing them to cut & paste) 
which is something Windows 3.0 & 3.1 can't do and allows Windows programs to
share data with OS/2 programs, and is very close the same speed as Windows
3.1 (comparisons with both against Windows 3.0 in comp.os.os2.misc and comp.
windows.ms), I submit that it already runs Windows better than Windows.

>But what chance does any of this have, vis a vie the Joe Sixpacks of
>the computer world, against the massive media blitz offered up by
>MicroSoft?

Do you buy Coke or Pepsi based on which one has the cutest ads?  I buy the
one that tastes best.

>My girlfriend says that OS/2 isn't sexy.  I think she's right.

I never had a wet-dream about Windows.  As far as which one has the nicer
interface, I think the WPS is a lot prettier than that tired old Windows 
interface.

John W. Linville



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