From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: Windows NT: The Other side of the coin
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:30:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.015023.2841@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.215713.22059@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>
>[ ...flames deleted...]

Darn, I though that's what .advocacy was for! :)


*** Let me restate here that this list is about the *October Beta*  *** 
*** of NT, not the released version (of course)                     ***

>>Bad points about Windows NT (in no particular order):
>
>Let me do a short term - long term discussion here...
>
>> 1. Few native applications: Currently, there are probably only about
>>    100 available applications that are written to the Win32 API.
>
>This occurs with all new OSs.  The important point is whether a new OS
>will gain apps in the long term.

OS/2 had (has) this problem as well.  It looks like several vendors are
moving to OS/2 now after remaining non-commital initially.  With NT,
vendors seem to be committing earlier, but we'll see how things turn
out when NT is released.

>> 2. Requires lots of resources: The current beta requires a little over
>>    50 MB for a full install (including swap file).  It also requires
>>    8 MB of memory, but it'll be slow.  (Some guy on CompuServe had it
>>    running in 6 MB, but said that it crawled.)
>
>Slowness in 8 MB is bad news for NT.  As I (and others) stated in other
>posts the jump to 16 MB is expensive due to the four-way interleave in
>many motherboards.

If NT in 8 MB is the same as OS/2 in 4 MB, then I agree that NT is
going to be a hard sell for the non-power user.  However, I'd guess
that a great number of people interested in it wouldn't be held back
by this.  (How many developers, engineers, and hobbyists already have
more than 8 MB on their system?  Quite a few, I'll bet.)  In fact,
a few clone makers sell high-end systems standard with 16 MB now.

>> 3. Mediocre DOS subsystem: The DOS support in the NT beta is not finished
>>    and it shows.  Also see 5. and 6.
>>
>> 4. Mediocre Win16 subsystem: The 16-bit Windows support in the NT beta
>>    is slower than native Windows 3.1.  Also see 5.
>
>This is short term in WRT the beta.  What matters here is how the support
>(i.e. compatibility, speed, etc) will be in the long term (when NT is
>released).

I agree.  According to MS peoople on CompuServe, they just recently
started to optimize the subsystems and the system overall.  I believe
that the same thing happend with Windows 3.1, where most of the long
beta was spent on compatability issues.  I think OS/2 was in the
same situation when it was in beta.

>> 5. Backwards compatibility:  Due to the secure nature of Windows NT, some
>>    types of applications will not run without rewritten drivers.
>>    These include:
>>
>>    a. Applications that directly address hardware, such as FAX cards,
>>       scanner cards, or terminal emulation cards.
>>    b. Applications that rely on their own disk drivers; for example,
>>       applications that increase hard disk capacity.
>>    c. Applications that directly address disk drives; for example
>>       disk maintenance applications.
>>    d. Applications that rely on their own graphics device drivers
>>       to address the hardware; for example some slide production software.
>
>Not allowing apps to directly address the disk drives is understandable
...
OS/2 has problems with b. and c. as well.  I suspect that it'll suffer
from all of these once they put it on top of Mach.  (It's not that
they can't do it, but that it would violate system security.)  The
current solution for NT is Virtual Device Drivers -- if these are
written (and you can bet many will be) lots of these problems go away.

>Does NT have a boot-from-disk feature like OS/2 2.x?  This may be
>important for people that need to load a block device driver.

If you mean a "specific dos image" type thing, then no.  If you mean
does it boot from disk, then yes. :)

>> 6. Stability: The Windows NT October beta crashes once in a while.  In my
>>    experience, and that of most others, this is almost entirely related
>>    to the DOS subsystem.
>
>Short term here.  Just as long as it gets fixed in the release.

True.  When OS/2 2.0 was in beta it was similarly (or even more) unstable.

>> 7. Cost: It is remotely possible that the final release of Windows NT
>>    will cost $499.99.  I doubt it, though, but a lot of OS/2 advocates
>>    like to believe that.

>Long term here.  A short term deal (like get the beta for $69 and get
>the first release free) does little if NT is expensive in the long term.
[...Lots of other pricing stuff deleted...]

Microsoft was planning on releasing the NT DDK for some large number
of dollars, but people complained.  Because of this, they lowered the
price ($69).  Microsoft has a very experienced marketing department and
they'be proven that they'll get by with lower profit margins to win
market share -- Look at Access for $99 and FoxPro for $495.  Something
like this will probably show up for NT.

I understand your point about long term costs, but those are harder
to figure.  IBM fixes stuff for free (so far).  MS doesn't do MAJOR
upgrades for free, but minor bug fix releases (x.xa, x.xb, for
Microsoft) are always free.  A lot of this will depend on how stable
NT is when it comes out (i.e., whether you need a quick upgrade or not).

>> 8. Limited installed base: I would guess that there are only 50,000 or
>>    so people with the NT Beta.  Actually, I'd guess a bit higher, but
>>    it's not significant.
>
>I can understand the low numbers since it is a beta, but I don't see a
>large number of people using it in the long term.  The "advantages" that
>NT has over OS/2 will not matter to most people.  I think that if they
>need more than DOS or DOS+<whatever> they will go to OS/2 over NT.  When
>NT is released it will have a hard time playing catch-up with OS/2's
>installed base, and it will have to match OS/2's pricing and compatibility
>just to stay competitive.

I don't mean this to be an insult, but lots of people are pretty
convinced that OS/2 is so great that nobody needs NT (of course there
are some that are the other way).  Remember, though, that Microsoft
hasn't actually started advertising it.  Sure, a little mention in
a few ads, but have they actually started advertising it?  No.  Outside
of people like us, nobody knows that much about it.  Sure, a few things
in trade magazines but that's it.  Look what happened when people became
aware of OS/2.

Also, for large corporations, most of them are very familiar with IBM.
But for small and medium-sized businesses, lots of them started with
PCs, so the name they know is Microsoft.  As they grow, they may want
to stick with them.

>> 9. No new shell: Windows NT comes with Program Manager.  However, the
>>    capability exists to add other shells such as NDW.  (NDW is planned
>>    for NT).
>
>This is more bad news for NT in the long term.  The point of buying GUI
>software is to use the GUI.  I think it makes little sense of advertising,
>say Windows 3.1, as a GUI system then having users dump the GUI for a
>replacement!  NT inherits this bad feature from Windows, unfortunately.

Actually, I don't know too many people who buy Win3.1 for Program Manager
or OS/2 for the WPS.  Most of them buy it for the environment it gives
them.  Usually people spend most of their time within an application,
not sorting files around and stuff.  People buy Windows to run Windows
apps and they buy OS/2 to run whatever.

>>10. Limited driver availability: A large number of video cards and other
>>    types of hardware are not yet supported with the current beta.
>
>Short term here.  New software usually means few drivers.  Why can't
>hardware makers make drivers early?!!  MS and IBM are not nobody!

Surprisingly, there's a great number of drivers for NT already.  This
may be because MS made the DDK available early (i.e., BEFORE the
product was released), and also because NT drivers may be closer to
Windows 3.1 drivers than OS/2 drivers are.  Also, MS has more experience
dealing with PC hardware vendors than IBM has.

>>Note that some of these problems also apply to OS/2 2.x (any version).
>>I welcome other people's input on this list, especially how you see
>>OS/2 compare in these areas.
>>
>>     - Mike
...
>   ``>>I know what HPFS is and NTFS is, but what is ETFS?''
>
>   ``>Evil Timothy F. Sipples :-)''

Actually, I was kind of surprised when he made the accusation about
NT's FlexBoot, but he's since explained himself.  He spends a lot of
his time trying to help people out and promote OS/2, but he doesn't
seem the type of guy to post things like that.  Fortunately, he proved
that he isn't.

>==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====

     - Mike
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy