From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:12:02 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep30.170158.26323@hellgate.utah.edu>, brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@
cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <92274.152722BJT105@psuvm.psu.edu> <BJT105@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>I think there are a couple important reasons people shouldn't "throw their
>>support" exclusively to NT or OS/2:
>>


(stuff that was reasonably true deleted)
>>
>>2. Neither NT 1.0 or OS/2 2.0 is "the ultimate operating system."  While
>>   NT is fresh now, and we've never had an operating systems with so many
>>   features in its plan, NT's design will have grown old and awkward in
>>   10 or 15 years. Whether it will be neural co-processors for a natural
>>   language interface, or a new programming paradigm, we must never count
>>   out the competition introducing a new system that rises above the old.
>
>Yes but NT is far closer to the "ultimate OS" than OS/2 is.
>

Agreed, from a purely technical point of view.

>>
>>3. The pain of dealing with both OS/2 and NT -- especially for the developer -
-
>>   could turn out to be a non-issue.  In terms of the services and abstraction
>>   that the operating system provides to the developer, NT and OS/2 are
>>   extremely similar.  Programming for DOS or Windows 3.1 or OS/2 2.0 are
>>   all very different propositions .. but programming for NT or OS/2 is
>>   the same concept:  utilizing the API to protect the programmer from
>>   dealing with the hardware or the system.  I think (and hope!) Borland
>
>Sorry... this just isn't the case.  OS/2 is a strict subset of NT
>in terms of the non-graphics API, but OS/2 has a lot of historical grundge
>and the names and flags are all different.  The graphics API between the two
>is enough different to make ports non-trivial

The idea that OS/2 is a subset of NT is utter hogwash.  OS/2 is a system that
was designed for PC's.  Read the last sentance carefully.  It happens to have
a significant portion (read most) of its features included in NT, but that is
simply because NT was designed with higher goals in mind.  A subset implies
that *ALL* of it's features are included in the higher system and that is
simply not the case.
.
>Plus OS/2 does not come with Multimedia or Networking support.

Most people don't need one or both of these and it is rather silly to pay for
things you don't need.

>Further IBM has promised to make Win32s available under OS/2... my
>guess is that most developers of mainstream apps will head for Win32s.
>Further if they use the Microsoft Class Library... it looks as if they
>might be able to hit the Macintosh platform too.

Not likely.  The Mac platform is so significantly different, that I think both
OS/2 and NT would have a hard time including it.  It may be possible but it
would be very difficult.
>
>>   might have a surprise for us:  Identical C++ libraries for OS/2 and
>>   NT!.. I know of nothing that would not make it feasible (anyone? problems?)
>>   If someone could make this a reality, I think we all could be more
>>   comfortable allowing OS/2 and NT to fall into their niches: NT, it's
>>   portability; OS/2, it's intel-based advantages.  And then we could also
>>   feel better about IBM and MS duking it out to make better and better
>>   systems for us!
>OS/2 has an Intel-based advantage? What?  A ton of Intel assembly language
>written by disgruntled Microsoft programmers?

The fact that it is capable of allowing apps to talk to the system more
directly at times.  NT by its nature cannot do this.  This isn't necissarily
bad but it will sometimes slow things down and sometimes cause
incompatibilities.
>
>There are tons of people making such C++ libraries already... just call up
>Programmers Paradise or Programmers Connection, etc and ask for a catalog...
>or look in MSJ or OS/2 Developer there are many ads... this is not all that
>great an approach for commercial apps... there are inherent design
>differences between the two API's and a fair bit of overhead must
>be introduced to compensate.  Plus there are other support issues... not
>to mention that apps would have to be written to use these libraries from
>the start.

This is true.
>
>>Bernie Thompson  --   OS/2 2.0 on 16M V-COM 386-33
>
>Brian
>--
>C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
>University of Utah                             United We Stand
>Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy