From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
Date: 10 Sep 92 02:57:36 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep7.204054.8470@hellgate.utah.edu>, brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs
.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <92251.212003ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Andrew T. R
obinson) writes:
>
>Why aren't you in a Unix advocacy group....
>How dare you post this in the _NT_ advocacy group!  :-)
>
>>When you get down to it, NT is really superflouous.  There is already
>>an operating system which has been installed on hundreds (?) of millions
>>of machines, has been maturing for over 20 years, and has cross-platform
>>support that NT will never achieve.

Well, I'm not a big NT fan, but who's to say that it *won't*?  It may very
well do so in the future, (distant future) and it certaintly seems flexible
enough to do so.  (At least in theory)

>
>For some reason Unix people (and I was one) always seem to grossly
>over estimate how many systems run it.  All Unix systems on all machines
>ever delivered (whether it is still in use or not) is well under
>10 million. (DOS I believe has an installed base of around 80 million.)
>As a matter of fact Unix's installed base is much less than that of the
>Macintosh which has an installed base that is less than 10 million.
>
>I saw a comparison of the the various systems (this was just before the release
>of OS/2 2.0)... OS/2 1.X and Unix had a similarly
>sized base... I believe at the time it was something like 800,000.

I'm rather suspicious of those figures.  I have seen Unix for years, but have
seen OS/2 maybe a half dozen times before 2.0.  I have no figures to back this
up, but I am quite certain that Unix has a base that is much larger than OS/2
even now.
>
>>
>>UNIX, and all its incarnations.
>>
>>I don't think UNIX is the end-all of OS development, but a super-
>>comercialized product like Windows NT isn't, either.  If you're thinking
>>hard about Windows NT, think harder about UNIX.  UNIX and commonly
>>available add-ons can do everything NT can do, faster and more portably.
>>And UNIX is super-extensible, which means anything anyone adds to NT
>>that is new and novel will probably be a UNIX feature within a few
>>months, if it isn't already (suspect the latter :-)!
>
>UNIX is so far behind NT in its features, it's not funny.
>Just take a look at the OS/2 vs NT list I send out... do you know
>of any Unix that even comes close? (Except NextStep...  we've been
>over this before in this group... where were you?)

C'mon.  Unix isn't *that* far behind NT and several versions appear to be
about on par with it.  (Solaris and NextStep)   Even many of the somewhat
weaker versions are not that much weaker. Granted, many aren't as slick, but
they can do most of what NT does.  (And Solaris and NextStep look as if they
will be at least just as slick)
>
>>
>>If you want a powerful OS for a moderately sized personal system,
>>forget about NT and buy OS/2.  If you want a powerful, fully-capable
>>OS for high-end personal systems, servers, and their ilk, forget about
>>NT again and buy UNIX.
>
>You want to pay more for less???

Well, I can get some types for almost free so it doesn't appear that I would be
paying more for less.  (Less for less maybe)
>
>>
>>Oh, and forget the propaganda you've assimilated about UNIX unfriendliness.
>>GUIs really started on a UNIX platform, and there are several mature
>>GUIs based on X-Windows for UNIX which are no more difficult to use
>
>You want to buy a fat slow half/GUI with even less apps than OS/2?
>
C'mon, that's FUD.  ('Course so is what you were replying to but fair is fair)

>>than Windows, and are nowhere near so pretentious :-)
>
>Pretentious!... to even think that Unix is currently at as high a class as
>NT is pretentious.

Look.  Claiming that the other guy is an arrogant SOB is simply making you
look like one.  NT appears to be pretty good, but it isn't as perfect as all
its supporters would like it to be.  ('Course whose system ever is?)  Right
now, NT is in a very imperfect alpha version.  There is nothing wrong with
that, but it still has a long way to go.  Unix is quite developed and mature
and NT really hasn't caught up in a number of places.  (Not to say that it
won't but it isn't finished yet))
>

                                                    Stacy John Behrens
                                                    *===)-------------