From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:47:08 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Sep30.142702.5553@gw.wmich.edu> 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>> Why should I chose OS/2?
>> There are three "strong" points, Excellent VDM's, WPS, and REXX.

[I agree that we will have to wait and see what NT's DOS quality will be
like.  Long term though, DOS support is irrelevant.]

>> WPS and REXX are just application programs.
>> WPS is a nice idea, but falls short of being all that much better
>> than the Window 3.1 (note the 3.1) versions of Program Manager/File
>> Manager.  In fact, until IBM improves the speed of the drive folders,
>> I would argue it's inferior.
>
>	
>	On the machine required to run NT, the work place shell is
>quite fast.  Not as fast as a Mac but considering what it does, it
>is fast enough (key on this statement is that I consider a 386-33 with
>8 megs to be the minimum platform for NT).  It is far easier to use
>than the windows shell is.

The machine you listed is the smallest machine I've ever used OS/2 on.
I would hate to see your idea of slow.

>	I didn't argue that Rexx was a wondrous feature but since you
>see it as important, any feature that comes with the OS is going to have
>more support than a third party add on (using your old networking comes
>with NT argument).

See below.

>
>
>> REXX is the remaining feature... it's the one I can't knock down
>> especially since seeing Visual REXX.  While REXX is nice, it has
>> an awful lot of historical uglies... and again Cairo will have
>> "Object BASIC".
>
>
>	Cairo is not going to be here until 1994 so this is irrelevant.

Yes but OLE 2.0 will be here sooner.  It's supposed to be in
the October beta release, but with the slipages I won't be surprised if it
is not there (anyone know for certain?).
OLE 2.0 will allow integration of third party add-on scripting languages
that will exceed REXX's integration in OS/2.  Any app that supports
OLE will be able to make use of those languages.

>
>> 
>> So in short OS/2 has two features WPS and REXX both of which will
>> will have alternates from MS in NT in '94.  Third parties will clearly
>> be putting out shells similar to WPS (and probably better thought out).
>> And there are already REXX versions for NT in beta... which, BTW
>> are already integrating advance version of OLE 2.0.  In short this
>> means that this REXX will be BETTER integrated into NT than REXX is
>> into OS/2.  OS/2 programs must specifically integrate REXX on a per
>> program basis.  The way OLE 2.0 is designed any program that takes
>> advantage of OLE will be able to use the REXX _or_ any other
>> scripting language the user chooses to use.
>> 
>> Everything else that OS/2 has... NT has NOW!
>> 
>
>	Again, NT is not here yet.  Managers have to ponder whether
>they should mvoe to OS/2 now or wait for NT.  They are not going to
>wait utnil 1994 for NT to get OS/2's features.  OLE will be about on
>par with NT by the time it is released.

Why would they move to OS/2 now?  There are no apps and it's not all
that stable.  It does not yet run Windows 3.1 apps and its existing
Windows support is slow and mostly not seamless.
Come OS/2 2.01, then maybe they could consider it, but NT will be in
the middle of its beta by then and it should then be clear what NT will
deliver.
In taking so long to clean up their act, IBM may have shot OS/2's chance.

>
>> Now what does NT offer over OS/2?
>> First and foremost:
>> 	Has a cleaner, more modern design than OS/2 2.0.
>> 		This is extremely important and very hard to describe
>> 		in a short space.  Essentially it means that added on
>> 		system features such as "Stacker" is MUCH easier to
>> 		do.  For example NT has dynamically loadable/unloadable
>> 		file system and device drivers.  This is a result of
>> 		its design... OS/2 could add this feature, but it would
>> 		have to be hacked in.
>
>
>		You speak from a developer's point of view.  From
>an end user's point of view, stacker will install itself just as easy
>on OS/2 as NT.  Design of the OS is irrelevant to the end user (in terms
>of your above statement).

You're telling me that it does not matter to the end user how buggy
the product is?  OS/2 2.0's current design is a conglomeration
of OS/2 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 code with rewrites of significant
portions glued together under incredible time pressure.
This is not a design, it's a hack.
Every time you add a new feature to a hack, you introduce new and glorious
bugs... I hope you enjoy CSD installation.

While NT will no doubt feel time pressure in its finish, it started as
a clean modern design.  Extensibility was a primary design goal.
A goal learned from experience in the design of OS/2 1.X and 2.0.

>
>> 
>> 		Maintenance of NT by MS will be much easier. This means
>> 		less bugs.  New features will occur sooner.  MS intends
>> 		to release sources to the research community allowing
>> 		the latest and greatest research to flow into NT.
>> 
>
>	As you probably can imagine, if MS does it, so will IBM and
>vice versa.  AGain, from an end user's point of view this is irrelevant.

No it means that MS can devote more of its time to enhancements and stability.
Surely enhancements and stability pleases end-users!

>
>> 	ISV support
>> 		Features like all system API calls that take strings,
>> 		take UNICODE strings make a lot of difference to ISVs.
>> 		Microsoft has carefully recruited a much broader base
>> 		of support than IBM has for OS/2.
>> 		Vendors making products for the vast Windows 3.X market
>> 		can EASILY expand their market by doing a quick port
>> 		to NT.  If you consider that the likely developer
>> 		platform for Windows 3.X apps will be NT, then it
>> 		should occur to you that, that in itself will
>> 		encourage the ports of these apps to NT.  In truth
>> 		many of these will be made on NT using a subset 
>> 		of the API (such as Win32s) and then "ported" to
>> 		Windows 3.1... I mean this will only make sense...
>> 		it's far easier to debug an NT app.  Even if the
>> 		eventual target is a native 16-bit windows app...
>> 		it is easy to make the same source code work on
>> 		both.
>> 
>
>	Most users that would be using an OS like OS/2 or NT are looking
>for specific types of apps that require a 32bit OS.  These apps will
>be out for both and out for OS/2 arguably sooner than for NT.

That's a rather narrow view point.  Three years from now NT-class OS's will
be the mainstream.
Even now... you might generally only choose the power of a 32-bit OS
if you have good reason, but you'll need the mainstream apps too.  NT will
have these -- they'll initially be simple ports of 3.X apps... OS/2 doesn't
have these now and there's no particular reason to believe it will later.
People on this group tell each other all the time about how many OS/2 apps
are on the way... but these things are announced in the trade rags, and
the fact is there just are not that many on the way.
Most of the vendors announcing in the March timeframe promised only to
monitor the OS/2 market.  Well COMDEX is in November, I'll be proved
right or wrong by the numbers of Apps being shown for OS/2 and NT there.
(I'll be at COMDEX -- and you can believe I'll be paying attention
to who's doing what for which.)

...
>> 
>> 	More low-level OS features (e.g. memory-mapped files).
>> 	Symmetric multiprocessing support.
>> 	NTFS
>> 	POSIX  (1003.1 -- the system calls)
>> 	Runs on more than one architecture.
>> 		This set of features appeal to several large niche
>> 		markets.  Realistically speaking, OS/2 is two years or
>> 		more from having these.
>> 
>
>	For the most part, IBm has announced all but the NTfS support
>for OS/2 later on.  While I don't say that means it will be so, in
>this argument I will use it since NT ins't shipping yet.  Most buyers,
>however (end users) do not need these weighty features.

The point here is potential customer base.  NT clearly fits into more places
that does OS/2.  Especially at the high end.
The combined Windows 3.X/Windows for Workgroups/Windows NT/Lan Manager for NT
leaves OS/2 largely out in the cold.

>
>
>> Finally...
>> OS/2 2.0 is a kludge of 16-bit and 32-bit calls.  It will be
>> quite some time before IBM can get it to a portable state.  It is
>> missing a fair number of major features.  Unless a complete rewrite is
>> undertaken it will always be a hack...  and hacks are hard to
>> maintain.  It's API is already cluttered with historical problems
>> from failed 1.X ill-thought out features.
>> 
>> NT has one of the most clean modern designs of any
>> commercial OS available or announced.  It has a feature set that
>> is ready to take full advantage of modern systems.
>> It is inherently portable and extensible.
>> 
>> Wouldn't you prefer that the better OS win?
>> Five years from now would you prefer to be fighting the uglies of
>> a hack (i.e. the future equivalents of the 640K barrier), or using
>> an OS that was designed to be extended?
>> 
>
>	Most people don't consider DOS a hack and it is the most
>widely used OS in the world.  NT is better designed but these things
>are only nice to the developer.  From the end user, your argument
>is moot.  OS/2 is certainly far from a hack.  

In general if it is good for the developer it is good for the
user.  It means in the end you get better less buggy apps.
Why did the Mac have better drawing and desktop publishing programs than 
DOS (until Windows 3.X) came along?  Clearly a PC/AT was capable of such
things.  The reason is simple... the ISV's were provided sufficient tools
under the Mac to make this sort of thing possible.  Likewise
NT will provide the tools for a whole new class of integrated software
that combines OLE/RPC/E-mail/Multimedia features.
These program "objects" will be freely intermixable, allowing you to buy
the objects you need to end up with combinations customized to you're needs.
No longer will you have to buy one expensive program with a kitchen-sink
feature list.  Instead you buy a set of objects that provide what you need.

>	Moreover, if you continue on the OS/2 platform, there is
>hope of a better OS than NT is supposed to be, Taligent.  While I
>am not going to bet my horses on Taligent, it is supposed to offer
>everything NT can do but more.

What evidence do you have for this?  I've never seen a feature list for
Taligent... do you have one?  Do you really believe an OS will come out
on a RISC platform that will support not only it's own apps but DOS,
Macintosh, and OS/2 32-bit apps?  (Imagine the diskspace you'd need!)
You do realize that IBM has announced that OS/2 app support will come
out well after Taligent's initial release? I don't remember the exact
dates... but it was over a year later.  Also just recently IBM said
that Taligent was not headed for the mainstream market, but rather for
"specialized high-end markets" whatever that may mean.  Taligent is a
vague dream that will likely be torn apart by political infighting
between IBM and Apple.  NT on the other hand is real... you can get a
developer's pre-release now and see for yourself.  It's commercial
release will happen soon (i.e. within 6 months).

>	Only time will tell.  But your arguments fail to convince me
>why OS/2 should be passed up and to wait for Windows NT.

Your response shows that you had already made up your mind.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can think that the design
of an OS is unimportant to an end-user.  The end-user may not realize
the importance, but it's important all the same.

>	
>	The far and wide vast majority of computer users run DOS
>apps and some Windows apps (windows is catching up of course on DOS).
>Posix, logons, and other things you mention are not of a concern to
>them.  Even I, a "power" user am not particularly concerned whether
>NT is better designed or has C2 certification.  

Sounds like you're making excuses... I have trouble believing you don't
care about Logons.

>	When it comes to networking and the corporate business world,
>people trust IBM and Novell and it is quite clear that Novell is
>behind OS/2 moreso than NT.  

Yes those with Bluified minds do seem to have trouble seeing beyond IBM.
Fortunately they are a minority.
What evidence do you have that Novell is more behind OS/2 than NT?
Don't forget I'm in Utah... and I have friends that have friends as the
saying goes.  I see no evidence that Novell is more behind OS/2 than NT.
Remember that Novell (through it's spin-off Univel) is about to
enter the high-end desktop market too.
Microsoft has been quite careful to court both Novell and Banyan into
the NT camp.

>
>	NT seems to be a hodgepodge of good features but is not the
>"best" at anything.

What possible grounds do you have for calling NT a "hodgepodge"?
If you had studied its design, it would be clear to you that a lot
of thought went into it.  The features that are there are well integrated.
Things that are extra subsystems (like POSIX) are easily stripped off.

>						-Brad

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! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware