From: buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Subject: Re: Why Windows NT will fail -----
Organization: University of Manitoba, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:29:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.231749.20097@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu
(Yamanari) writes:
>	   The days of DOS are ended--it doesn't matter what does 
>	   the final extermination--OS/2 or NT or the next Windows 
>	   (bootable, no-dos).  DOS will continue on with a 
>	   dual-boot type of capability (probably more like the 
>	   boot manager, which I prefer anyway) for games, but not
>	   much else.

I doubt it.  Corporations and other large institutions move from one
environment to another *MUCH* more slowly than you or I, and
acceptance by corporations is going to be the deciding factor in the
success of NT and a very large factor in determining the success of
OS/2.

The number of DOS-based systems is too large--way, way, way too large.
If NT without good DOS support enters these corporations, it will run
on a small fraction of the corporations' hardware:  high-end servers,
possibly, Windows development stations, etc.  The people running
outdated financial systems and ancient word processors won't leap on
the NT bandwagon.  And there are far more outdated DOS-based financial
systems and ancient DOS-based work processors than flashy new Windows-
based software (at least in the corporations where I've worked...).

>  >  It is going to require more system resources than OS/2 to get the same
>  >     level of performance.
>
>	   Let's see if I can explain this with analogy.
>
>	   Let's pretend that the requirements for DOS/Windows3.1
>	   are equal to the distance of Venus from the sun.  
>	   The requirements for DOS are Mercury's distance.
>	   The requirements for OS/2 are about equal to the
>	   surface of the earth facing the sun, and the requirements
>	   for NT are represented from by the distance from the sun
>	   to the far side of the earth.  

You must think the solar system is much smaller than it is.  Remember
that the keen glossy schematics that NASA used to publish had a little
note in the corner about the scaling of planet size versus planet
distance.

Analogies aside, OS/2 takes anywhere from 5-10 times the resources DOS
does for comparable single-application performance (depending on how
you "weight" the different system resources) while Win NT appears to
require anything from 1.1 to 1.5 times the resources OS/2 does for
comparable single-application performance.  When operating in its
element, OS/2 performs better than DOS on a 386 w/ 8 Megs and better,
and when operating in *its* element, I'm pretty confident that Windows
NT will outperform OS/2, probably on a high-end 386 w/ 12 Megs and
anything better.

On the other hand, the diameter of the earth is many orders of
magnitude less than the distance between the earth and the sun.  Too
many magnitudes to make your analogy anything but an incredible
exaggeration.

>	   Relative to the whole system--the requirements for
>	   DOS/Windows--the differences between NT and OS/2 are
>	   minor.  NT requires more RAM and space, and any 
>	   processing advantage OS/2 has is equalized by the 
>	   fact that it's graphics card drivers suck or 
>	   dor not exist (cept for XGA, XGA2).  (think of
>	   this as represented by the tides--equal on both
>	   sides of the globe--so will performance)   

Yeah, well...  Let's just say you've really stretched this analogy.
If the analogy was originally the diameter of Jupiter, for example, it
now reaches from one end of the Milky Way to the other.

>	   NT does not require all that much more than OS/2 does
>	   relative to the systems that people are used to.

Sure it does.

>	   I would be asking myself how systems ever became so piggish.
>	   Amiga's multitask programs just fine in 1 meg.  I used to
>	   run WP 4.2, a comm program, and a postscript interpreter
>	   all at once on such a system (I used to run a comm program,
>	   and editor, and some other things ona 256k system, too, for
>	   that matter). 

This has been hashed out before.  AmigaDOS provided no memory
protection or virtual memory.  And of course, it provided support for
no operating environments or devices other than the ones found on all
Amigas.

>                         The fact that OS/2 can be really slimmed down
>	   in terms of disk storage if you eliminate Windows and DOS
>	   support isn't heartening because it's memory requirements
>	   don't drop much at all--6 megs (bearable, but you'll find yourself
>	   dual booting a lot), 8 megs (acceptable, if you don't mind
>	   your system being slower than what you're used to for
>	   everything but disk activity), 12 megs (good performer) and
>	   16 megs (*real* OS/2). 

You've padded OS/2's requirements as much as you've downplayed the
difference between Windows NT and OS/2 requirements.  OS/2 GA is
bearable in 4 megs if you don't run any Windows programs.  It is quite
useable in 4 megs if you dump the WPS in favor of a command line (or
the OS/2 version of Norton Commander).

>  >Windows NT will be lucky to capture 7% of the pc market by 1995.
>
>
>	   That's higher than I would put it--there just isn't the 
>	   need.

And once again we disagree, but we've both hopped over to the other
side of the fence.  I suspect Windows NT will have a very respectable
PC market by 1995.

>	   If you want to give NT a bloated 7%, I'd have to give OS/2,
>	   maybe.. 2% or so.  But it'll probably be more like 5% and >1%.

Ah, so this was your ploy!  Well, fat chance.

Kevin <buhr@ccu.UManitoba.CA>

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy