From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: NT? WHY?
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:19:57 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University


	I have noticed a lot more MS employees on here lately
which is strange since I would imagine this a dark time for MS
considering that NT has been delayed until 1993.
	Personally, I don't think it is the end of the world for
NT to be pushed back.  If OS/2 apps hit the market much before NT,
then NT will be in trouble.

	But to address some points I have read on the net from
MS employees...

	Windows NT in its current state may indeed be the future
OS.  But that would more likely be from its name and its connection
to the popular (if not well implemented) Windows apps.  I myself
was an extreme Windows zealot for a long while.  I ripped on people
who would call Windows 3.0 "Some of the nicest beta software I've seen."
I programmed for it.  But in the end, I simply had to accept that
it was simply a Dos shell.  Or to those that would flame that statement
I could also put it as an extremely underpowered graphical Operating
System.  Whichever you choose.  But Windows is popular more so because
it is bundled with most computers (including our company's computers)
than because it is "the best".  It has good apps out for it and is
reasonably easy to use and does have enough power for those who only
have 4 megs of memory or less.  
	This is where Windows NT comes in.  MS's policy has been "Stay
with windows 3.x if you don't have the machine for NT." But those of
us with the machines for NT are going to have the choice between OS/2
and NT.  Until last winter I didn't give OS/2 a thought.  Win32 (as
it was called back then for the most part) was the natural stepping
up from Windows 3.1 (beta at the time).  Two things changed this though:
OS/2 was released with the work place shell (slightly buggy but a
true pleasure to use) and the NT SDK was released on CDRom in July.
MS's on the net seem to think that NT does everything OS/2 does but
more.  This is not the case.  I will assume that most of us believe
that whoever rules the Intel platform has won the game already.  With
that in mind, OS/2 has these important thigns in its favor that NT
simply is not going to have or have in the near future:

NT will not be able to run DOS programs as quickly or well as OS/2.
NT chose to be airtight (not a bad choice but this is the result).

NT is going to have the ridiculous program manager and file manager
back.

NT is going to run Windows programs probably only as well as OS/2 does
(I have the beta with win 3.1 support and seamless windows 3.1 sessions
are very fast now).

So MS people out there, why should we, the users who have the machine
to run NT choose it over OS/2?  

More Apps?  The bread and butter apps will be out for OS/2 before NT
and OS/2 runs all windows programs I have.

To make money?  MS makes most of the money on Windows.  ISV's have more
money making potential in the OS/2 market IF it succeeds.

Network support?  Novell is the standard and will continue to be and
its support for OS/2 is solid.

Multi-platform?  Who cares.  Any manager who suggests putting WindowsNT
on a sparc so that they can run word for windows won't be a manager for
very long.

Those without the machine cna stay with the very well done Windows 3.1
product but the movement to NT is not automatic.  MS is going to have
to leech from its Windows title (i.e. people might move to Windows NT
simply because it is called "Windows").

So why should those of us with 8 megs or more move to NT?  (This is
not rhetorical, there are some very good thinkers on this net --Phil
from MS being an example).  Convince me, convince us.  The NT
"pre-beta" solidified our support for OS/2.

					-Brad

===============================
Brad Wardell
Systems Development Director
Stardock Systems SDS
Western Michigan University
===============================



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy