From: nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: NoS/2 shipping yet?
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.misc
Date: 9 Apr 1992 03:27:28 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

NOTICE: I know I just said a few days ago I wouldn't talk about OS/2
	stuff here, but I simply can't let such blatant misinformation
	go by unnoticed.

	If you don't care to hear about OS/2, skip the rest of this article
	now.

jsmolnar@descartes.waterloo.edu writes:

>>Nothing was left out...

>Well, hate to tell you this, but 32 bit Pm is not included, not all of seamlessswindows is included (ie SVGA, this is a fact), and other things, so becareful, you don't seem to know exactly what you are getting.  They are giving you a product they said would be complete, but it is not.

First of all, please hit carriage returns BEFORE 72 columns, makes your
article easier to read and quote.

32-bit graphics engine is not included, that's the only thing that IBM
promised but didn't ship.  As to seamless windows, it's the video card
manufacturers' responsibility to provide drivers for their products.
Did Windows 3.0 come with ET4000 high-res drivers?  Did Windows 3.1
come with such drivers?  (not a rhetotical question, just curious, but
I presume not, since someone just announce the drivers on wuarchive)

And I don't understand what you mean by complete, please elaborate
on why OS/2 2.0 is not "complete".

>Well, sorry, but 3.0 did have a drag and drop style FM.

And we all know the FM in 3.0 sucks rocks.

>>   - A built in font manager for scalable fonts.  OS/2 has had Adobe
>>     Type Manager integrated into the operating system for years.  

>Sorry, ATM has not been shipping with it for years, for I own it and know this for a fact.

You are wrong, 1.3 ships with ATM.

>>- It has "Ole".  Neat.  Who cares?  Do any PROGRAMS use it?  The same
>>  features are available in OS/2, under a different name.  Nothing new here.

>First of all yes, a good few industry standard programs come available with it.
>And hate to tell you this, but you don't know what the hell you are talking about (as if this wasn't evident before).  Nothing even close to OLE is available under OS/2.  And OLE is quite useful for interapp communication.  I use it a lot.

"Nothing even close to OLE is available under OS/2" -- I don't know, how
about OLE?  Lee Reswig(?) was shown demoing OLE under OS/2 in COMDEX
yesterday.  And OS/2 2.0 has advanced IPC features like named pipes,
semaphores, and other things that Windows can't even touch.

>Please, if you want to compare the two, do it with constructive criticism or stay on a Os/2 area.  I agree that technically os/2 is better because of the 32 bit support, and multi-threading 

This threat was started by someone asking "NoS/2 shipping yet? ... I heard
it doesn't include ... ", then another person answer his question, though 
the words on Windows may have been a little too harsh.

>(though 32 bit support is available under windows 3.0 and 3.1 .. more so in the later), but for the user, Windows is a hell of a lot better and will therefore fare better.  OLE, MM Extensions, TT fonts, faster, better FM etc (and cleaner desktop than os/2 2.0) all lead to a nicer system to work with.  

That is just YOUR personal opinion, lots of OS/2 users would disagree.

> ... be constructive and know your facts before you speak...  I use both systems, and know what I am talking about.

ur-huh.

Followup-To comp.os.os2.misc.

--
                               _   /|
Nan Zou                        \'o.O'     "Procrastination is an art,
nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu           =(___)=     of which I am a master."
#include <std_disclaimer.h>       U
matt:/home/mattd/nan/.sig>