From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Release dates ( was Re: superVGA (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:44:07 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Aug12.140856.21609@hellgate.utah.edu>, brian%jensen.cs.utah.edu@
cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>  > From:  dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
>  > In-reply-to: Your message of "12 Aug 92 19:27:27 MST."
>  >              <1992Aug12.192727.3841@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
>  ...
>  > >apps... to me this in inconceivable... why restrict yourself to
>  > >Describe, Object Vision and free/shareware.  I find it hard to believe
>  > >that anyone can't find at least one Microsoft app they really like
>  > >(I very much like Word and Visual Basic).
>  >
>  > There are a wealth of DOS apps that simple perform better than windows
>  > apps.
>Name a DOS app that does word processing nicer than the WYSIWIG
>approaches possible under Windows?
>Harder still name a DOS drawing app that does a better job than Windows Draw?
>Games are still better under DOS, but I can't think of much else I'd
>miss.  (Others would miss databases, they still aren't all that available
>under Windows.)  Clearly Excel 4.0 is better than any spreadsheet around
>anywhere.

Well, databases are *very* important.  Also, he never mentioned any particular
apps, but there are apps that are better in DOS than Windows.

>
>I know people that swear that vi/emacs and troff/TeX are the best way to
>word process too.... I also know these same people haven't checked out
>the abilities of modern programs.

No, those aren't word processors, they are text editors and there is a big
difference.
>
>Certain apps are simply better in a GUI environment.
>
True.  And some simply aren't.

>Oh, one other thing... have you USED Windows 3.1... a lot of the performance
>lag you might have seen under 3.0 has gone away.

Debatable, but we've beaten this one to death.
>
>  > >Oh... one other thing... Borland has now said that the compiler for
>  > >OS/2 will not be available till year's end.  It's about to enter
>  > >beta.  Borland said at the NT developers conference that they will
>  > >have the NT version out within 2 months of NT's release.
>  >
>  > Oh, so they will have it out in September '93 ?
>  > Get real, Borland once said that they would have their OS/2
>  > complier released at the same time as OS/2 2.0.  Everyone lies
>  > when it comes to release dates.  Borland is just worse than most.
>  > It is almost on par with Microsoft.
>I think it more likely that Borland has placed a higher emphasis on
>the NT version than the OS/2 version and have pulled resources from
>the OS/2 to be used on NT.  The slippage of Borland's OS/2 delivery
>dates correspond suspiciously with announcements of a stronger and
>stronger presence in the NT world.

What evidence do you have to back this statement?  To be honest, it doesn't
make much sense to me.  Why would Borland support the product of its biggest
competitor over one from someone with whom they really don't compete at all?
Also, in case you hadn't noticed, there is a much stronger presense in the
OS/2 world than there is in the NT world right now and this will continue for
some time to come.
>
>Brian
>
                                                 Stacy John Behrens
                                                 *===)-------------

                                                 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy