From: buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Subject: Re: OS/2
Organization: University of Manitoba, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:16:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.174327.28671@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>
u0xh@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Chris Newton) writes:

[ incredibly long lines . . . ]

In the future, please try to split your paragraphs into several lines.
Not all news software handled 500 character lines well, and this makes
it much more difficult to deal with your postings.

|    I thought I'd put this in, seeing as you guys (being OS/2
| advocates) probably don't read Windows Magazine a whole lot, but
| here it goes.  This is a quote from an IBM employee that was in Win
| Mag, Dec issue.  I thought it was kind of representitive of the way
| I see IBM.  A 14 disk (3.5" 1.44 Meg floppies) bug fix!  I mean
| really!  Anyway...

I think what really pisses off Microsoft flunkies is a comprehensive
bug fix and upgrade that wasn't given a new version number and didn't
cost them a $50 upgrade fee.  The CSD was 14 disks (including the two
disks of new display drivers) because it included the new 32-bit GRE
and replaced just about every system file on the machine.

If, as has been suggested, IBM had released a 2 disk binary "diff"
(plus another three disks for the GRE and display drivers), it would
have wreaked havoc.  Unlike Microsoft, IBM is happy to supply its
customers with interim patches for problems that affect their
installation.  With everyone at a different "patch permutation",
anything but a complete replacement was not feasible.

The result is a CSD that brings everyone, regardless of the
combination of patches they've applied, up to the same system level.
This CSD can be distributed to anyone by any means, since only people
who own a running copy of OS/2 can make any use of it anyway.

| |  "Everythings all f***ed up down here.  OS/2 is all over the floor,
| | Geordie will be late.  Current projects have names from Star Trek
| | The Next Generation"

|  I pulled that out of memory, so may not be completely word for
| word, but you should get the idea.

Well, we get an idea of what your selective memories of a quotation
attributed to an unnamed IBM employee in a biased Windows magazine
are.  What use this is to anyone is another issue entirely.

|                                     I played with OS/2, and I grant
| you, the DOS program work great but I dont want a 32 bit graphical
| enviornment that needs 8megs to use old dos apps that require a 16
| bit OS and 640K.

If the sum total of your computer work requires running 16-bit 640K
DOS programs one at a time, then, clearly, you are not a user that
needs anything other than DOS/Windows.  Enjoy your bittersweet
victory.

|                   I saw someone mentioning that some of their
| folders take 20 seconds to load, and I agree with him!  Mine take at
| least 8 seconds to load up some icons.  It does nothing I can't do
| with Dos/Windows 3.1, and Win3.1 does it 4 times as fast for me
| (w/386-33 and 8Megs).  When I load stuff in Win3.1, it takes less
| than a second for almost everything.  I can't even load a folder to
| get at the icons to launch stuff in a second.

You're just making times up.  When I get up in the morning it takes me
2 hours just to get into the bathroom.  That goddamn bus takes me
eight hours.  So by the time I get to school, I might as well stay on
the bus, so I can get back to make myself some supper (which takes
four times as long as it used to in that old microwave) and get
into bed, which is so uncomfortable I can't sleep for more than 10
seconds.

Makes my day sound pretty bad, eh?  Well, that's 'cause I lied.

|  As for you all putting NT down, I saw this article somewhere and
| thought you might like to see it.  It shows what NT has (New
| Technology really means that!  This thing is impressive).

But, as you've said, you don't need a 32-bit OS that takes 8 megs to
run a 640K DOS program.  We have something in common!  NT is nothing
more than an interesting phenomenon to us both, and neither of us will
never have the need or the hardware to use it.

>>   -----------------
>>
>>   Below is a subset of a trip report from the San Francisco Windows NT
>>   Developer's Conference I wrote for my friends and collegues.
>>   They are mainly Unix types, so it is written from that perspective.

[ Some guy's experience "testing" NT installations on 50 MHz 486's
with 16 Megs and Microsoft-chosen applications and demonstrations.
In other words, an unbiased test experience on hardware everyone is
likely to have. ]

[ A list of features, most of which are already features of OS/2, all
of which have roots either in Microsoft's early OS/2 and Windows work
or in the Unix world i.e. NONE of which are "New Technology".  (Unless
you count Unicode file names.) ]

>>  What features does OS/2 2.0 have that NT doesn't?
                  ^^^^                       ^^^^^^^

Since we're talking in the present tense here, why don't we deal with
NT--the real beta operating system, as opposed to NT--the mythical
futuristic operating system available in early 1995 instead of
qualifying every OS/2 advantage with a statement that NT will probably
have that feature a few years after it's first released?

>>	   It will run in slightly less memory (6 meg min vs 8 meg min).

Realistically, the different is more like 6-8 vs. 8-12 megs for
low-end users.  The "8 megs" to "more than 8 megs" jump is significant
for a lot of motherboard owners.  Like the guy in the article said, a
486SX-25 with 8 megs is just too slow.

>>	   It MAY have better DOS support (i.e. more games will work there).

It DOES have better DOS support now, it almost surely will have (much)
better DOS support 12 months from now.  Microsoft is not committed to
DOS support.

>>	   The workplace shell. (A superior GUI shell -- however as a future
>>		   plan ['94], Windows Cairo will have a shell that is similar
>>		   in concept to the workplace shell, and at least promises
>>		   to be even better.)

It'll be more like 1995 (that's 1998 in MicroSpeak), and we all know
that OS/2 won't evolve past its currently superior GUI shell in 2.5
(or 5.5) years, so Cairo will easily overtake it.

Actually, I'm being too harsh.  I, too, am eagerly awaiting Cairo.  In
fact, I'm trying to avoid doing any object-oriented file manipulation
right now, because I know I'll be able to do it much more efficiently
in late 1994.

|  Well there you go. I just thought I'd spew out a few of my own
| comments.  Everyone else has.  I don't like flames, so just discuss
| this in a rash manner, don't try shooting me down too.

I think you should hardly expect that, given your own tone.

Kevin <buhr@ccu.UManitoba.CA>