From: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: NT vs OS/2 features (was Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 08:23:43 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Sep01.010548.11230@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>: 	Full symmetric multiprocessing support.
>>I believe IBM has a Parallan server (multiprocessor) which runs OS/2. I
>>don't know any other details though.
>
>     Multiprocessing != Symmetric multiprocessing.  Last I heard, IBM
>had a version of OS/2 that would run network stuff on one processor,
>and everything else on another.  That's not symmetric.
>     If there has been an advance that I haven't heard about, I'm sure
>someone will correct me.  :-)

So?  The differences between symmetric and asymmetric are largely
philosophical.

Unless you can show some hard evidence as to why symmetric is better.

(And, yes, I've read the preview of "Inside Windows NT."  And I'm
not satisified with the reasoning.  "NT uses symmetric processing,
while other systems use assymetric processing.  Thus, NT is 
better."  Maybe it will be explained in the final version? :)

>>: 	Platform independent device driver support.
>>Is there really such a beast ;-).

>     Windows NT has this "Hardware Abstraction Layer" that is supposed
>to make driver-writing easy.  I haven't tried it, haven't really
>looked at, so can't comment on how useful it really is.

If it works, I'd be really impressed.  =) 

I'd like to see a easy-to-write printer driver.  Also, I've heard
trouble with installing printer drivers under NT.  Hey, now, I thought
you guys said you wouldn't sell an OS that wouldn't print! (didn't
Bill himself [ahmmm, let us pray] say that?) *grin*

Remember, in NT a printer is not a device when it comes to driver.
Hmmmmm.  

(I only repeat what I heard from the people who went to your WIn32
extravaganza in San Fransisco.)

>>: 	Generalized Registry. (database as replacement for '.ini' files)
>>???
>      Well, it's essentially just what Brian said - a big database
>that replaces all those .ini files.  It's kind of neat, but it's often
>hard to remember what's in there.

I ***REALLY*** like this idea.  .ini files are incredibly archaic.

Again, I really hope you pull it off.   Now, anyone want to buy me
330MB of disk space and a CD-ROM player so I can play with it?  
=) 

>>: 	Pen Support.
>>Well seeing that I still am not convinced pen computing is such a big
>>thing, I'll reserve comment.
>     Pens are neat.  They seem to be a niche market for the moment,
>although that may change in the future.  I can't imaging anyone
>who can write faster than they can type, though...

Hell of a lot better for you when you're on a plane, too.  =)

And I think it would just be great to delete a paragraph with the
copyeditor's delete stroke.  That would just be way super cool.

(Oops, that sounds kinda sarcastic.  I didn't really mean it to be.
Actually, there's very little sarcasm in this post...just a little
orneriness.  =) 

>>: 	Fully 32-bit drivers.
>>NT can never be fully 32bit because it wants to support Windows, DOS
>>etc.
>      This is not strictly true.  Windows NT runs 16-bit Windows
>and DOS apps in subsystems - when running a 16-bit Windows apps,
>any time spent in API calls will be mapped to the appropriate
>Win32 calls.  All the drivers can be fully 32 bit.

Hmmm...the same way OS/2 does it.  How interesting. =)  Are you
guys doing it via thunk?  Is there any other way to do it?

>>: 	SDK has C++
>>Borland's C/C++ is in beta now. I believe C++ is next on IBM's compiler
>>development list. Zortech has some (I belive) primitive OS/2 support
>>already. Don't forget GCC of course which (apparently - since I don't
>>have the toolkit |-(.) works with the IBM supplied toolkit.
>     C++ is a non-trivial language to support - if IBM is just
>starting now, don't expect to see anything from them for a while.
>GCC does do C++, however.  Probably doesn't optimize, though.

Heh, they aren't just starting now.  You must've forgotten how IBM
management works *grin*.  IBM has probably been working on C++ support
since 1973.  *double grin*.  

Actually, I'm curious as to when Microsoft began work on C++.  If 
they answer is nonconfidential and won't embarrass you too much. :)


>>: 		High Reliability
>>I'll believe it when I see it. otherwiseI'll take it with a grain of
>>salt.
>     It's been pretty reliable for me so far.  As you say, though,
>believe it when you see it.  Always good advice.

Wow.  Never thought I'd hear you say that.  *grin*

>     If you're running FAT, then you don't get the benefits of NTFS.
>That's fairly simple.  You can't run two different file system types
>on the same partition, but you can run them on the same drive with
>different partitions.
>     Strangely enough, FAT is faster than HPFS under Windows NT at
>the moment.

Now, that's **weird**.  You guys aren't running the 1.3 version of
HPFS are ya?  =)


>     He did - "object-oriented shell".  I deleted that text, though.

Pray tell.  Does the 'Do-Not-Enter' sign bother you that much, Phil?
=)

cpk

PS:  Here's a large grain of salt from the mining capital of the 
universe. =)

PPS:  Maybe I should write an emoticon-counting program.  We can
call it CHUCK.EXE.  I won't have NT support until I become a 
millionaire, though. =)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy