From: nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: PRO/CON on Mirrors (was Re: AmiPro for OS/2)
Date: 24 Jan 93 19:36:20 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

jp776@macbeth.umd.edu (Robert S. Rodgers) writes:

>>Does it really matter?  I've heard some people saying that everyone
>>should boycott and whine about programs that use Mirrors, but I think
>>that this is ridiculous.  An app should be judged on its own qualities,
>>and not on the API used by the developers!

The problem is, an app that uses mirrors has bad qualities.

>	As long as you're going to be running Windows code, why not buy the
>	versions that are more likely to be less buggy, updated more
>	often, and are only dependant on the quality of WINOS2 (which can
>	be updated independant of the application) for efficiency? 

I agree. All you are getting is a clone of the windows version, likely with   
very poor performance. I would much rather get the real thing (for less money,
too).

>	The fact is, buying Mirrors-based products only encourages more of the
>	waffling on OS/2.  

>	So yes, it really does matter.  If they're using mirrors, chances are
>	they're just having their Windows programmers do the job of quickie
>	patches to a windows core.  A sure fire way to get a lousy, buggy product.
>	It would not "matter" if it was printed on the box.  In cases
>	such as that, I would simply buy the Windows version and move on,
>	unless I had heard that it *specifically* supported OS/2 features 
>	that outweighed the very-possible chance of ending up with a bug-ridden,
>	slow, non-OS/2-consistent product.



>	Dip in, pull out at the first sign of trouble.  OS/2
>	needs companies willing to sit it out and build a market,
>	creating applications in the meantime that draw users
>	to OS/2.  Mirrors products are the antithesis of this goal.
>	How likely is it that a Mirrors app will run any faster than
>	a win app under the 2.1 beta?  Under the 2.1 GA?  Not very,
>	considering that the 2.1 that I've seen runs them at about
>	95% to 101% of the speed (not, of course, seamless).  

Agreed again. I have seen OS/2 advocates respond to the snail's pace of
OS/2 apps as a problem with mirrors. These slow apps were a BIG part of the
widespread dismissal of OS/2 as a viable OS. (along with their outrageous price
tags). If this is true, then mirrors is the worst thing that ever happened to
OS/2, IMO.


>	
>>ones that need the strongest encouragment and response from the market
>>to help broaden the OS/2 vendor base.  If their Mirror-based product
>>doesn't sell, they may give up on OS/2, whereas, if it does well, they
>>may switch to native API in a future version.  Thus, it might be argued
>>that it would be better to buy a Mirror-based program if other things
>>*are* equal.


>	Wrong.  Buying a mirrors based product only encourages
>	more of the same ("whatthey really want is just a straight
>	port of the Windows version").  

And like I said before, why not get the real thing?

>	Speed?  Is the user interface OS/2 consistent?  Bugs?  

>	All of these are not just program issues, but *mirrors* issues.


>	Mirrors is just a sneaky way to sell Windows products to
>	OS/2 users and fool them into thinking they're getting
>	a real OS/2 product.

And persuade others not to go near OS/2.

>>It seems like some of the loudest shouting against Mirrors comes from
>>anti-OS/2 crowd.  Do any other OS/2 *advocates* have any comments or
>>opinions about Mirrors to share?

I am not an OS/2 "advocate," but a a user. I am not a Windows advocate.

>	It's always the anti-OS/2 crowd argument.  Some grand and global
>	anti-OS/2 conspiracy, for instance, that keeps OS/2 apps (ha) 
>	out of stores.  Some omnipotent pack of OS/2 haters that keep 
>	IBM from creating even remotely clever advertisements, let alone
>	honest ones.  

The OS/2 advocates should really think about this. People are really reaching
for an excuse.

>	Mirrors is a lot like computer companies that talk in their ads
>	about the high quality of the parts, etc--and charge twice as much
>	for the system.  When you get it home, you take a peek, and see
>	nothing but the industry standard names that your friends clone
>	has, but he paid 1/2 as much.


Agreed again.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy