From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: \* IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big \*
Summary: People who read news will read anything 
Organization: Jesus T-Shirt factory
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:18:05 GMT


In article <1992Dec12.215037.43052@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (ST
ACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
 
 
        Tip for the net crowd: when you quote, EDIT.
 
>"biggies" products are within the next three months, your statement is going
>to be very wrong in a very big hurry.
 
 
        That's your guess, but my statement was made in the now and it is
        100% on target.  Lots of promises, no deliveries.  I specifically
        pointed out that I was discussing the now, you are discussing
        some time 3 months (or more) in the future.
 
 
>Not at all.  Putting OS/2 on Mach is hardly retrofitting.  Remember Mach is
 
 
        You don't think so?  The OS/2 that sits on Mach, will--by
        necessity, be a total rewrite (unless they're planning on running
        OS/2, as a whole, through some sort of emulator--and no one
        is that stupid).
 
        But I was not addressing OS/2-on-Mach, since that is so far
        off into the future it's not even worth discussing. It's
        not even in alpha yet, and how close or far from that point
        it is, no one is saying.  At least 12 months, probably more,
        will pass before it is released.
 
        Putting SMP into OS/2, as it stands (as they've done,
        in a really weak and pathetic way, to the version
        of 1.3 that runs on the 295--i.e. "SMP, not even" might
        be a good title...) would be retrofitting, and that
        *never* works right.
 
 
 
>Then why do all NT advocates (like yourself) just love to hold this over
>OS/2's head?  Like you said though, SMP is fairly irrelevant for the current
>Intel platform.  Nor will it be very important for most desktop systems.
        ^right                                          ^Big-time wrong
 
        The problem with implementing SMP on an Intel system, and
        implementing it in *user* systems (which is where it's going
        to have to be, eventually), is that it makes it pretty
        damn hard to maintain backwards compatibility (i.e. bootup
        and run) with DOS and other PC operating systems.
 
        This would pretty much defeat the point of buying Intel
        based hardware.  If a user was going to go with an SMP
        system, they'd pick one that had the most bang for the
        buck, and since non-NT (at this time) programs wont get
        anything (well, perhaps serious compatibility troubles)
        from SMP, these people will be buying SMP systems based
        on the R4000 (demoed NT) and Alpha (demoed NT SMP).
 
        SMP systems are *not* _necesarily_ expensive any more than
        harddisks were. Christ, I remember the family spending over $1000
        for a 5 megabyte harddisk, now more than a decade ago, and
        I remember how much a 10 megger cost soon after ('81).  That
        was back when they were first getting into the consumer market,
        and prices were high (but performance was fantastic next
        to floppies, even if it did have something like a 60ms
        access time..).  It'll be the same with SMP.  People who
        claim SMP is forever too expensive remind me of the
        people who said the same thing about HD's, RAM, tape drives,
        color highres graphics (still expensive, monitor wise),
        2400 baud modems, 9600 baud modems, 14400bps modems,
        fax machines, OS/2 (memory, processor, storage requirements),
        blah.
 
        At first, they'll be enourmously expensive (anyone here
        want to remember what the first EISA 386 machines cost?
        Even the ISA ones--I can remember '386's running = or >
        $10,000).  The '386 was "more than anyone would ever
        really need, that much speed is nice, but..".  486 systems
        started cheaper (tho I remember them coming in at ~$8k
        at first--but they fell--rapidly--to the mid $4k range).
 
        SMP is, in many ways, cheaper than waiting for the next
        super-fast monoprocessor.  The problem was getting
        a machine that was, but still had software (and didn't
        suffer the same fate as other technically-superior-but
        unsupported-machines).
 
        SMP isn't here now (well, actually, it is--just not for
        less than $20k--Yes, Intel) but with something that it can
        run out of the box, it will be here soon at prices
        people will start to be able to afford (Hell, who'da thought
        we'd see affordable Sparc machines?  Next few months, we'll
        see a *lot* of'em).
 
        And _that_ is why I consider SMP important.  Frankly,
        it just gives me one more reason to finally get off an
        Intel platform.
 
        The best philosophy, for just about anything, is to do it
        right the first time.  NT has this, OS/2 doesn't.  I'd
        prefer that IBM put their best into the PowerPC, because the
        future--by any stretch of the imagination--is not OS/2
        (nor is it necessarily NT, but it'll be something like it.)
 
 
 
>Again, you are not telling the truth here.  I am compiling a list of "modern"
>OS/2 apps.  So far I am at over 100 *released* commercial 32-bit applications,
 
 
        I looked at the list that was posted here (if possible,
        could the poster also post a list that is sorted by
        the product name as well as the company?  In some ways,
        that's more convienient).  I AM telling the truth--look 
        at that list and tell me honestly how many of those 
        "applications" is the average desktop (read, non-hacker, 
        non-programmer) going to be interested in?  Now take that
        number (miniscule) and take out the apps that the user would
        be better off buying Windows versions of and running through
        WINOS2.  The remainder is pathetic.
 
>list of applications for OS/2.  I suggest you look at it before you make such
>a foolish statement again.
 
 
        I suggest you make an honest appraisal of your list before accusing 
        others of dishonesty.  If you consider than an impressive list of applications,
        you have truly been warped in some way.  
 
 
>All we know about NT is "under $500".  Until we hear something else, you are
>wasting your breath trying to predict the price.  Stick with truth, not with
>baseless predictions.
 
 
        Exactly.  So putting "$500" is just as wrong.  I still recommend
        $??? (since I don't think anyone believes that it will get below
        3 figures), because it's the most honest.
 
>Again your statements about OS/2 having SMP "tacked on" are baseless and
>wrong.  Putting OS/2 on Mach is about the best way I can think of to give a
>system SMP capabilities.  It is a *proper* way to do it, regardless of what
>you might think of Mach itself.
 
 
        Take a breath, John.
 
        You obviously do not understand the difference between OS/2 and 
        OS/2 Mach.  
 
        Dumping the current Intel OS/2 for a portable OS/2 based on the Mach 3.0
        kernal would be about the stupidest thing IBM could possibly do.  The 
        present kernel is not the acme of efficiency, and putting OS/2 on top
        of the Mach 3.0 kernel (designed to be *portable*) is going to make 
        the situation worse, not better.  It would be downright insane to
        dump the current OS/2, which works and is a damn lot more efficient
        than any of the alternatives (DesqView, WinDOS AND WinNT), in favor
        of a layered system like OS/2MACH.  
 
        It would also be pretty stupid because there's no reason to do
        so.  The whole point of OS/2MACH is to add portability to OS/2, since
        porting OS/2 as it is would take 2/3rds of forever and be 100% 
        incompatible.  
 
        Any SMP version of OS/2 that runs on Intel hardware is likely
        to be a retrofit of the current OS, not OS/2 MACH.  Making a 
        version of OS/2Mach for Intel would be akin to reinventing the
        wheel and doing a poor job.  
 
 
 
>somewhat worse to somewhat better, but it is a beta and it isn't bulletproof.
 
 
        I can bring OS/2 down rather easily.  Bringing down the NT beta
        depended on targeting specific bugs in the DOS subsystem and 
        exploiting them.  I have only brought the whole beta down
        twice, non-reproducable.  
 
 
>problem I've had with NT is that the apps just aren't stable yet.  Several
>apps of mine crashed with normal use.  Granted, some were a little touchy
 
        
        An operating system cannot keep a bug in the application from
        crashing the application.  That is not the point of crash protection.
        What crash protection should do--what it's *supposed* to do 
        (and OS/2 does a good, if deficient, job) is keep a task 
        gone bezerk (due to a bug in that code, for which the OS is 
        not responsible) from harming the system or other tasks.
 
        Years ago I got about two weeks with a Sun 386i, which was an 
        interesting UNIX (well, sun..) beast that could run IBM sortware--
        multiple, virtual, PC's--in windows (in fact, as I recall, there
        was no other way--like fullscreen--to run them).  Even given the
        weirdness of the hardware (it actually could take ISA cards, but
        you had to have a UNIX driver) it ran them pretty damn well--even
        programs that I can use to trash OS/2 (early versions of 
        StarFlight, for instance) today.  I *never* saw a trashed program
        bring down the system or even make it unstable--it ran without
        reboot for almost the whole time I used it.  I can't even count
        the number of times I've had my OS/2 trashed (or, at least rendered
        unaccessable, which I consider just as unacceptable) by tasks
        gone bad.  
 
        OS/2's "crash protection" needs a *lot* of work.  NT's beta,
        if you ignore the subsystem bugs, is already a lot more
        robust than OS/2's.  
 
 
 
>Remember, these are *minimum* requirements.  We all know what the real
>requirements are.
 
 
        Then let's discuss real requirements.  It's just plain stupid
        to discuss these bogus minimums--you could claim that OS/2
        will run on any 386 system with 4 megs and an MDA--is this
        relavent in any way to reality?
 
 
 
>tougher time selling to the business crowds.  Those are people who will not
>take kindly to lots of broken promises and continually pushed back release
>dates.
 
 
        Are you nuts?  Do you think MS's big profits come from Mr. and
        Mrs. Joe User?  Hell no.  MS's big profits come from offices who 
        buy Excel, Word and Windows all at retail price--and buy it 
        for hundreds of machines at once.  Mr. Typical User typically 
        has 3 or 4 brand-name big-money apps, with a lot more pirated. 
        (I, for one, believe the numbers claimed about piracy--I see
        it almost everywhere I go)
 
        MS is not going to have a hard time at all selling to the business
        crowds.  They're MS's bread and butter, and no one squeezes'em 
        better than MS does, except maybe IBM and it's mainframe operation..
 
 
>Again depends on the system.  On a theoretical level I might agree with you,
>but right now my experience is that it is roughly comperable to OS/2's.  OS/2
 
        In other words, a beta of product X is equal to a 
        bug--patched near-1-year old release version of product Y?
 
 
>is able to keep apps from crashing at all, much better than NT right now, and
>that is an important point to keep in mind.
 
        
        Why do you feel that it is the OS's job to keep applications 
        from crashing?  I have never *seen* an OS that did that.  
 
 
>Let's not be confusing NT with Windows 3.x.  Win3.x is NOT a previous version
>of NT.  They are a pair of related products, but the the biggest thing that is
 
 
        That was exactly my point, which you gracefully missed.  He listed
        the previous Windows sales as some sort of installed base, and I
        pointed out that while this deserved mention, it would be much more 
        appropriate to do under the category applications.
 
 
>the same is the name.  Win32 provides a convienent cross over between the
>systems, but it in no way makes 3.1 a previous version of Windows.
 
        
        Thank you for repeating my point.
 
 
>Also the comments about OS/2 only having "one real commitment" are pure
>unmitigated BS.  CA is porting their whole product line.  That's trivial?
 
 
        I guess you don't know the cow poo when you smell it.
 
 
>WordPerfect has commited to releasing a version for OS/2.  Same with Borland,
 
        
        See my previous message about Wordperfect and their bullshit.
 
>Lotus, Novell, and almost every major developer except Microsoft.  You are
 
 
        Lotus, yes--I'll give you them even though they're still as 
        vapor as NT.  Novell has declared their future in UNIX--OS/2
        takes a back seat no matter what.
 
 
>calling their *stated commitments* trivial?  Please do a little research next
>time.
 
 
        Damn right I'm calling their "statements" trivial.  Please
        do a little research on these statements and the history of
        OS/2 1.x and the events of the last year--lots of claims,
        promises--almost none fufilled.  
 
        In other words, get real.
 
>Under $500.  That is all they have said and that typically means $499.95.  Now
 
 
        We were speaking of unmitigated bullshit?
 
 
>Talk about a loaded statement.  If an OS/2 advocate responds to this, he looks
 
 
        In other words, too on the mark to respond to.
 
 
 
>Again, that is a not really true.  The apps run, they run usually how they are
>supposed to, and the difference in speed is negligable in most cases.  How
 
        Obviously, you need to try Win31 with a real video card.  The speed
        difference is disgusting.  (Less than four months ago I was a raving
        OS/2 fanatic--if you read the RIME OS/2 groups, you might have seen
        me promoting it with all sorts of cutesy pro-OS/2 or anti-Windows
        taglines and all the rest of the crap--until I started trying to
        do real work.)
 
        Let's see.  
 
        Points you made:
 
        1.  NT, even though we don't know the price and any guesses
                are dishonest, is too expensive.
 
        2.  The NT _beta_ is comparable in stability to OS/2.
 
        3.  SMP is not important, but IBM is going to release it 
                anyway.
 
        4.  Stating that the systems will be compared on 
                speed, simplicity and stability is a loaded 
                statement.
 
        5.  Promises about software (vapor) for OS/2 are 
                more reliable (despite the ongoing history
                of the lies by developers to OS/2 users) 
                than promises about NT.
 
        6.  We all know what the real-world requirements
                are, but we should compare minimal requirements 
                anyway.
 
        7.  Net readers really need to edit the excessive quoting.
                it is _never_ necessary to quote a .sig.


-- 
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
 ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
 ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy