From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:55:24 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep30.154709.23163@hellgate.utah.edu>, brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@
cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.142702.5553@gw.wmich.edu> 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>> Why should I chose OS/2?
>>> There are three "strong" points, Excellent VDM's, WPS, and REXX.
>
>[I agree that we will have to wait and see what NT's DOS quality will be
>like.  Long term though, DOS support is irrelevant.]
>
>>> WPS and REXX are just application programs.
>>> WPS is a nice idea, but falls short of being all that much better
>>> than the Window 3.1 (note the 3.1) versions of Program Manager/File
>>> Manager.  In fact, until IBM improves the speed of the drive folders,
>>> I would argue it's inferior.
>>
>>
>>      On the machine required to run NT, the work place shell is
>>quite fast.  Not as fast as a Mac but considering what it does, it
>>is fast enough (key on this statement is that I consider a 386-33 with
>>8 megs to be the minimum platform for NT).  It is far easier to use
>>than the windows shell is.
>
>The machine you listed is the smallest machine I've ever used OS/2 on.
>I would hate to see your idea of slow.

How about a 25Mhz 386sx?  (8megs)  Certainly wasn't great, but was useable.
>
>>      I didn't argue that Rexx was a wondrous feature but since you
>>see it as important, any feature that comes with the OS is going to have
>>more support than a third party add on (using your old networking comes
>>with NT argument).
>
>See below.
>
>>
>>
>>> REXX is the remaining feature... it's the one I can't knock down
>>> especially since seeing Visual REXX.  While REXX is nice, it has
>>> an awful lot of historical uglies... and again Cairo will have
>>> "Object BASIC".
>>
>>
>>      Cairo is not going to be here until 1994 so this is irrelevant.
>
>Yes but OLE 2.0 will be here sooner.  It's supposed to be in
>the October beta release, but with the slipages I won't be surprised if it
>is not there (anyone know for certain?).
>OLE 2.0 will allow integration of third party add-on scripting languages
>that will exceed REXX's integration in OS/2.  Any app that supports
>OLE will be able to make use of those languages.

Explain how so Brian.  This sounds more than a little fishy to me.  In any
case if what you claim is true, what is to prevent OS/2 from aquiring this
feature?
>
>>
>>>
>>> So in short OS/2 has two features WPS and REXX both of which will
>>> will have alternates from MS in NT in '94.  Third parties will clearly
>>> be putting out shells similar to WPS (and probably better thought out).
>>> And there are already REXX versions for NT in beta... which, BTW
>>> are already integrating advance version of OLE 2.0.  In short this
>>> means that this REXX will be BETTER integrated into NT than REXX is
>>> into OS/2.  OS/2 programs must specifically integrate REXX on a per
>>> program basis.  The way OLE 2.0 is designed any program that takes
>>> advantage of OLE will be able to use the REXX _or_ any other
>>> scripting language the user chooses to use.
>>>
>>> Everything else that OS/2 has... NT has NOW!
>>>
>>
>>      Again, NT is not here yet.  Managers have to ponder whether
>>they should mvoe to OS/2 now or wait for NT.  They are not going to
>>wait utnil 1994 for NT to get OS/2's features.  OLE will be about on
>>par with NT by the time it is released.
>
>Why would they move to OS/2 now?  There are no apps and it's not all
>that stable.

A lie Brian.  You know better.  There are several hundred applications
availlable.

>  It does not yet run Windows 3.1 apps and its existing
>Windows support is slow and mostly not seamless.

Well get the beta.  I have it and the Win 3.1 support is pretty good.  (a
little buggy but that is to be expected in a beta)

>Come OS/2 2.01, then maybe they could consider it, but NT will be in
>the middle of its beta by then and it should then be clear what NT will
>deliver.

You haven't been paying attention to dates have you?  The first releases are
supposed to go out this month.

>In taking so long to clean up their act, IBM may have shot OS/2's chance.

The same could be said for NT, but the fact is neither will happen.
>
>>
>>> Now what does NT offer over OS/2?
>>> First and foremost:
>>>     Has a cleaner, more modern design than OS/2 2.0.
>>>             This is extremely important and very hard to describe
>>>             in a short space.  Essentially it means that added on
>>>             system features such as "Stacker" is MUCH easier to
>>>             do.  For example NT has dynamically loadable/unloadable
>>>             file system and device drivers.  This is a result of
>>>             its design... OS/2 could add this feature, but it would
>>>             have to be hacked in.
>>
>>
>>              You speak from a developer's point of view.  From
>>an end user's point of view, stacker will install itself just as easy
>>on OS/2 as NT.  Design of the OS is irrelevant to the end user (in terms
>>of your above statement).
>
>You're telling me that it does not matter to the end user how buggy
>the product is?  OS/2 2.0's current design is a conglomeration
>of OS/2 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 code with rewrites of significant
>portions glued together under incredible time pressure.
>This is not a design, it's a hack.
>Every time you add a new feature to a hack, you introduce new and glorious
>bugs... I hope you enjoy CSD installation.

Another lie.  OS/2 is quite well designed, and the base of it was written
years ago under no time pressure.  It was designed with a different
phillosophy.  This doesn't mean that it is a hack.  And if you think that
adding new features makes something a hack, then every system that exists is a
hack.  That includes NT

>
>While NT will no doubt feel time pressure in its finish, it started as
>a clean modern design.  Extensibility was a primary design goal.
>A goal learned from experience in the design of OS/2 1.X and 2.0.

NT was designed with different goals in mind.  OS/2 was designed as a
replacement for DOS/Win.  NT was designed more along the lines of what Unix is
supposed to do.  I might ask though how MS has learned from the design of OS/2
2.0 when they had no part in its current form.>
>>
>>>
>>>             Maintenance of NT by MS will be much easier. This means
>>>             less bugs.  New features will occur sooner.  MS intends
>>>             to release sources to the research community allowing
>>>             the latest and greatest research to flow into NT.
>>>
>>
>>      As you probably can imagine, if MS does it, so will IBM and
>>vice versa.  AGain, from an end user's point of view this is irrelevant.
>
>No it means that MS can devote more of its time to enhancements and stability.
>Surely enhancements and stability pleases end-users!

I thought you claimed that it is already stable.  Adding anything introduces
the possibility that bugs will be introduced.  Weird ones too, especially if
it is an addition to the base system.  MicroSoft *will* have to make additions
to the base system in the future.  This introduces the possibility of bugs.
They certaintly aren't going to get it all right the first time.

>
>>
>>>     ISV support
>>>             Features like all system API calls that take strings,
>>>             take UNICODE strings make a lot of difference to ISVs.
>>>             Microsoft has carefully recruited a much broader base
>>>             of support than IBM has for OS/2.
>>>             Vendors making products for the vast Windows 3.X market
>>>             can EASILY expand their market by doing a quick port
>>>             to NT.  If you consider that the likely developer
>>>             platform for Windows 3.X apps will be NT, then it
>>>             should occur to you that, that in itself will
>>>             encourage the ports of these apps to NT.  In truth
>>>             many of these will be made on NT using a subset
>>>             of the API (such as Win32s) and then "ported" to
>>>             Windows 3.1... I mean this will only make sense...
>>>             it's far easier to debug an NT app.  Even if the
>>>             eventual target is a native 16-bit windows app...
>>>             it is easy to make the same source code work on
>>>             both.
>>>
>>
>>      Most users that would be using an OS like OS/2 or NT are looking
>>for specific types of apps that require a 32bit OS.  These apps will
>>be out for both and out for OS/2 arguably sooner than for NT.
>
>That's a rather narrow view point.  Three years from now NT-class OS's will
>be the mainstream.

As well as OS/2 class apps.

>Even now... you might generally only choose the power of a 32-bit OS
>if you have good reason, but you'll need the mainstream apps too.  NT will
>have these -- they'll initially be simple ports of 3.X apps... OS/2 doesn't
>have these now and there's no particular reason to believe it will later.
>People on this group tell each other all the time about how many OS/2 apps
>are on the way... but these things are announced in the trade rags, and
>the fact is there just are not that many on the way.

Another lie.  You really have gone beyong FUD here Brian.  OS/2 is
getting these apps and I can send/post ample evidence of this.  There are
currently a fairly sizeable number of apps availlable, and there are more
being introduced all the time.

>Most of the vendors announcing in the March timeframe promised only to
>monitor the OS/2 market.  Well COMDEX is in November, I'll be proved
>right or wrong by the numbers of Apps being shown for OS/2 and NT there.
>(I'll be at COMDEX -- and you can believe I'll be paying attention
>to who's doing what for which.)

Some did, many have since decided to produce those apps.
>
>...
>>>
>>>     More low-level OS features (e.g. memory-mapped files).
>>>     Symmetric multiprocessing support.
>>>     NTFS
>>>     POSIX  (1003.1 -- the system calls)
>>>     Runs on more than one architecture.
>>>             This set of features appeal to several large niche
>>>             markets.  Realistically speaking, OS/2 is two years or
>>>             more from having these.
>>>
>>
>>      For the most part, IBm has announced all but the NTfS support
>>for OS/2 later on.  While I don't say that means it will be so, in
>>this argument I will use it since NT ins't shipping yet.  Most buyers,
>>however (end users) do not need these weighty features.
>
>The point here is potential customer base.  NT clearly fits into more places
>that does OS/2.  Especially at the high end.
>The combined Windows 3.X/Windows for Workgroups/Windows NT/Lan Manager for NT
>leaves OS/2 largely out in the cold.

Not at all.  On the PC market, OS/2 actually fits onto more systems than NT
and there is nothing  that the Win Workgroups will provide that OS/2 doesn't
or won't *very* shortly.  As for workstations, OS/2 wasn't designed for them
so it is kindof a moot point isn't it?  In any case NT has different
competition there in the for of Unix.  IMO a much more formidable foe.>
>>
>>
>>> Finally...
>>> OS/2 2.0 is a kludge of 16-bit and 32-bit calls.  It will be
>>> quite some time before IBM can get it to a portable state.  It is
>>> missing a fair number of major features.  Unless a complete rewrite is
>>> undertaken it will always be a hack...  and hacks are hard to
>>> maintain.  It's API is already cluttered with historical problems
>>> from failed 1.X ill-thought out features.
>>>
>>> NT has one of the most clean modern designs of any
>>> commercial OS available or announced.  It has a feature set that
>>> is ready to take full advantage of modern systems.
>>> It is inherently portable and extensible.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't you prefer that the better OS win?
>>> Five years from now would you prefer to be fighting the uglies of
>>> a hack (i.e. the future equivalents of the 640K barrier), or using
>>> an OS that was designed to be extended?
>>>
>>
>>      Most people don't consider DOS a hack and it is the most
>>widely used OS in the world.  NT is better designed but these things
>>are only nice to the developer.  From the end user, your argument
>>is moot.  OS/2 is certainly far from a hack.
>
>In general if it is good for the developer it is good for the
>user.  It means in the end you get better less buggy apps.
>Why did the Mac have better drawing and desktop publishing programs than
>DOS (until Windows 3.X) came along?  Clearly a PC/AT was capable of such
>things.  The reason is simple... the ISV's were provided sufficient tools
>under the Mac to make this sort of thing possible.

No, it is that the GUI is much more suitable to graphics and drwaings than
CLI's are.  Until recently the mac was the only decent GUI for PC class
machine around.  In any case if what was good for the developer was good for
the user in all cases, we probably would have dumped DOS years ago.

> Likewise
>NT will provide the tools for a whole new class of integrated software
>that combines OLE/RPC/E-mail/Multimedia features.
>These program "objects" will be freely intermixable, allowing you to buy
>the objects you need to end up with combinations customized to you're needs.
>No longer will you have to buy one expensive program with a kitchen-sink
>feature list.  Instead you buy a set of objects that provide what you need.
>
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here.  With the purchase of NT
itself you are buying "one expensive program with a kitchen-sink feature
list".  You can't just make this a bonus for NT when it is convienent.

>>      Moreover, if you continue on the OS/2 platform, there is
>>hope of a better OS than NT is supposed to be, Taligent.  While I
>>am not going to bet my horses on Taligent, it is supposed to offer
>>everything NT can do but more.
>
>What evidence do you have for this?  I've never seen a feature list for
>Taligent... do you have one?  Do you really believe an OS will come out
>on a RISC platform that will support not only it's own apps but DOS,
>Macintosh, and OS/2 32-bit apps?  (Imagine the diskspace you'd need!)

Probably relatively about as much as NT needs now.  (assuming for growth of
systems and all)  I have seen generalized features lists for Taligent, and
what he says is basically true.  It is supposed to be approximately as
powerful as NT with similair features.

>You do realize that IBM has announced that OS/2 app support will come
>out well after Taligent's initial release? I don't remember the exact
>dates... but it was over a year later.  Also just recently IBM said
>that Taligent was not headed for the mainstream market, but rather for
>"specialized high-end markets" whatever that may mean.  Taligent is a
>vague dream that will likely be torn apart by political infighting
>between IBM and Apple.  NT on the other hand is real... you can get a
>developer's pre-release now and see for yourself.  It's commercial
>release will happen soon (i.e. within 6 months).
>
Taligent is the basis for Apple's future in the business.  I seriously doubt
that this will be torn apart like ACE was.  As for NT's release, I'll believe
it will be six months when I see it.  Right now that looks pretty optimistic.

>>      Only time will tell.  But your arguments fail to convince me
>>why OS/2 should be passed up and to wait for Windows NT.
>
>Your response shows that you had already made up your mind.
>I find it hard to believe that anyone can think that the design
>of an OS is unimportant to an end-user.  The end-user may not realize
>the importance, but it's important all the same.

The design is important.  You are right there.  But obviously it isn't the
most important thing.  DOS has proved that quite well.
>
>>
>>      The far and wide vast majority of computer users run DOS
>>apps and some Windows apps (windows is catching up of course on DOS).
>>Posix, logons, and other things you mention are not of a concern to
>>them.  Even I, a "power" user am not particularly concerned whether
>>NT is better designed or has C2 certification.
>
>Sounds like you're making excuses... I have trouble believing you don't
>care about Logons.

For my own PC, no I don't.  For a LAN other than the one between the PCs in my
room, that depends on the situation.  In some cases yes, in some cases no.

>
>>      When it comes to networking and the corporate business world,
>>people trust IBM and Novell and it is quite clear that Novell is
>>behind OS/2 moreso than NT.
>
>Yes those with Bluified minds do seem to have trouble seeing beyond IBM.
>Fortunately they are a minority.

I just love the irony of this statement.  Brian, possibly the most MS
brainwashed person on this group, claiming that OS/2 users have a hard time
seeing beyond IBM.

>What evidence do you have that Novell is more behind OS/2 than NT?
>Don't forget I'm in Utah... and I have friends that have friends as the
>saying goes.  I see no evidence that Novell is more behind OS/2 than NT.
>Remember that Novell (through it's spin-off Univel) is about to
>enter the high-end desktop market too.
>Microsoft has been quite careful to court both Novell and Banyan into
>the NT camp.

The fact that there are already Novell products sold through IBM expessly
marketed for use with IBM?  Why do you think that Novell has started putting
so much of their money into Unix lately?  MS with NT could become their most
dangerous rival.  They aren't stupid enough to give up a money making
oppourtunity like NT, but neither are they dumb enough to jump on MS's
bandwagon and get stabbed in the back.  They have much more to gain by
opposing NT than by assisting it.
>
>>
>>      NT seems to be a hodgepodge of good features but is not the
>>"best" at anything.
>
>What possible grounds do you have for calling NT a "hodgepodge"?
>If you had studied its design, it would be clear to you that a lot
>of thought went into it.  The features that are there are well integrated.
>Things that are extra subsystems (like POSIX) are easily stripped off.

NT is not a hodgepodge.  It is a quite well designed system.  However it is
not a system without it's flaws.  I am quite impressed with its architecture,
but it is not the end all-be all of operating systems.
>
>>                                              -Brad
>
>Brian
>--
>C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
>University of Utah                             United We Stand
>Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------