From: gordt@cyberspc.muug.mb.ca (Gord Tulloch)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 22:59:42 GMT
Summary: Win NT pluses? 
Followup-To: gordt@cyberspc.muug.mb.ca
Organization: Cyberspace Online Information System
Keywords: WINDOWS NT OS/2

In article <1992Dec25.110655.27320@u.washington.edu> robs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Robert Suh) writes:

[Mark K.'s quoted comments deleted]

>
>Well, I can name lots of reasons...
>
>1) C2 Security - I know lots of places that Security of data on the PC or
>LAN is a MUST.  Can't have someone just walk up to a PC/Node and take a look
>at all the data on it.

Of course - but base OS/2 is not a network beast - with the addition of LAN
Services and so on it has security features on par with all networks.  C2
Security will likely be forthcoming if there is a requirement for it, which
based on the fact that LAN Manager and successors have been around for years
leads me to believe that for most installations this is a non-issue!

>2) Cross Platform - Wouldn't it be nice to be able to sit in front of either
>a PC, MIPS, Alpha, or almost any other system (Thanks HAL ) and know that
>Windows NT has the ability to run on it?  I know thats a BIG Plus for some of
>the larger mixed - environment workplaces.  

OS/2 runs on IBM's excellent RISC System/6000 boxes (and has been demonstrated
to much the same degree as NT on Alphas and MIPS boxes) and IBM has stated
that it will be an operating system personality on the new Power PCs (which
in fact I have a prototype sitting on my desk at the office - an RS/6000
Model 220, which is the same basic fundamental design as IBM's PowerPC offer-
ing.)  I see more people running low priced PowerPCs than MIPS or Alpha any
day.  Besides, "almost any other system" is pretty silly - as far as I've
seen NT has not been ported to SUN, HP, DG or any other popular architecture
beyond MIPS and Alpha.

I think OS/2's standard tools like TCP/IP is a BIG plus for mixed environment
workstations, with other tools in LAN services being particularly useful in 
the VERY hot AS/400 market.  The company I work for (I do RS/6000 applications
support) is selling MITT-FULLs of AS/400 boxes, many of them requiring smart
terminals like OS/2 boxes. Windows and DOS are a very poor second in this
market, which is ignored (quite reasonably so, since they likely aren't on
the Internet!) in these forums.

>3) Win32s - What more to say?

Indeed?  Who cares about Win32s when we have OS/2, particularly when it seems
IBM will support 32 bit Winapps under WinOS/2?

>4) Multiuser support - Albeit, not so great as some variants of UN*X, but it's
>a lot better than what OS/2 offers 'out of the box'.

Huh??? I assume you mean multiuser in the "one CPU, many terminals" sense
rather than the network sense.  NT is NOT a multiuser OS like AIX or any other
UNIX derived OS, it's a networkable workstation OS.  What's the difference 
between NT and OS/2 with the $250 (Cdn) TCP/IP-NFS combo?  Other than being
(as far as I can tell) proprietary and non-standard?  I integrate OS/2 boxes
with my RS/6000 systems easily, with NT (based on my look at Windows for 
WorkGroups) I'm battling with the OS much like I do with Apple networks...

>And YES, I've used OS/2 v2.0 on my Home PC (386/33mhz; 8megs) for awhile.
>Liked the DOS support, but I use more Windows applications than DOS, so
>nothing runs Windows Apps as well as Windows 3.1. :)

And WINOS/2 3.1 should handle that task nicely, no?  Do you run any 32 bit 
WinApps?

>(It was refreshing to be able to Download some stuff in the background,
>while formatting disks in the foreground.  But Alas, I buy Pre-formatted disks
>and Windows multitasking suits me fine.  :) ).

You're in a minority in that regard - the examples you give are simply quick
tests of how well OS/2 works.  Background hi speed comm is one of my main 
applications, but everything else I'm doing with OS/2 bogs down major in 
Windoze.

>But PLEASE, don't respond to this trying to convince me and the world, that
>OS/2 is more superior to Windows.  I know that OS/2 is superior in a lot of
>aspects compared to Windows, but I ( and the other millions of Windows users)
>find Windows perfectly acceptable. 

Great - Windows has it's place in the scheme of things, which is why OS/2 
includes support for it - but if you're so happy with Windows why bother
with NT?

Happy Holidays!

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
==  Gord Tulloch           |     Voice: (204) 775-3650 (work)     ==
==  173 Antrim Road        |            (204) 663-7941 (home      ==
==  Winnipeg, Manitoba     |     Data : gordt@grpwest.muug.mb.ca  ==
==  R2K 3H9                |            gordt@cyberspc.muug.mb.ca ==
==                         |     FIDO : 1:348/207@fidonet.org     ==
--------------------------------------------------------------------
==                    Official IBM OS/2 Ambassador!               ==
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy