From: bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: X is a hack? (was Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:35:03 GMT
Reply-To: bill@msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Brian Sturgill (brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu) wrote:
: In article <1992Aug26.171756.17033@msi.com> bill@msi.com writes:
: >1) Why is X a hack?
: It's a glue-on on top of Unix (i.e. it's not well integrated).  I purports
: to be a GUI, but has a fair number of standard features missing.

1) What do you mean "it's not well integrated".  Do you mean it doesn't
use Unix for any of its services, oh, like networking?

2) X is not a GUI, it is a window system.

3) X is not fixed to Unix.  X runs on Desqview and VMS as the native
window system.  It runs as a server on OS/2 and Windows.

: Why do people take my long thought out comments and pick on the passing
: remark?  In the last couple of weeks I decided that rather than harping
: on NT I'd spend some time talking about helping OS/2... I've got nothing
: but grief since then.  I realize that people won't necessarily like
: what I've said, but I tried to say it nice, and unfortunately most, if
: not all of it's true.  Why is the advocacy group opposed to making
: a position that says where OS/2 should improve and how it should compete
: with NT.  I'd not mind if people didn't like my ideas and proposed their
: own.... but why pick on the small points, and ignore OS/2's gaping holes?

1) You did make a stab at X.  "Doc it hurts when I move my arm...." :-)
2) Constructive criticism is fine.  Some people feel that OS/2 receives
too much criticism and NT receives too much praise, and some can be
hyper-sensitive.

: >3) What native apps would you like?
: Well at home my wife and I have Word for Windows, PFS:WindowsWorks,
: Visual Basic, Borland C++ 3.0 w/Applications Frameworks, MSC 7.00,
: Excel 4.0, Windows Draw, Star Trek, Might and Magic II, Super Tetris
: for Windows, Wing Commander, Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, Red Baron, Vette,
: Home Lawyer, Alpha 4, Turbo Tax for Windows, Object Vision (for Windows),
: a selection of freeware Unix look-a-like commands, and some freeware games.
: Brief 3.1 is on order.

OS/2 will probably never have native versions of your games, but most of
your non-game needs can be met.  WfW can be replaced with Describe,
PFS:WindowsWorks I think has been released for OS/2 or soon will be,
Borland should be coming out with thier environment soon (its a product
in progress, so I think that counts), there is Excel 3.0, and Lotus 123
for OS/2.  The 123 should be upgraded this year.  Also Ami Pro should be
released this year.  Object Vision is already a native OS/2 apps.  OS/2
has most GNU software ported.  I don't know about Brief 3.1, but I'm
sure there are plenty of extensible editors for OS/2, like EPM.

So, specific programs not-withstanding, OS/2 is missing:
Visual Basic
All your games (most of which are DOS games not native Windows Apps)
Home Lawyer (a DOS program right?)
Alpha 4
TT for Windows
Brief 3.1 (I know how much people like brief over any other editor)

Most of those programs will run under OS/2 until there are OS/2 versions.

You are right, you can't get EXACT programs on OS/2, but there are native
apps that exists, or will soon exist.  Plus you can run DOS programs
under OS/2 as well, and the non-Windows ones will probably run better
than under DOS (except the games).

: The only shareware we have registered (and thus that we use) is
: a CD-ROM CD-player program.  I'm currently re-evaluating WinQVT, but
: it's still buggy, so I'm not sure i'll buy... zmodem transfer works well
: though.

OS/2 has a CD player.  There are OS/2 native transfer programs.

: The sorts of things we like (except for games) are in general available under
: Windows.  Under OS/2... usually no.
: Under NT I expect I'll be using 16-bit versions of low-end things for a while,
: but as it's likely they'll have been developed under NT, I doubt there will
: be compatibility problems.

1) As I pointed out, OS/2 meets (or will before WindowNT will) your native
apps needs.
2) Why are willing to use 16-bit apps under NT and not OS/2?  Sounds like
a double standard to me.
3) From what I have heard, NT will not have the robust DOS support that
OS/2 has.  Right now its 16-bit support is pitiful (from what I've
heard), and Microsoft is only committing to the 100 top DOS (probably
mostly Windows apps).  OS/2 had great DOS support early in its
pre-release stage, when will NT have that support?

I am hearding two things from you:
1) You don't like OS/2 because it doesn't have the app support you want.
2) You like Windows NT because it has multi-user capabilities, but you
don't care about the app support, because you will go with the 16-bit
apps for a while.

Am I reading this wrong?  Or is this another case of Windows NT bias?
Just curious.

--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@msi.com            |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+