From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: X is a hack? (was Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:12:41 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1992Aug27.002214.12477@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>Well, don't be so sure.  I wouldn't try running Wing Commander under
>>NT, for example -- something OS/2 does quite well.  And that is of
>>CRITICAL importance.  :-)
>I agree!  In one of my other ramblings I even said as much.. Without a change
>in its current focus, I doubt that NT will ever handle DOS games well.

Or DOS network software, or DOS CD-ROM software, or...

>>A surprising number of your applications are available in OS/2
>>versions today, notably Alpha Four, PFS:Works, Excel (but only 3.0
>>right now), ObjectVision, Brief, and scads of Unix utilities.  The
>>rest, including most of the games, run fine under OS/2 2.0, and many
>>of them are in progress for OS/2 2.0 (Borland C++ and Draw, for
>>example).
>As OS/2 1.X apps?  I'm not sure why that would be a benefit.

PFS:Works and ObjectVision are full 32-bit.  The others are in
progress (even Excel; rumors abound that Microsoft has an "insurance"
policy).

I have no problem with 16-bit OS/2 applications, though.  They are
native, and they get much (if not most) of the benefit (save 32-bit
code for speed improvement and most of SOM), such as support for long
filenames and more fluid multitasking.

>Object Vision is out for OS/2 2.0, but I think that's the only
>one that's 32-bit.  As to the ones on the way... well all the larger
>companies will be on OS/2 as they are on Unix... as the port to
>NT is easy for most of these I suspect I'll get them soon enough.
>To go back to OS/2 would allow me to use my network more effectively
>but would largely kill the MM stuff, and MSC works much easily
>under Windows 3.1 than under OS/2 (you have to use the OS/2 1.X version
>and not quite everything's there.)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by losing the MM stuff.  Win-OS/2
runs the Windows Multimedia Extensions.

Won't MSC run under Win-OS/2?  (Honest question -- I use TopSpeed
Pascal.)

>A major part of my objection would be the cost... if I stick with the
>Windows ones I'm safe even if NT fails and OS/2 rules the world.

Sticking with the 16-bit ones, yes, but this runs counter to your
argument above.

>If I get OS/2 ones, 1) I'm stuck with only being able to use them
>under OS/2, and 2) at the moment most of them cost more, and sometimes
>there is not an upgrade path.  For example, I could not figure out
>a way to upgrade my Windows ObjectVision to the OS/2 one.  Perhaps
>that is available now, but I still haven't seen it.
>Certainly Borland never sent an offer, and they usually do.

The upgrade is $99, and they'll take your order at the Borland 1-800
number right now.  Incidently, OV under OS/2 is 32-bit and,
reportedly, substantially faster.  (Any OV for OS/2 users out there?)

>In the case of Brief I did buy the OS/2 1.X version as it is known that
>it works under NT as well as OS/2. "vi" is starting to seem too
>primitive (and despite trying three times I just can't like emacs).
>(NOTE: Please, Please, oh Please, don't let us start an editor war here!
>If you like emacs, I'm very happy for you. Viva la _insert_your_editor_.)
>Brief has a big following so I thought I'd take a look
>(Borland's selling it cheaply these days).

I was just mentioning that OS/2 has scads of Unix utilities (and full
blown applications, in many cases) since you brought it up, but you
don't have to use such software if you don't want to.

>>There's no stigma in running DOS and Windows applications under OS/2
>>2.0 -- it works extremely well, and you can add native OS/2
>DOS of course is great under OS/2.
>W.R.T. Windows my wife would strongly disagree... the 8514 driver
>doesn't support seemless windows, OLE between Draw and Word 2.0 doesn't
>work, and things were generally slow (this on a 486SX with 8 megs, she
>has an ATI Ultra card).  Things are very much faster under Windows
>3.1.  At first we put up with problems of OS/2 as there would be a CSD
>in June.  The last straw occured when I reported back to her from the
>NT dev conf about NT and about the same time it became clear that OS/2
>would not be up to snuff till September.

There are two DOS settings which tremendously speed up Win-OS/2 when
running with 8514/A -- IBM has plastered that information on every
online service it can reach.  Check the OS/2 FAQ List, for example.

I don't know about the OLE, except that my hunch is that you did not
install Word and/or Draw under Win-OS/2 (and migrated from a Windows
3.1 installation).  Win-OS/2 needs to find the OLE DLLs -- these DLLs
come with OLE aware applications.  Installing such an application will
install the DLLs.  However, Windows 3.1 includes them now in the base
package.

As for seamless Windows, true, but, playing devil's advocate a moment,
Windows 3.1 doesn't run OS/2 applications seamlessly or otherwise.

>In short, barring Microsoft majorly screwing up, I doubt I'll ever use OS/2
>again except at work.

It has happened before (read: MS OS/2).  :-)

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | The OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST is avail. from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/faq.
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | Or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP").
Chicago, 60637          | Hey GOP: The Economy, Stupid!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy