From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: 5 Sep 92 12:26:41 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <5dnn==f.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>In <1992Sep4.112606.26849@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>>In article <7dmn0ab.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>>In <1992Sep3.234501.28636@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
...
>>>        Runs in GUI mode without the WPS
>>>                This is a separate feature from the ability that OS/2
>>>                has to run without the GUI at all.
>>NT can do this too of course. (So can Windows 3.1)
>
>Can have the graphics engine loaded (equivalent of PM), and a CLI shell
>in a window, but no graphical shell (equivalent of Filemanager, or
>whatever the heck they call the main windows window)??
>
>That's certainly not the impression that I had.

Sorry, you can, in fact it's about as easy as it is under OS/2.

>
>>>I'm also curious about the applets that come with NT.
>
>>I'm not getting into applets, madness lies in that direction.
>>NT currently has approximately the same set as Windows 3.1.
>
>Which means nothing to me.  I don't own Windows (any flavor), I don't
>use Windows (even WinOS2), and I have *no idea* what applets come with
>Win3.1.  Which is why I ask.
>
>There's only, what, 20-25 applets that come with OS/2.  And I'm sure
>that most of them must be the same or similar to the ones in NT.  But I
>am very curious what the differences are.

I count 15 for Windows 3.1... NT also has a CD-player program.
I will put in that "OS/2 has more applets", but I'm not about to say who's
is better, it's highly subjective.

>
>I use many of the applets.  Several of them quite heavily.  This strikes
>me as a very important part of any comparison of the two operating
>environments.  At the very least, a comment like "OS/2 has a better set
>of applets," or "NT has a better set of applets," would be nice.  Unless
>this is an area where the two OSes *are* equivalent, in which case, I'll
>shut up.  :-)
>
>>>>	Object Oriented Shell (WorkPlace Shell)
>>>>	
>>>>	Great DOS support
>>>
>>>Geeze, we get great, lengthy details about the obscure features of the
>>>system queues in NT, but these two are simply dismissed with a casual
>>>one line each.
>
>>NT has the same shell as Windows 3.1, I only put in details when things
>>have proven unclear.  
>
>It's unclear to me as it stands.  I don't have, don't use, and know
>nothing about Win3.x.  So, saying that NT has the same shell means
>nothing to me.
>
>"Great DOS support" stated for OS/2 from a person that
>>is biased towards NT -- doesn't say it all?
>
>If I thought it did, I wouldn't have asked.
>
>Really, I'm trying to get information, not trying to argue.  I enjoy the
>list, and find it informative, except in some areas where I find it
>unclear.  I'm curious about NT--after all, my company might give up on
>dongles, or we might eventually be able to write a dongle-device-driver
>for NT.  I'm not an OS/2 fanatic--chances are *very* high that I'll be
>using *both* OSes within a couple of years.  I just want to see a
>realistic and detailed description of the advantages and disadvantages
>of *each* system.

I'm not sure what I'd say that would fit into a paragraph... the
major difference currently is speed.  Later the only major difference
I can think of is that devices MUST be virtualized under NT.
And thus your dongles won't work unless the device has been virtualized.
(But I've said this already as I've added your suggested item.)

...
I state at the end of the list what it takes for something to get
added.  I have to give up on listing IBM add-on products as there are
too many.

If you know of a feature in the BASE packages that will be
added (or add-ons to either that provides a feature in the others
BASE package) AND you have a time frame (not a guarenteed ship date,
just a time frame when it will likely be out) and these come from
a reasonable source  (i.e. official announcement, conference announcement,
trade rag quoting from one of the above, inside information).
Then send it on.  It is debatable that this discriminates against IBM
as they usually "leak" things well in advance.  For some odd reason
people seem to be arguing that "leaks" are more moral than Microsoft's
openly made comments... I'll never understand this probably.
At any rate I don't feel I'm picking on IBM unfairly.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)