From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:01:29 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct11.031526.29732@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (
Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <gepsv0q00WB3EubFgJ@andrew.cmu.edu> Jyri Virkki <jyri+@CMU.EDU> writ
es:
>>
>>brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>
>>> NT's DOS support will be better than 1.X's -- IBM's OS/2 2.0 support, while
>>> good for some, is more of an overreaction by a frighten bureacracy, than
>>> a well thought out feature.  Consider also the testing/maintenace
>>
>>In other words, including excellent msdos support in OS/2 is an act
>>of a frightened bureaucracy, but including the same support in NT is
>>a wise design feature? Interesting.
>
>Are you just being an asshole, or did you misread my statement above?
>NT's support is better than that in 1.X.  OS/2 2.0 goes way overboard
>with 40 or so options. It's hard to configure, and it raises users level
>of expectation that all their DOS apps should work.
>Microsoft "learned their lesson", but they did not overreact like IBM did.

No he read it right.  It is a different philosophy Brian.  Just because you
happen to like a system that doesn't follow that phillosophy, doesn't mean
that it is a bad thing.  In any case, even if what you are arguing has some
merit, then I would argue that MS under reacted.  I would much rather have IBM
over reacting than under reacting.>
>>
>>> bits level, Windows 2.X, 3.X, Win32s, Win32.  It's possible in the
>>> near future that OS/2 may run well everyone else's apps, but it mainly
>>> means there is less incentive for people to make apps for the small 2.0
>>> native market.
>>
>>Well there are x people out there running OS/2, and not a single
>>person running NT because it's still vaporware. Regardless of the
>>value of x, x>>0, thus the market for native OS/2 apps is tremendously
>>bigger than NT's.
>
>Odd... I'm running NT.  The beta starts in a few days. This is vaporware?
>
Can I buy one NT application in any store?  Didn't think so.  Can I buy NT in
any store?  Didn't think so.  Is it vaporware?  Partially.  It only meets half
the definition though.  (Source the Jargon file)

>>> Further the large number of subsystems + IBM's need to maintain its
>>> reputation for supporting old features for a long period of time,
>>>[...]
>>> Any major new feature in OS/2 will have to be geared to be compatible with
>>> the other platforms.  Imagine they have to support two of many
>>> things already!
>>
>>It's funny how people rationalize the most imaginative arguments
>>against reality when they want to be blind! OS/2 and NT are both doing
>
>Oh, so you are trying to be an asshole.

I believe I once heard someone utter," Ahh, profanity.  The last refuge of a
losing cause."
>
>>the same thing, coming out with new, 32bit os's, and including support
>>for older apps so people can make a smooth transition. (Of course,
>>the support is real with OS/2, yet-to-be-seen with NT). Pray tell us
>>why is it that OS/2 will collapse under the burden of compatinility,
>>while NT won't, if it's doing the same thing?? You are making a basic
>
>No OS/2 and NT are not doing the same things in terms of compatibility.
>NT's has simpler DOS compatibility and it also supports 1.X character
>mode apps.  The 1.X character mode apps are simple to support as their
>console subsystem is essentially a cleaned-up superset of 1.X character
>mode.  The 16-bit Windows apps are much easier to do for them
>as NT's graphics mode is basically a clean-ed up superset of the old API.

NT has simpler support which doesn't work as well.  It depends on what you
want.  Personally I would like as many of my old applications as possible to
work.  This may not apply to you, but I am certaintly not alone in this.
>
>NT doesn't have someone else's multimedia, OLE, graphics API, font system,
>printer drivers, etc to support; OS/2 does.  Worse OS/2 plans to add the
>considerably harder to do Win32s and Win32 API's.

When did IBM ever claim they were supporting Win32?  I have heard no such
announcement.   IBM has added this stuff to ease transition.  They are not
likely to continue forever in supporting Windows stuff.  They are not nearly
as foolish as you seem to think.
>
>>assumption here, that OS/2 will forever try to be compatible with
>>everything, while NT will soar ahead. The error here is that
>
>IBM has already said publically that they will add support for
>future versions of Windows... are you saying they'll go back on their word?
>
They have said they will give support to future versions.  They have given
almost no specifics.  They never said however that they would always support
future versions of Windows.

>>compatibility issues are only relevant during the transition period,
>>OS/2 will not have the need to try to support anything new, just the
>
>They are already saying they will add Win32s and Win32 support... this
>is not new?

Again where?  Win32s I seem to have heard something about.  Win32 I haven't.
>
>>apps that already exist in users' hands. As more and more native OS/2
>>apps appear, compatibility will be less and less of an issue.
>>
>>Saying NT is better just because it's better is a clearly redundant
>
>I never said NT is better (though it is). I said that OS/2, because
>it has such a heavy compatibility burden, will have a hard time
>keeping up with its competitors -- too many resources will have to
>be dedicated to maintaining the compatibility and too many compromises
>will have to be made in future enhancements in order to allow
>that compatibility.

You indeed have claimed NT is better innumerable times.  You seem to have this
strange idea that OS/2 is some Windows wannabe.  It isn't.  It will ease
transition over the next year or two then probably go its own way.  I don't
know about you, but I really don't mind my system being as flexible as
possible.  Every system has to make comprimises to maintain backwards
compatibility.  This includes NT.  If that system doesn't, its backward
compatibility will stink.  This includes NT.
>
>>argument. Someday NT will be out and we'll be able to compare it with
>>OS/2 which is excellent and has been out for quite a while now. Maybe
>>it will be better, who knows, if so, I'll buy it. But I have to be
>>mighty sceptic given that microsoft has not been able to produce an
>>usable operating system in over ten years. Maybe this time they'll get
>>it right, but I have to wonder why would they suddenly be so good
>>at os's, if they have never been able to get it right?
>
>Window 3.X and DOS 5.0 are not usable?
>Given the underlying design decisions, I think they are excellent products.
>Really, the only time I've seen Microsoft make an "unusable" product was when
>they worked with IBM on OS/2.

Usable?  Yes.  Good?  Not particularly.  They haven't gotten it right yet.  NT
may be a first, but that doesn't negate past performance.
>
>>Jyri J. Virkki | DoD#561 | jyri+@cmu.edu | Carnegie Mellon University | MSINI
>
>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
*===)-------------