From: goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K. Goyal)
Subject: IBM's response to MS's Win3.1 vs. OS/2 document...
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 21:07:01 GMT


RESPONSE TO MS DOCUMENT ON WINDOWS 3.1 VS OS/2

There is so much misleading information in this document that it is hard to
know where to start. Following are some brief responses to individual items.

-------------------
The Microsoft advertisement on Windows 3.1 vs OS/2 performance is misleading.
The scenarios in the ad are a narrow subset of the kinds of work that a user
might perform.  It is true that when running Windows applications one at a
time with nothing else on the system, OS/2 will run about 20 to 25% slower
                                                            
However, DOS apps run faster on OS/2.                       
                                                            
And when more than one task is being done, OS/2's performance advantage
becomes evident.  Because of OS/2's superior multitasking, it can run
background tasks -- such as file copying, communications, or spreadsheet
recalculation -- with no visible impact on foreground work.  With Windows,
the cursor movement can lag behind the mouse movement, and displaying of
characters can lag behind keyboarding to the point where the system becomes
almost unusable until the background job is done.           
                                                            
An illustrative scenario from National Software Testing Laboratories (NSTL):
To load MS Word for Windows on a Mod 57 with nothing else running takes 7.2
seconds with Windows 3.1 and 9.3 seconds with OS/2 2.0.  If you do the same
load with an XCOPY in the background, Windows load time jumps to 41.1
seconds, compared with 15.3 seconds for OS/2.

As applications become available that take advantage of OS/2's capabilities,
e.g.  multithreading and 32 bit, OS/2 performance can be expected to get even
better.

In addition, we're continually working to improve performance. In the fall,
we're planning to improve performance for all systems, but especially those
with the minimum configuration of 4MB RAM.
-------------------
                                                            
RELIABILITY                                                 
- Microsoft claims that Windows 3.1 eliminates UAE (Unrecoverable Application
  Errors).  It doesn't eliminate them, it renames them to GPFs (General
  Protection Faults). When a GPF occurs it still recommends that you reboot
  your system.
- Win 3.1 still does not make use full use of the 386 hardware protection
  as OS/2 does.
                                                            
MINIMUM CONFIGURATION COMPARISONS                           

- MS's tables are apples to oranges comparisons - The tables quote system
requirements for the most basic, limited-function mode of Windows' three
modes.  Then, when functions are compared, MS quotes the function of the mode
with the largest system requirements.
                                                            
THE NUMBER OF OS/2-CAPABLE MACHINES
- MS quotes Infocorp as a source. Infocorp says they do not recognize the
  number attributed to them.
- Infocorp says 28% of the install base is OS/2-capable
- The majority of machines shipped today are OS/2-capable. This percentage
  will grow very rapidly in the next few years.
- Microsoft's numbers for Windows-capable machines include 286s, which don't
  support the full Windows capability.
                                                            
OS/2's OBJECT-ORIENTED WORKPLACE SHELL
- MS says the OS/2 Workplace Shell requires a learning curve.
- This depends on where you're coming from. MAC users are usually instantly
  productive, new users likewise learn quickly.
- Much as DOS users had a short learning period to move to the next generation
  interface -- Windows, Windows users will have a short (a few hours)
  learning period to become familiar with the next generation object-oriented
  Workplace Shell.
- Windows users who have become familiar with the WPS find the old Windows
  GUI to be primitive by comparison.
- Users can always choose to have it the old Windows way and operate with
  menus instead of objects.  They can even choose an option which gives the
  screen the look and feel of Windows.
                                                            
CONNECTIVITY                                                
- MS says OS/2 has limited host connectivity. Unsaid is the fact that they're
  talking about the OS/2 base product only.
- The connectivity is delivered in OS/2 Communications Manager, the most
  comprehensive host connectivity tool available:

  - The connectivity is delivered in OS/2
  - All the DOS/Windows asynch emulation packages work on OS/2 as well
  NETWORK CLIENT
  - No company has more experience and capability in networking than IBM.
  - OS/2 is the industry's best desktop client for connecting to complex
    enterprise networks.
                                                            
APPLICATIONS                                                
- MS shows tables comparing the number of OS/2 graphical apps with Windows
  graphical apps
- Since OS/2 runs DOS, Windows and OS/2 graphical apps, OS/2 will always have
  the most applications
                                                            
INSTALLING DOS-BASED APPS                                   
- MS makes a point of the difficulty of installing DOS apps on OS/2 --
  configuring settings, etc.
- Very misleading.  We ship a default setting that will run most DOS apps
  just fine.
- OS/2's settings capability gives you flexibility if you want it
- In our opinion, OS/2's DOS settings dialog is easier to use than Windows'
  PIF editor.
                                                            
FLEXIBILITY
- MS tries to turn a virtue into a vice by decrying the fact that OS/2
  offers the user choices in interfaces:  command lines, menus, or
  object-oriented.
- We believe in letting the user have it their way.         
                                                            
WIN 3.1 ON OS/2
- MS says OS/2 runs a modified version of 3.0.  One of the key modifications
  IBM made is the kind of parameter validation MS touts as a reliability
  improvement in 3.1.
- Win 3.1 on OS/2 will be available in the fall.            
                                                            
INSTALLATION
- It takes longer to install OS/2's 20 diskettes than Windows' 6. True.
  That's because you get so more with OS/2:
                                                            
  - Three operating environments                            
  - The Workplace shell                                     
  - Pre-emptive multitasking, Adobe Type Manager, etc.      

- In the fall, OS/2 will be available on 2 diskettes and a CD

CD-ROM

- In the fall, automatic, unattended installation over a network will be
  enabled with the CID product

WINDOWS HAS MORE DEVELOPMENT TOOLS                          
                                                            
- OS/2 has a full complement of development tools.          
- Many of the leading edge tools originated on OS/2         
- OS/2 is the preferred development environment -- even for Microsoft.
                                                            
WINDOWS SCALABILITY                                         
- Pen Windows appls don't exist.  NT doesn't exist. Their scalability is not
  proven
- The Microsoft portability guide clearly indicates problems running DOS/
  Windows apps directly on NT.
                                                            
DEVICE DRIVERS                                              
- OS/2 print drivers support 205 printers, which address the vast majority.
  More are coming later this year.  - SCSI drivers are coming in June - More
  display drivers are coming in the fall.
                                                            
FONTS                                                       
- Windows uses the proprietary TrueType fonts               
- OS/2 includes Adobe Type Manager, the universally accepted industry
  standard.
                                                            
MS TESTING METHODOLOGY
- An objective performance tester would question the methodology.
- The results published are for very small subtasks
- The test scenarios appear to be Microsoft's own, not that of an objective
  third party. They say the scenarios are "like PC World's", but what does
  that mean?
- They have not identified the vendor performing the test
- They did not indicate the specific configuration.  This makes it difficult
  for another party to replicate and validate the tests.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy