From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Why people bow and scrape before NT (long)
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:16:06 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: world 

In article <Y=j-3#-@engin.umich.edu> spexet@engin.umich.edu (Dennis Robert Spexet) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.021104.11651@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>>Can you give me an example of where I bow and scrape before NT?  It's
...
>>been much different if that June CSD had come out in June.
>
>Not to be a cynical SOB, but I will do so anyway.  Is the June CSD *that*
BTW you're not all that cynical. :-)

>important to you that you absolutely require it in order to write OS/2 apps?
>From the tone of your messages, I suspect for some reason that your
>"conversion" to NT is not so much of a technical nature than of a personal
>and emotional issue.  That is to say, your appear to be p***ed off at IBM
>and some of its personnel because they didn't cater to your personal needs
>in a way that you would have liked.  Because of this, and the fact that
>MS appears to be offering an easier-to-swallow proposition to the potential
>NT programmers, you have decided to use Windows NT for your software
>release, and not write for OS/2.
Slow windows support, no superVGA support, buggy WPS, no windows 3.1 support
(and yes I do have apps that need 3.1, occasionally munges the file system.
Yes, I'd say I can consider the "June" CSD important to me, and to lots
of OS/2 customers.
...
>>From a personal standpoint, NT is closer to what I want, as the features I
>>have always wanted was a combination of Unix and Macintosh/Windows
>>3.0.  NT fits this bill very well. I.E. tons of neat, cheap GUI apps on
>>a "real" system.  X is a hack, so no Unix ever really fit the bill.
>>OS/2 2.0 came close, but it is not multi-user enough, and I'm not about
>>to buy into a multimedia API that no one will develop for.  It is also
>>not clear that it will have a good app base.
...
>From a personal standpoint, let me make several points, for what it's worth:
>
>1.  NT is largely incomplete.  The features that you brag about NT having
>    are not even existent yet for a large part.
What features are missing from NT?  POSIX, and the TAPE API are missing
NTFS and the DOS/16-bit Windows compatibility are not ready for prime time
but are there.  What is missing?  Things are buggy, so I dual boot with
Windows 3.1 when I need to work more safely, but buggy does not really imply
missing, and one expects betas, or pre-beta, alphas, whatever to be buggy.

>    My favorite one, which you love to brag about:  The C2-level of security.
It is C2-level, not C2 certified... I don't really care if its ever certified
or not, as a matter of fact what I really like is that it has logons, giving
per-user customizations. As to C2 certification... get a life.


>2.  I suspect that you will not see too many "neat and cheap" GUI apps on NT.
>    Other than word processors and spreadsheets, I think you are going to see
>    workstation-level prices (read:  many thousands of $$$) for NT apps.
>    This is merely speculation, though.
Snicker!!!  The NT apps that are out already are priced normally... with
as many developers as are headed to NT, I'm sure competition will keep
the price down.

>
>3.  X being a hack is your personal opinion, one which a lot of people do not
>    share.
Read one of my earlier messages where I give a feature by missing-feature
comparison between NT's GUI and X.

>4.  Your comments about OS/2 and its multimedia API are not only arrogant
>    and snide (my personal opinion), but they also seem to be largely
>    incorrect as well.  Many people are developing for OS/2 and its MME, many
>    of them in-house.  More people are developing for this than you think.
It's simple, you have to pay $149 to get OS/2's MME... how will you
ever get people to develop low and medium end apps?  Windows NT's MM is the
same API as Windows 3.1's there are already apps.  3.1->NT porting is easy.

>>From a business standpoint I would very much like to see both do well.
>>In general, I see Microsoft taking the necessary steps; IBM, ... it
>>depends on which part, in general IBM has done poorly.  I just read an
...
>>because their real plan is Taligent.  I don't really believe that, but
>>the way IBM as a whole has treated OS/2, I don't entirely rule out the
...
>What has been so poor about it?  I know this has been hashed over and over
>again, but let me reiterate:
>1.  IBM lets you call up their telephone support, on *their* dime.  No
>    LD or 900 numbers to call.  For the types of questions that most people
>    seem to have about OS/2, they seem pretty-well set up to me, except that
>    they could always use a few more people.  This may not be a necessary
>    step to you, but it certainly makes me feel pretty good about my choice.
For the first 90 days you can do that.

>2.  Bug fixes.  Not only do you have a choice of 2 BBS's and CIS to get bug
>    fixes from, but you can get them by anonymous FTP from an official IBM
>    site as well!  And they are free!  I don't see IBM telling me to "wait
>    for the next release, two years from now" when I ask for a bug correction.
>    Furthermore, I don't see them charging me $50 for a bug fix, either!
Microsoft is active on CIS, has a BBS, and an ftp site
(ftp.uu.net:vendor/microsoft).  Only the ftp site is inferior... and since
when has that site become official? I've seen no announcement.

>3.  E-mail access.  I dunno about you, but I see a lot of IBM personnel on
>    the Internet, CIS, and the BBS's who have direct access to the OS/2
>    developers in Boca Raton.  If there is a hard-core OS/2 problem, you can
>    be pretty damn sure that the problem reports will reach a responsible
>    person in very little time.
Microsoft was giving out mail addresses left and right at the NT developers
conference.  They also have addresses for the DDK mailing list (at least
MS has a DDK -- pffffft!) and for the shareware/freeware coordination.
IBM still doesn't have support set up for shareware/freeware authors.
MS includes them in mailings and special offers, etc.

>    This resource is amazing, and it is not to be taken lightly.  Rather than
>    merely being a bunch of staff people singing the corporate line, these
>    people have written a lot of the stuff that you see in your OS/2 packages,
>    so who is better to ask?
I have no trouble getting to MS people.
Read comp.os.ms-windows.win32.programmer.  If you have any questions for
Microsoft you're having trouble getting answered.. just post them here,
I'm sure one the Microsoft regulars in this group will be glad to pass them on.

...
>
>>I don't understand this bow and scrape before NT comment-- I have used
>>both OS/2 2.0 and NT's pre-beta (and inhaled! :-)) extensively... I know the
>>features of both well.  While I miss the idea of WPS, WPS is too rough
...
>>me... an app that plays music CD's in my CD-ROM drive.  I already have
>>800x600 SVGA under NT.  OS/2 has been out for 4-5 months, and I still am
>>running VGA on my machine at work.  During the beta I didn't mind at
>>all...  it was after all a beta, but here NT comes along and has all
>>this stuff and it's not even in beta..  or if you want to argue, it's
>>in a beta level less than what OS/2 2.0 LA's beta was.
>
>WPS is more than just a shell.  It's a way of interacting with the user.
Shell. noun. a program that allows users to interact with a system.

>While WPS has many rough edges for now, I think it's a damn good thing that
>IBM has included it.  The IBM personnel have various ideas on how the user
>should interact with the machine, (i.e., how the GUI should work), and I
>must admit that I think more of their "rough-edged" shell than I do of
>Microsoft's "bug-free" one.
Microsoft's shell is not bug-free, but even Windows 3.0's Program Manager
was less buggy that WPS... and Drive Folders and File Mangler 3.0 have
a lot in common in the area of bugs and speed.

>As far as shareware shells go, WPS is going to be hard to beat.  It's got
>more capabilities than you have observed.
Ah... now you know what I've been observing... and you're worried about
C2 certification... are you from the CIA? FBI? :-)

>Also, you may (or may not) be interested to know that IBM has had a CD
>player program out for its CD ROM drive for at least 2 or 3 years now.  It
>works very nice.
Gee they left my copy out of OS/2... I am told I can buy some stuff
to do this for $149.

>I also have 800x600 SVGA video under OS/2.  Isn't it nice?
Must have a trident card... otherwise you don't have seemless windows... that
for many if not most users means it just doesn't count.

>NT is not even a beta.  It is, at most, an alpha-level developer's kit, with
>the stuff you need to write NT apps.  You think more of NT than what it
>really has.
Wow... I use it every day... I must be having long term halloucinations...
you'll save me won't you?

>>Why do people want to bash those telling/warning them about NT and its
>>nice features, rather than asking IBM why OS/2 is still missing even
>>more primative "normal" features?
>
>Because your blindness has confused your sense of reality?
Smiley's please!
>
>OS/2, for the most part, has the "normal" features you speak of.  NT is
>missing most of the features you speak of.
Where's my super-VGA... why don't some of my Windows programs run... why
are they so slow there?

...
>>Take for example the 32-bit GDI that according to John Soyring (as quoted in
>>the July OS/2 Monthly) was ready in March.
>>	So we got to the point in March where the 32-bit graphics
>>	engine was done.  They finished the coding, we finished the internal
>>	testing, and it was meeting specifications. ... 
>>If it was done, why do I still not have it 4 months later?
>
>Perhaps because it is still buggy?  I dunno about you, but I'd rather take
>a working product rather than a buggy one.  Maybe you are used to prerelease
>software with Win3.1 and NT, but the regular user wants something that works.
Well, if you want to believe that Soyring was telling the truth and that
it is still buggy... then I can only conclude they must have some real
incompetent people working on it.  On the other hand, I'd bet that either
Soyring wasn't telling the truth, was grossly misquoted, was misinformed,
or IBM enjoys torturing it's users.
I'll let you decide which I think most likely. :-)

>-- 
>D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu
>Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    user68xr@umichum.bitnet
>The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
>Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

Brian