From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:49:32 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Nov23.143455.22272@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>, jmalloy@itsmail1.hami
lton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov23.010109.53867@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (S
TACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>
>[deleted: PC/Computing's rationale for tech excellence awards to OS/2
>and Windows]
>>
>>Quite honestly, that sounds like a cop out.  If the award is to be determined
>>on technical excellence, then judge it on technical excellence.  If it is to
>>be a popularity contest, then make it a popularity contest.  (You can guess
>>which would win in each case)  Since OS/2 can run *most* win stuff, I really
>>don't see how in a majority of cases you are losing anything by using it tho.
>>I think that PC computing is following the CYA school of journalism.
>>(CYA=cover your ass)
>
>Tecnical excellence is not defined simply as 'which os promises more'
>(in which case OS/2 wins) but must include something along the lines of
>'which promises and delivers more of that promise,' at least as far as
>I'm concerned.  I hardly think OS/2 deserved an award for forcing me
>back to plain vanilla VGA when I was able to use SVGA within a couple
>of months of the release of Wind 3.0 and right away after the release of
>Win 3.1.

You're right,it isn't which promises more, it is which delivers more.  OS/2
promises more, and delivers more than Windows.  The fact that you were forced
back to VGA is an annoyance, nothing more.  It doesn't force you into
radically different methods of working.  And there is SVGA support availlable.
(though it should be better)  In any case if you are going to judge an
operating system by which has the prettier screen, then you are making a
rather silly judgement.
>
>Secondly, there's technical excellence and then there is perceived
>technical excellence.  I have no doubt that if an award were being give
>for excellence in design of an OS by a group of disinterested (could we
>find any? :) engineers, OS/2 would win.  But if you ask even only the
>most computer literate users of the world if Windows 3.1 deserves an
>award, I suspect most would say yes, though their reasoning would not be
>based on OS design philosophy.  I don't think there's anything wrong
>with deciding that Windows 3.1 is good or excellent since it works for
>me.  If you've got a complaint, it's that PC/C didn't define their
>standards in a narrow enough techno-weenie way to limit the award only
>to OS/2 (or, if they did, I didn't see that).
>
That is basically true.  There is one thing though, the folks at PC computing
are supposed to know all the techno-weenie stuff as well.  My complaint is not
that they didn't make the standards technical enough, I could care less how
they define them.  What I want is for them to  actually *define* them.  They
didn't.  There isn't necissarily anything wrong with picking Windows 3.1,
(though I wouldn't like it) you are right, but they should define their
criteria and have some balls about their decision.  I don't care what they
pick but I think they should actually pick something.  There were basically
two system up for the vote and they chose both.  The two aren't all that
evenly matched on any given criteria, and they both have their strengths and
weaknesses and I can't think of how in the world with any given set of written
out criteria that you couldn't logically come out with a winner.

>>>
>>>In fact, the best situation for computer users is one in which two
>>>major companies are battling it out to create a better operating
>>>system, and the best step you can take right now is to use both
>>>Windows and OS/2.  You're likely to decide on one over the other,
>>>but that's not what's important. What is, is that you'll widen the
>>>horizons of you computing exerience an take two giant steps toward
>>>the future.
>>
>>This is true and we all know this, but I don't think it excuses them.
>>>
>>>That's why this year we're splitting the honors: The winners of the
>>>MVP for best operating environment are OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1.  May
>>>they both thrive.
>>
>>Well....  OK I can live with that...  (SMILE FOLKS!)
>>--
>>Stacy John Behrens
>>*===)-------------
>
>Happy Thanksgiving, one and all!i
>
>Joe
>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy