From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. NT
Keywords: OS/2, NT, Windows
Date: 11 Oct 92 13:45:10 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In article <1b89omINN81c@gap.caltech.edu>:

>I challenge the Windows NT advocates out there to tell me why I should  
>switch from OS/2 2.0 to Windows NT.

Unfortunately I am an OS/2 fan. Nevertheless I am goint to try to answer
the question.

>This is how I see my system and my requirements:
>OS/2 2.0 is a much stabler and faster operating system than Windows 3.1  
>for DOS.  

I almost always run DOS software and couldn't agree more. On the other
hand for running windows programs Win3.1 is clearly faster. It also
accepts a smaller system (less RAM) to operate.

>After having worked with Windows 3.0 and attempting to get it to  
>multitask my communications program (Telemate 3.01) while downloading a  
>file from a BBS and having it crash every single time I tried to do  
>anything else (it's not multitasking if it crashes every time you attempt  
>to do anything on a computer.  It's not an improvement from DOS.)  In  
>fact, running Telemate in OS/2 yields a higher degree of stability than  
>running it under DOS with QEMM/386.  I just wish to run WordPerfect or  
>CorelDRAW! or something similar simultaneously with Telemate.  And I don't  
>wish to change my comm program unless the new comm program provides all  
>the functionality of Telemate and automatically converts my phone  
>directory and script files.  

I use procomm (sorry) and under OS/2 2.0 it works reasonable flawless.
Sometimes it slows my 486/33 down, which I don't think should happen,
but it works great. But please notice DesqView and Windows 3.1 can
do this as well.

>That goes for OS/2 comm programs too.  That's  
>the bulk of my needs.  I don't need multimedia and indeed don't wish to  
>spend $600-$1000 to upgrade my system to be multimedia compatible.  I  
>don't have a sound card or cd-rom drive.
>The only possible reason that I may consider NT is if it has really  
>excellent TCP/IP support (i.e. I have the capability to put my PC on  
>Internet, but haven't done so because I haven't found a satisfying package  
>yet.  

TCP/IP is also available for OS/2.

>I've looked at DOS based packages such as PC/TCP coupled with  
>DESQview/X to create an Xterminal but that is much less stable and less  
>configurable than OS/2.  This will be frequently used (since I won't have  
>to go to my campus computer center), so I don't want to have to boot to  
>pure DOS to do it, so until OS/2 gets a good TCP/IP link I haven't  
>bothered to implement it on my PC.)
>Also, I'm operating on a limited budget.  I don't wish to spend $500 for  
>NT if it doesn't do anything really special over OS/2 2.0, which cost me  
>$100 for an upgrade from DOS.

This might become a major chance for OS/2 to win the battle. 

>...
>out of a dorm room and running both DOS and Windows apps (very few OS/2  
>apps right now and nothing critical that can't be sacrificed if you prove  
>to me that NT is far superior to OS/2)

This is a real weak point of OS/2 IMO. Dispite al the blabla there are
almost no interesting OS/2 2.0 apps. And than I mean products like
WordPerfect, Lotus 123, AmiPro, Borland C++, dBase, paradox etc. All those
products HOPE to be released end year, beginning next year.

By that time NT MIGHT be released as well and probably most MS apps and
even some of their competitors will be launched imidiately after.

>One more point is that Win NT won't be out until next year, and by then my  
>conversion and familiarity with OS/2 will probably be on the same level as  
>my familiarity with DOS is now.

Unfortunately noone really knows when NT is going to be released. IMO
the major factor determining its success will be its launch date and
its quality at the moment of the launch (or the amount of MS marketing
hiding the problems with this quality).

>So, I challenge all NT advocates to tell me why I should use NT over OS/2!

If you are a developer betting on both horses might be the best. IBM
marketing has so far been very weak, MS's very strong. Unless NT is
going to suffer from some major problems that will be enough to make
NT a succss and OS/2 a failure. The quality of the product doesn't
matter much unfortunately.  

>Tejaswi Kasturi
>kasturi@cco.caltech.edu

Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no waranties of any kind  |  A  A   I   P  P
| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P

"The IBM PC is still waiting for a version of the CP/M OS.", G.M. Vose, 1982.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy