From: kmacleod@hyperdesk.com (Kenneth Macleod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:22:44 GMT
Reply-To: kmacleod@hyperdesk.com (Kenneth Macleod)
Organization: Hyperdesk Corp, Westboro MA

Brian,

	What the original poster was asking is this.  (if this is not what he
was asking, this is what I am asking).

	Take a user.  Perhaps a secretary, some guy from marketing.  NOT a
developer.  NOT a power user.  Sit them down in front of two computers. 
One runs NT and the other is running OS/2.

	Now say to them (keep a straight face, you're selling on commission
here):  this NT model has posix support (1003.1 no less), its got a
clean design, if you had two prossesors, why you could use BOTH of
them!

	User looks at you, huh?

User:	I've got this flight simulator here, I've always run it when the
phones are slow.
Brian:	That's a game.  Stick to the point.
User:	How do I copy these files on this floppy that I brought from
home?
Brian:	Simple, you just open up your handy program manager, open up the
file manager, select drive a:, open up the drive view, select the files
you want, open up the c: drive etc...
OS/2 user: Or you just open up the drives view, open up drive a and use
mouse button two to drag the files to the c drive.

Am I getting through?

In article <1992Sep30.004820.15289@hellgate.utah.edu>,
brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
|> ...
|> >MS's on the net seem to think that NT does everything OS/2 does but
|> >more.  This is not the case.  I will assume that most of us believe
|> >that whoever rules the Intel platform has won the game already. 
With
|> >that in mind, OS/2 has these important thigns in its favor that NT
|> >simply is not going to have or have in the near future:
|> 
|> First of all I want to point out that I very much believe that OS/2
is
|> a subset of NT.  In all the discussion I've ever seen on this
group...
|> only 3 points of potential importance have I seen that OS/2 has that
NT
|> will not have from day 1:  Excellent VDM's, WPS, and REXX.
|> You list the first two, but left out REXX.
|> 
|> Now to deal with your points:
|> 
|> >
|> >NT will not be able to run DOS programs as quickly or well as OS/2.
|> >NT chose to be airtight (not a bad choice but this is the result).
|> 
|> The vast majority of DOS programs should work under NT without
problems.
|> There is no need to run DOS networking or multimedia drivers as
|> there is under OS/2.
|> Only in the area of games do I expect any problems... and as
|> even the pre-beta was able to run 1 of the 2 I tried... I'm not sure
|> even this will be that much of a problem.
|> 
|> >
|> >NT is going to have the ridiculous program manager and file manager
|> >back.
|> 
|> This is clearly a two-edged feature.  A user migrating from Windows
|> does not need to learn anything new and for many if not most
|> users this shell is fine.  If WorkPlace shell was not so complex
|> and if it's operation had been better thought out, then perhaps
|> you would have more of a point, but I think it likely not to
|> factor in most user's decisions.  For "power-users" this can be
|> a factor, but having used WPS for several months now... I don't
|> find I miss it when running under Windows 3.1 and Windows NT.
|> Personally I'm quite content to wait for someone to implement
|> an alternate shell with a simliar flavor for NT. (And remember
|> that Cairo will be out in '94 -- it's shell looked similar
|> to WPS... but hopefully will be better thought out.)
|> The idea of WPS is great, but its implementation is lacking.
|> 
|> >
|> >NT is going to run Windows programs probably only as well as OS/2
does
|> >(I have the beta with win 3.1 support and seamless windows 3.1
sessions
|> >are very fast now).
|> 
|> Perhaps it will handle Windows program as well once 2.01 comes out
(I
|> remain skeptical).  But what about a year from now?  It looks like
IBM
|> will take 9 months to get Windows 3.1 support into OS/2, and they
have
|> sources...  what about the next time when they don't?  And don't say
|> that OS/2 will have all the apps it needs by then...  Windows 3.X
and
|> its derivatives will clearly be the mainstream platform for some
time
|> to come.  Most apps will be there first.
|> 
|> >
|> >So MS people out there, why should we, the users who have the
machine
|> >to run NT choose it over OS/2?  
|> >
|> >More Apps?  The bread and butter apps will be out for OS/2 before
NT
|> >and OS/2 runs all windows programs I have.
|> 
|> I see no evidence that the "bread and butter" apps will be out for
OS/2.
|> A few of the major companies that tend to support multiple platforms
|> have said they will be there, but there will be nothing like the
|> selection available for Windows 3.X, or even the Mac anytime
|> in the near future.
|> 

Just Wordperfect (6.0), Lotus (1-2-3 & Ami).  These certainly don't
qualify as bread and butter.

|> >
|> >To make money?  MS makes most of the money on Windows.  ISV's have
more
|> >money making potential in the OS/2 market IF it succeeds.
|> 
|> What basis do you have for this statement?
|> Windows apps will pass the sales of DOS apps this year.
|> Microsoft is far from the only company receiving a windfall from
|> this market.  Early sales figures of course were higher for MS, but
|> then they had their apps there first.  You can bet that Borland,
Lotus
|> and WordPerfect won't let that happen again.
|> Most ISV's don't make things that MS makes -- how can the OS/2
|> market possibly have more money making potential?
|> Money making potential is directly proportional to customer base
|> and Windows 3.X/NT is clearly the larger base.
|> BUT doesn't that imply that the NT apps don't use all the
|> fance features?  Who cares... with the 30-40% speed up
|> from having a Windows 3.X app ported to NT... AND that app
|> is actually being available... NT users will be quite happy until NT
class
|> OS's are the mainstream.  At least NT users will _have_ native apps.
|> Even if OS/2 eventually does get an app base it will be limited
|> to those features that Windows 3.X has, as that is the larger
|> app base.  Only if OS/2 displaced Windows 3.X would this fact
|> not hold... and I seriously doubt OS/2 can displace Windows 3.X.
|> 
|> >
|> >Network support?  Novell is the standard and will continue to be
and
|> >its support for OS/2 is solid.
|> 
|> And Novell support won't be there for NT?  It's already being
|> developed... remember how long it took for Novell to put it on OS/2?
|> The only thing currently different w.r.t. to Novell and OS/2 is that
|> a Novell server is planned that will run on top of OS/2.
|> 1) Just what will be its relationship to LAN Server?  Is IBM going
|> to abandon it?
|> 2) It's not here yet nor is it close to release.
|> 3) Even if it was here why would this affect NT?  NT and Novell will
|> clearly interoperate.  NT's networking comes with the base package,
so
|> all NT boxes can talk to Novell servers.  DOS 6 will come with
integrated
|> networking... it will clearly be able to talk to NT servers.
|> Likewise Windows for Workgroups will be able to talk to both.
|> 4) Microsoft and Novell are said to be negotiating a similar deal
|> for NT.
|> 
|> >
|> >Multi-platform?  Who cares.  Any manager who suggests putting
WindowsNT
|> >on a sparc so that they can run word for windows won't be a manager
for
|> >very long.
|> 
|> I'm amused at this one.  Do you think that DEC, SGI and Sequent
|> choosing to support NT at this early stage is unfounded on their
part?
|> SGI is already shipping systems.  DEC employees are running around
|> saying that NT will "save" them.  There are several new vendors
|> making ACE compliant multi-processor machines.
|> 
|> ...
|> >Brad Wardell
|> 
|> Now my turn.
|> Why should I chose OS/2?
|> There are three "strong" points, Excellent VDM's, WPS, and REXX.
|> The excellent VDM's are more than a bit overkill... and it's not
|> clear yet that NT's DOS support will not be adequate, or even good.
|> 
|> WPS and REXX are just application programs.
|> WPS is a nice idea, but falls short of being all that much better
|> than the Window 3.1 (note the 3.1) versions of Program Manager/File
|> Manager.  In fact, until IBM improves the speed of the drive
folders,
|> I would argue it's inferior.
|> REXX is the remaining feature... it's the one I can't knock down
|> especially since seeing Visual REXX.  While REXX is nice, it has
|> an awful lot of historical uglies... and again Cairo will have
|> "Object BASIC".
|> 
|> So in short OS/2 has two features WPS and REXX both of which will
|> will have alternates from MS in NT in '94.  Third parties will
clearly

You don't need the WPS shell now... But in 1994 when MS will sell it to
you for $XXX then you will need it.  (If you needed it now, MS would
have given it to you now)

|> be putting out shells similar to WPS (and probably better thought
out).
|> And there are already REXX versions for NT in beta... which, BTW
|> are already integrating advance version of OLE 2.0.  In short this
|> means that this REXX will be BETTER integrated into NT than REXX is
|> into OS/2.  OS/2 programs must specifically integrate REXX on a per
|> program basis.  The way OLE 2.0 is designed any program that takes
|> advantage of OLE will be able to use the REXX _or_ any other
|> scripting language the user chooses to use.
|> 
|> Everything else that OS/2 has... NT has NOW!
|> 

Just go down to your local egghead and buy them...

|> Now what does NT offer over OS/2?
|> First and foremost:
|> 	Has a cleaner, more modern design than OS/2 2.0.
|> 		This is extremely important and very hard to describe
|> 		in a short space.  Essentially it means that added on
|> 		system features such as "Stacker" is MUCH easier to
|> 		do.  For example NT has dynamically loadable/unloadable
|> 		file system and device drivers.  This is a result of
|> 		its design... OS/2 could add this feature, but it would
|> 		have to be hacked in.
|> 
|> 		Maintenance of NT by MS will be much easier. This means
|> 		less bugs.  New features will occur sooner.  MS intends
|> 		to release sources to the research community allowing
|> 		the latest and greatest research to flow into NT.
|> 
|> 	ISV support
|> 		Features like all system API calls that take strings,
|> 		take UNICODE strings make a lot of difference to ISVs.
|> 		Microsoft has carefully recruited a much broader base
|> 		of support than IBM has for OS/2.
|> 		Vendors making products for the vast Windows 3.X market
|> 		can EASILY expand their market by doing a quick port
|> 		to NT.  If you consider that the likely developer
|> 		platform for Windows 3.X apps will be NT, then it
|> 		should occur to you that, that in itself will
|> 		encourage the ports of these apps to NT.  In truth
|> 		many of these will be made on NT using a subset 
|> 		of the API (such as Win32s) and then "ported" to
|> 		Windows 3.1... I mean this will only make sense...
|> 		it's far easier to debug an NT app.  Even if the
|> 		eventual target is a native 16-bit windows app...
|> 		it is easy to make the same source code work on
|> 		both.
|> 
|> 	Peer-peer file and printer sharing.
|> 	RPC
|> 	TCP/IP
|> 	Multimedia
|> 	E-Mail API (X.500, can use X.400 as a transport)
|> 		Now people will be tempted to say that OS/2 has this
|> 		too, but they are optional and expensive.  There will
|> 		be much less incentive for developers to make apps for
|> 		OS/2 to use these features
|> 
|> 	32-bit OLE
|> 		Just as NT does not have REXX and WPS... this is the
|> 		"biggie" underlying feature that OS/2 doesn't have.
|> 		OLE 2.0 will allow far more flexible shells and
|> 		scripting than provided by either REXX or WPS.  And use
|> 		of more than one simultaneously will be possible.  In
|> 		short, rather than the kitchen sink approach of WPS
|> 		features, object handlers can be chosen to fit the the
|> 		abilities, needs, and wishes of the user.  Scripting
|> 		languages can be chosen to fit the preference of
|> 		users... i.e. I'd like a C-like one, some might
|> 		prefer a BASIC one, and of course some would prefer
|> 		REXX.
|> 
|> 	Logons.
|> 		Anyone that shares a system will appreciate the value
|> 		of this feature.  Larger sites will appreciate the
|> 		C2-level security.
|> 
|> 	DOS, POSIX, OS/2 1.X and NT console apps can output to the same
window.
|> 		This is an important example of where NT's
|> 		compatibility is better than OS/2's.
|> 
|> 	More low-level OS features (e.g. memory-mapped files).
|> 	Symmetric multiprocessing support.
|> 	NTFS
|> 	POSIX  (1003.1 -- the system calls)
|> 	Runs on more than one architecture.
|> 		This set of features appeal to several large niche
|> 		markets.  Realistically speaking, OS/2 is two years or
|> 		more from having these.
|> 
|> Finally...
|> OS/2 2.0 is a kludge of 16-bit and 32-bit calls.  It will be
|> quite some time before IBM can get it to a portable state.  It is
|> missing a fair number of major features.  Unless a complete rewrite
is
|> undertaken it will always be a hack...  and hacks are hard to
|> maintain.  It's API is already cluttered with historical problems
|> from failed 1.X ill-thought out features.
|> 
|> NT has one of the most clean modern designs of any
|> commercial OS available or announced.  It has a feature set that
|> is ready to take full advantage of modern systems.
|> It is inherently portable and extensible.
|> 
|> Wouldn't you prefer that the better OS win?
|> Five years from now would you prefer to be fighting the uglies of
|> a hack (i.e. the future equivalents of the 640K barrier), or using
|> an OS that was designed to be extended?
|> 

--

  o o|  Kenneth MacLeod, HyperDesk Corp.
  o o|  Email: kenneth@hyperdesk.com
  ---'  Phone: (508) 366-5050 x 133