From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 12:18:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.154709.23163@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.142702.5553@gw.wmich.edu> 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>
>Why would they move to OS/2 now?  There are no apps and it's not all
>that stable.  It does not yet run Windows 3.1 apps and its existing
>Windows support is slow and mostly not seamless.
>Come OS/2 2.01, then maybe they could consider it, but NT will be in
>the middle of its beta by then and it should then be clear what NT will
>deliver.

I don't see what Windows 3.1 support have to do with developers writing
native OS/2 2.0 programs.

>In taking so long to clean up their act, IBM may have shot OS/2's chance.
>

>>
>>	Most users that would be using an OS like OS/2 or NT are looking
>>for specific types of apps that require a 32bit OS.  These apps will
>>be out for both and out for OS/2 arguably sooner than for NT.
>
>That's a rather narrow view point.  Three years from now NT-class OS's will
>be the mainstream.

Maybe, maybe not.  Dos can give you a surprisingly strong showing.

>Even now... you might generally only choose the power of a 32-bit OS
>if you have good reason, but you'll need the mainstream apps too.  NT will
>have these -- they'll initially be simple ports of 3.X apps... OS/2 doesn't

But I'm not sure simple ports of 3.X apps will mean too much.  Yes it will
run faster.  But all the important NT capabilities will not be utilized.

>have these now and there's no particular reason to believe it will later.
>People on this group tell each other all the time about how many OS/2 apps
>are on the way... but these things are announced in the trade rags, and
>the fact is there just are not that many on the way.
>Most of the vendors announcing in the March timeframe promised only to
>monitor the OS/2 market.  Well COMDEX is in November, I'll be proved
>right or wrong by the numbers of Apps being shown for OS/2 and NT there.
>(I'll be at COMDEX -- and you can believe I'll be paying attention
>to who's doing what for which.)
>

>
>>	Only time will tell.  But your arguments fail to convince me
>>why OS/2 should be passed up and to wait for Windows NT.
>
>Your response shows that you had already made up your mind.
>I find it hard to believe that anyone can think that the design
>of an OS is unimportant to an end-user.  The end-user may not realize
>the importance, but it's important all the same.
>

Agreed.

>
>>
>>	NT seems to be a hodgepodge of good features but is not the
>>"best" at anything.
>
>What possible grounds do you have for calling NT a "hodgepodge"?
>If you had studied its design, it would be clear to you that a lot
>of thought went into it.  The features that are there are well integrated.
>Things that are extra subsystems (like POSIX) are easily stripped off.
>
>>						-Brad
>
>Brian
>-- 
>C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
>University of Utah                             United We Stand
>Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy