From: rbeebe@surgery.med.yale.edu (Rick Beebe)
Subject: Re: Windows NT vs OS/2: Does NT worth the wait?
Organization: Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:12:41 GMT

In article <79270@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7692b@prism.gatech.EDU (Constantinos Malamas) writes:
>        I realize that this post may very well start a flame war or, worse 
>yet a thread that will have little or anything to do with the answer to this
>question but, hey! this is Usenet!.... So here it goes: I got a 486DX33 and I
>want an OS that makes some real use of the monster under the hood and has 
>nothing to do with a command line :)).... I really like OS/2 as a concept and
>'feel' and I prefer Windows's look, but before I go out and spend around $300
>in mem expansion (I got a sorry 4MB) and OS/2, I need some input on this
>so-talked-about Win NT... How much more of an OS is NT compared to 3.1 and OS2?
>Does it multitasking feel like 3.1 or OS2? How well does it perform? Most
>importantly, what are its hardware requirements? (one of the reasons I am
>having cold feet about OS2 is the magnificent 15MB for minimum installation NOT
>counting the swap files...) When is NT expected approx? So many OSs, just one
>PC.... Thanx everybody in advance....

Well, you shouldn't let your hardware fears sway you to NT over OS/2. NT's 
requirements (memory and disk space) are going to be GREATER than OS/2's. If 
you really don't want to add memory, then stick with 3.1. If it meets your 
needs, then there's no reason to change. I use OS/2 because I LIKE a command-
line and I need DOS. OS/2 gives me MUCH more reliable DOS session with gobs 
of available memory. My DOS sessions under Windows have about 349K free. 
Under OS/2, over 600K. On the other hand, Windows is a much more 
"comfortable" environment. Using OS/2, there's still that feeling of being 
on the "bleeding edge." There are device driver problems, not all hardware 
is supported the way we like, not all software runs under it yet. Things are 
getting better though (and I do spend about 90% of my time in OS/2--I just 
can't get rid of Windows yet).

Which is a better multitasker? OS/2 without a doubt. NT has some features 
that will probably make it a slightly better multitasker than OS/2 is _now_. 
But, I see IBM adding such features to OS/2.

Windows NT feels more like Windows 3.1 (virtually identical). OS/2 is a 
different interface--you can get used to any interface though.

Finally, remember that the growing pains that we're currently feeling with 
OS/2 will be repeated with Windows NT. Don't think you're going to avoid it 
by "waiting for Windows NT." By the time NT comes out (3 or 4 months), OS/2 
will be that much more mature. Remember, Windows had to go through 3 
versions and 6 YEARS before it was really usable. Things are getting better. 
I would guess that NT won't really be usable for another 18 months.

  ......................................................................
   Rick Beebe                                            (203) 785-4566
   Data Network Operations
   Biomedical Computing Unit                  beebe@biomed.med.yale.edu
   Yale University School of Medicine              beebe@yalemed.bitnet
  ......................................................................

  ......................................................................
   Rick Beebe                                            (203) 785-4566
   Data Network Operations
   Biomedical Computing Unit                  beebe@biomed.med.yale.edu
   Yale University School of Medicine              beebe@yalemed.bitnet
  ......................................................................
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc