From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: X is a hack? (was Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks!)
Date: 29 Aug 92 12:35:05 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug29.104750.12230@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.231045.25891@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug27.145816.24108@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>> >>Am I reading this wrong?  Or is this another case of Windows NT bias?
>> >>Just curious.
>> 
>> >Well I biased toward NT in the sense I like its base features better
>> >than OS/2's base features.  Also I believe that NT will eventually
>> >have a much better app selection.  OS/2 could prove me wrong (and I won't
>> >cry if it does -- in fact I'll be as happy (that is if I haven't purchased
>> >NT apps by then)) but that's not the way the crowd seems to be betting and
>> >NT is showing better signs of delivering than what OS/2 shows currently.
>> >
>> >Brian
>> 
>> Well, although NT is not out yet, nor that the "16 bit Windows support" is
>> not done yet--the NT can, potentially, be better at handling Windows 3.1
>> than IBM... for the mere reason that Microsoft has all the source code
>> for 3.1...
>
>IBM has all the source code for Windows 3.1, too. You're on the wrong track
>with this line of argument.

Your correct about Windows 3.1... but Microsoft has plans well beyond
3.1... as a matter of fact I know of enough pending product announcements
from MS that you find this fall and winter quite annoying.  If it takes
IBM this long to get Windows 3.1 code they demoed at Spring Comdex out, then
how do you expect them to keep up after they no longer have source code.
Face it, OS/2 either get a native base of apps soon, or OS/2 will be in
trouble.

>> 
>> I agree heartily with Brian, here.  OS/2 may be fantastic, wonderful, and a
>> better DOS than DOS... but unless I need it specifically, why should I
>> buy it not knowing if it is a sound investment (note: if I particularly
>> needed an OS/2 feature, it would be a sound investment).
>> 
>> Joe
>
>OS/2 as a multi-tasker makes Windows look sick. Having used Window 3.x for 18
>months and OS/2 2.0 for five months, there is no doubt in my mind which system
>is superior. 
> 
>OS/2's memory protection, multi-tasking ability and superb interface (WPS) are
>three *excellent* reasons to move to OS/2. Then there is HPFS and a whole host
>of other features that make it even better.
> 
>Windows people who have *not* used OS/2 much fail completely to appreciate
>just how good these features are. They see the dull, grey desktop and
>completely miss the point. 
> 
>As a desktop OS, OS/2 has more power and versatility then Win3.1 will ever
>muster. It is also still small enough to be a desktop OS. NT isn't. NT and
>it's bundled feature have no place in the mass market. OS/2 does. If you want
>the additional features, you can buy them.
> 
>NT is a Swiss Army knife. Most people just want the blade that cuts. Win3.1 is
>a blunt blade. OS/2 is sharp!

Explain to me then why someone (me) that develops for OS/2 at work, uses
OS/2 every day... runs Windows 3.1 on a 20meg 386/33 at home?
I come from a Unix environment, I was a Unix system administrator for over
10 years.  My primary area of study getting my CS Masters was Operating Systems.
Surely you don't believe I don't understand good multitasking and what you
do with it?  A similar thing holds true for my wife, she has several years Unix
system admin experience, and her Phd topic is in the area of user interfaces.
She uses Windows 3.1 over OS/2 on an 8 meg 486SX/25.

Yes, OS/2 is a better multitasker, but there is more to computer usage
that multi-tasking, and while OS/2 show promise, it currently just doesn't
live up to that promise.  To use OS/2 fully at this time in general requires
native mode apps, or ugly DOS ones.  As I've explained before I don't feel
OS/2 will necessarily make it... and thus will stick to my Windows apps and
they in general run better under Windows 3.1.

>Steve
>  
>
>-- 
>Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | End the two-party duopoly. Vote 
>Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for the Mixed-Member Proportional 
>withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | (MMP) voting system on Sept. 19th. 
>**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | Give yourself a vote that *counts*!


-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy