From: dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re:  NextStep 486 and misc. (was Re: Stability of Next...)
Distribution: world
Date: 27 Aug 92 08:14:00 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <SXMRP.35.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.081231.25228@coe.montana.edu> icsu8053@cs.montana.edu (Craig Pratt) writes:
>
>>I think that people will be disappointed when they see how NT performs.
>>MicroSloth may be doing itself a disservice by claiming that it will run
>>acceptably on any system slower that a 486/33 EISA w/16M RAM & 400MB hard
>>drive.  This has been many people's reaction to OS/2 - "OS/2 is too slow
>>compared with DOS and it takes up all of my 120MB hard drive."
>
>I have a problem with people who want DOS performance on a multitasking,
>multiuser GUI based OS.  They also tend to want to run it on their 1982
>IBM PC.  Yes, NT will require more hardware, suprise, suprise suprise.
>...
>Are'nt the hardware requirements for NT less than for NS486? It still is
>unfair to condemm the performance of NT yet seeing as it has not even gone
>into beta yet.  For what its worth, the 32 bit windows is supposed to be
>fairly snappy, and the win16 and Dos stuff has yet to be fully debugged.
>..
>
>I'm just curious, what is your beef against MS.  It seems that everyone on
>the internet has one.	My experience with MS programs, paticularly windows
>programs, have been excellent.  DOS was not horrible for the timeframe it

    Well, I don't know about his beef, but I can tell you my beef:

    * Microsoft goes through a dozen incremental improvements to MS-DOS
      charging you for each one, that do almost nothing different.

    * Microsoft is now doing the same thing with Windows... why couldn't
      they implement multitasking properly with Windows 3.0 ?  We are now
      two releases later and they STILL do not implement it properly. For
      example, if I print graphics from a windows program running under
      windows it refuses to allow me to switch to another application, or
      bring another window to the front, or even shift windows around.
      WHERE IS THE MULTITASKING????

    * Many things appear to either be missing entirely or poorly integrated,
      such as security (poorly integrated) and multiuser capabilities, VM
      (how many times have I 'run out of memory' on an 8MB machine running
      windows?	Let me count...).  Protection between processes is
      nonexistant under Windows 3.1 and looks to be little better under NT.

    * Windows is jerky and slow and sludgy on a 486/33, the user interface
      is horrible, the machine grinds to a stop whenever it's trying to do
      more then one thing at a time.

    * The incompatibility list that Microsoft supplied with Windows 3.1
      is THOUSANDS of lines long, literally!  Half the manual is seemingly
      dedicated to PROBLEMS and how to kludge around them.

    * Windows NT is another incremental improvement... while Microsoft
      appears to be replacing parts of the OS core and/or simply writing
      it's own drivers, they have certainly NOT rewritten the product.
      Microsoft *NEVER* rewrites a product.  Windows NT is going to look
      and pretty much feel just like Windows 3.1

    Do you realize the amount of space in EVERY manual for EVERY PC product
    that is dedicated to installation and compatibility problems?  I,
    personally, have spent man weeks JUST on problems related to
    installation of PC programs (windows and non-windows programs).  Our
    company has spent tens of thousands of dollars in the past three years
    on PC installation/compatibility problems and it's WORSE under windows.
    For example, Microsoft has purposefully made their programs
    *incompatible* with the majority of memory managers out there... even 6
    month old versions of Microsoft's OWN memory managers don't work!  And
    microsoft's memory manager is incompatible with many third party
    programs.  IT'S A MESS!

    Thanks, but no thanks.

						-Matt

>>--
>> Craig Pratt						 icsu8053@cs.montana.edu
>> Montana State University, Bozeman MT 	    gcp1070@msu.oscs.montana.edu
>>	 "Chicken McNuggets: If they McCome from where I McThink they do,
>>		   I don't want to McEat it!" - Jerry Seinfeld
>
>-Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)

--

    Matthew Dillon	    dillon@Overload.Berkeley.CA.US
    891 Regal Rd.	    uunet.uu.net!overload!dillon
    Berkeley, Ca. 94708     ham: KC6LVW (no mail drop)
    USA

Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy