From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:04:08 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Sep04.211753.64337@ans.net> db3l@ans.net (David Bolen) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.135831.4252@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
...
>Ok, then maybe I'm just wordsmithing (but I think you said you'd accept that
>too at the bottom), but I think it could be presented a little better.  After
>all, the point is that the *base* OS/2 2.0 requires less memory than the
>*base* NT.  That's true and belongs in this section.  Your document describes
>what NT base has that OS/2 doesn't, so that's taken care of.  And when you
>add the features, you claim they are a wash, so that point doesn't belong
>in the document at all, no?

Ah finally I understand... the problem is you picked on the part that
was the comment saying how much memory the two systems take with all features
loaded.  What you don't like is the way I phrased the item that
the comment goes with, I'll fix it up.

>
>>Thread 1 is unique -- every process must have it... this is quite
>>an annoying misfeature of OS/2.  NT does this right, OS/2 doesn't really...
>>This is what the paragraph says.  You're picking at nothing.
...
>I guess I was trying to make two points.  First, the use of the word "general"
>is simply inaccurate.  It is not the common case that threads do not have
>dynamic stacks.  Second, there is nothing stopping an application from having
>a dynamic stack *even for thread 1* - it's just a little more work.  As shown
>in other posts in this thread, every EMX applications gets this... even thread
>1's stack grows dynamically.

This is not what a person IBM that should know has told me.
Do you know this to be 100% true?  If you do, I'll reopen it, if not
I'll let it stand.  (Sigh... will I ever be rid of this question?)
Look... I went to the trouble of tracking down somebody at IBM and
asking... what more can I do?

(I'll say this much for OS/2 zealots... they have zeal... there are times
I consider deleting NT features from the list just to get a little peace. :-))

I tell you what... YOU'RE in charge of finding out about this one... contact
IBM and FORCE them to tell you with absolute certainty!!!

In the interim I'm letting it stand. (And if turns out be a "feature"
of that @*#*!$% Workset/2 it may be a while before the next revision comes
out, as I'll need to go be arrested for burning my copy of Workset/2 down
at the local IBM office. :-))

...
>
>My point here is that I'd like to clarify the fact that OS/2 can install
>different filesystems for different partitions.  NT can do it too and takes it
>one better, but NTs approach is incrementally better than OS/2's - not a
>completely new concept.  Wording the point the way you did can sound like
>OS/2 has no facilities even closely related.

It doesn't... OS/2 has no dynamic load/unload abilities for drivers/filesystems.

Both NT and OS/2 have the ability to load/unload filesystems at boot time,
so the feature is not mentioned.

The list assumes you know the common abilities of each.  This list is enough
headache without attempting to write that too.

As a matter of fact I think it would be a GREAT idea if you made that list,
then we'll see how you define picky. :-)


Brian
-- 
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,comp.os.os2.apps