From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Survivability
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:58:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.192555.31998@news.weeg.uiowa.edu> rahayden@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (R Andrew Hayden) writes:
>On the advice of several people, I've taken part of my OS research to
>.advocacy as a way to try to determine the differences between OS/2 and NT
>and whatever else is out there.


	The best thing about the advocacy groups is that they are the
	best place to learn, if not "the TRUTH" then at lease "how people
	feel" about the item in question. 

>Frankly, I don't care what funky things OS/2 or NT can do.  All I want is
>an OS that will let me multitask decently, eliminate the 640k obsolete
>memory barrier, and get rid of that hampering 8+3 naming requirement.  In


	Well now.  The problem here is that you want to continue to
	use your present Dos and Windows software.  As it stands, neither
	OS/2 nor Windows NT can offer any of the things you're asking for.

	Why?

	1.  Both OS/2 and NT offer filing systems that support 
	 >8.3 filenames.  (HPFS and NTFS, respectively).  HOWEVER,
	 DOS and Windows programs running under EITHER platform cannot
	 deal with extended filenames--files that go outside of traditional
	 DOS conventions are invisible to these programs.  

	 NTFS offers a dual file naming scheme, which might suffice.
	 In it, files have both an enhanced file name and an 8.3 name, 
	 which should help things, but doesn't really change how you'll
	 interact with your programs (you'll still be using the 8.3 
	 short-form names).  Further, how well this dual-system works
	 is up in the air.  I suspect that it'll make life easier, 
	 it is certainly better than the Stealth File Names (tm) 
	 that OS/2 has, but... (it isn't really what you're asking about).

	2.  Neither OS/2 nor Windows NT will offer you the ability to 
	 trash the 640k barrier for your DOS programs, since this is
	 a part of the programs themselves.  As under DOS, it is possible
	 under OS/2 to get HUGE DOS windows (as much as 708 or 720k) by
	 disabling graphics modes.  I get as much as 706k under DRDOS
	 by stealing video memory.  

	 Neither OS will remove this limit from DOS programs, but both
	 do a very good job of giving you a big DOS Window (bigger than
	 Win31 does, and a heckuva lot bigger than DesqView ever did).

	 Windows programs, of course, do not suffer from this problem.
	 (under either system)
	
>addition, I want to keep my DOS and Windows programs because I don't have
>the money to invest in a whole new software library.


	This is the problem--while both OS/2 (now) and NT (future) 
	will multitask these programs and run them in windows, etc,
	neither will do what you specifically asked for.  

	The reason I'm responding to this message is that I'm 
	*certain* that someone else will answer it with either
	an OS/2 or NT "DOES THIS  RIGHT NOW!!" message without 
	considering what you are actually asking about.  In fact,
	*neither* of them does what you're asking, and I don't
	know of a system that does.


>No, my question has to do with the survivability of OS/2 (I've pretty much
>decided to make the switch).  


	Very unclear at this point.  Even the most rabid, foaming at
	the mouth OS/2 fans will say that, at present, OS/2's future is
	very murky.  Various items, the PowerPC, NT, IBM's commitment 
	(or lack thereof), developer (software) support, hardware support,
	and even NeXTStep make it very hard to say.  I think it's fair
	to say that since IBM stuck with 1.0 even after it was a 
	total disaster, they will continue to stick with it at least
	until the PowerPC comes out, and even after that (but the
	level of support at that point is widely open to debate). 

	NT, if it is released in or before summer, is sure to have a 
	much rosier time.  Why this is I will not say (Microslut's
	ahem, relations with developers?), but I don't think that
	anyone really doubts that NT will have better SW and HW 
	support, if not at release, then shortly after.

>Two and a half years ago when Windows 3.0 cam out, I immediately started
>using it and I very much liked it.  Unfortunately, there was very little


	If you liked WIN3.0, then OS/2's WinOS2 should make you
	happy (assuming you have 8 megs of RAM).  It is not only
	faster than Win30, but it is also quite a bit more 
	stable (plus, you can make seperate applications isolated
	from one another).  OTOH, it is a lot slower and somewhat
	less stable than Win3.1, and has none of Win3.1's features.


>Now, I in turn look at OS/2.  Right now, there is no OS/2 software section
>at my computer story.  In addition, there are far far fewer OS/2 FTP sites
>on the net and far far fewer OS/2 shareware programs available than
>Windows programs.


	OTOH, most of the OS/2 shareware is very good.  What is loses
	in quantity it makes up for in quantity.  This is reflective
	of OS/2's actual market (computer hobbyists and developers,
	neither of whome buy a great deal of commercial SW).  


>Now, I know this isn't a good measure of how good an OS is, but is parts


	Certainly not.  OS/2 chareware doesn't touch the stuff
	you can get for the Amiga, which is better in both 
	quality and quantity than the OS/2 stuff (mostly).  
	In other words, it's a terrible measure.  Lot's of 
	hobbyist systems have great amounts of super good
	shareware because there isn't any real commercial software
	around.  (The current status of OS/2).  For the heck of it,
	I'd point out that there is already some NT freeware out there.


>So my question, if you've managed to read this far without flaming me,
>what will the OS/2 OS look like in a year, when it is roughly as old as
>the Windows 3.x series is right now?  Will there be more programs?  Will


	There *will* be more OS/2 programs, of course.  The question is,
	"how many more?"  Lotus is porting Ami Pro--enough people have seen
	it demoed to know that it's coming.  Support is "promised" from
	another of other people, especially if you go by netrumor or
	trade rags, but IMHO, these are exceedingly unreliable.  I can't
	even count the number of times I've seen a post in the .misc group
	that says something like, "ATI HAS PROMISED OS/2 DRIVERS FOR 
	JULY'93!!" only to call them myself and either get a contrary 
	answer, "We do not support OS/2" or an answer that pretty much
	shows that the operator is lying--"We should have those out by
	May '93" or "We're beta testing them now" or whatever.  

	OS/2 users are almost as bad as Amiga users--they'll jump 
	at any rumor and hold it up like the gospel without bothering
	to check.  Lesse, Corel, after announcing they would not 
	port Corel 3.x to OS/2, according to various rumors, *really*
	said that they are not porting 3.0 because they're going 
	to do *4.0* instead!  To this type of thing (which seems 
	to be happening a lot more, lately--see WordPerfects claim, 
	"We're going to develop 6.0 on OS/2 FIRST" becoming "Os/2
	version will be out 4 to 6 months after the DOS version, or
	approximately 3 to 4 months after the Windows version of 6.0" 
	becoming, "It will be delayed because we're going to integrate
	"presentations"...).. 

	You cannot trust these companies that "promise" to support
	OS/2 or claim to bne working on OS/2 products to actually 
	deliver.  When you see them in beta, then believe (although
	the version of QuarkXPress for NeXT was pretty much alpha 
	when they cancelled it and moved to Windows)--before then
	trust'em about as much as you could back when they promised 
	support for 1.x...

	Before anyone complains about a double standard, let me 
	point out that more of these companies have demoed _NT_ 
	apps than have demoed their supposed OS/2 apps.  

	Frankly, after having been strung along for awhile, 
	I'm really P.O.'d at these companies that promised
	but never delivered.  They delivered for Windows, and
	those same programmers will be doing the NT versions--
	I have no doubt they will deliver for NT as well.  But
	you'll have to decide for yourself.


>there be more migrations of Windows versions to OS/2 versions?  Will I be


	Probably not.  The hardware requirements aren't
	terribly different (4 more megs of ram and 40 
	more megs of HD space), and if you run mostly
	Windows software, OS/2 is not a good choice.  Better
	to stick with DOS/Win in the meantime--after all, 
	Win31 multitasks *windows* apps pretty well, with
	certain exceptions (printing, screen redraws, device
	[floppy] access..).  It is more likely for Windows 
	*users* to migrate to NT, and that makes it more 
	sensical for developers to migrate to NT with them.


>able to walk into a computer store and find an OS/2 secion?


	If you believe news posts in this group, and for the most
	part they are worth believing (a lot more truthful, in most
	cases, than any computer rag you'll find--with an obvious
	and predictable slant), the answer is yes-and-no.  I 
	have only ever seen *one* application in any store in my 
	area (MD, VA, DC--6 superstores, dozens of computer stores,
	bunch of egghead sw's all over, etc)--and that was MS Word
	for OS/2 1.(1?).  

>The reason I ask is that I would hate to make any kind of software or
>hardware investment into an OS that is going to die a gory death in the
>next 24 months.


	If it does the job for 24 (or fewer) months, and only costs
	you $80 or so, it's not that bad an investment.  OS/2, 
	*right now* is the best choice (unless you run mostly 
	Windows apps and have an accellerated graphics card, which
	is unbearably slow under OS/2 once you're used to Win31 
	and real video drivers).  I heartily recommend it if you
	know computers and are comfortable fiddling.  Just because
	I think NT is better, and that OS/2 is completely unfit for
	Joe Average User doesn't change that.

>forum and perhaps discuss a little about what the future of OS2 holds, and
>perhaps wait until NT is born before arguing abotu what it can do.


	Anyone who responds to this message with a supper shiny-happy
	"OS/2 doesn't only HAVE a future, it is THE future" kind of 
	reply is yanking your chain.  OS/2 may do very well, or it 
	may become minor footnote in Intel PC history.  At this point,
	no one can say.


-- 
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
 ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
 ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------