From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 12 Oct 92 00:38:23 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <strobl.718804546@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <1992Oct11.003218.56358@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOH
N BEHRENS) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct7.010444.4614@netcom.com>, erb@netcom.com (Ebbot R. Bane) w
ri
>>tes:
>
>[...]
>>>
>>>Ok, so OS/2 is a flop.  But will NT succeeed?  Yes, for one reason: Win32s.
>>>
>
>[...]
>
>>We'll see.  That has yet to be proven and as of right now is a marketing claim
>>and therefore worthless.
>>>
>>>Win32s is a win even if there is no Windows NT.  I expect most developers
>>>of Windows software to move swiftly to Win32s (Those who don't will have poor
>>>performance relative to competitors).  But wait!  As a *free bonus* these
>>>same binaries will run in *native* mode under Windows NT!  So my company only
>>>has to put one box on the shelf, "Requires: Windows 3.1 or Windows NT".
>>>
>>That is potentially quite nice.  However, that does take away much of the
>>incentive to move to NT.  If there are only Win32s apps and no NT apps, then
>>why move?  I personally would anyway, but people are going to ask that.  This
>>is the same arguement that people have been applying to OS/2 and it is just as
>>stupid.
>
>Win32s applications *are* NT applications which are able to run under
>WIndows 3.1. In a way, they are similar to family applications on OS/2,
>where you run OS/2 binaries on DOS. There is no equivalent to that
>feature, for PM.

Or they could be called 32-bit Win3.1 apps that are able to run under NT.
Who's right?  You can't say and neither can I.
>
>>>By shifting to Win32s developers will *automatically* be creating a flood of
>>>Windows NT native apps.  As history has shown it is the apps that sell
>>>systems.
>
>>Hold your horses.  Win32s apps don't quite cut it as NT native apps.  I would
>>call them 32-bit Win3.1 native apps.  NT native apps are ones that take *full*
>>advantage of the system and Win32s by its very nature cannot do this.
>
>There are two flaws in this argument.
>
>* Win32s applications *are* NT applications. As long as an application
>  doesn't nead OS functionality where Win32s and Win32 differ, you
>  can't distinguish a Win32s application and a Win32 application, because
>  there *is* no difference. So your argument is a gross overgeneralization;
>  the statement "Win32s apps don't quite cut it as NT native apps" may
>  apply to *some* applications, but not to most or all, as you statement
>  seems to imply.

But there is a difference.  Though theoretically you can't tell the
difference, the Win32s app will not use all the features availlable to NT.
One that does use Win32 will be able to do things that Win32s can't.
(multithreading sounds like a good example here though, though I'm not sure)
There is a difference and it is an important one.

>
>* Win32s applications *can* take advantage of some NT features, even
>  if they aren't aware of NT. An application doesn't have to use
>  multithreading in order to profit from NTs pre-emptiveness. An
>  application doesn't have to use NTs security calls in order
>  to profit from NTs task and file protection features.
>
No it doesn't.  That is true, but if it doesn't, then that reduces its
attractiveness doesn't it?  OS/2 has preemtiveness too though so this isn't
quite as big a plus as it sounds.  That might just be a bad example though.

>  If an application really has to run on Win32s *and* to take
>  full advantage of a NT feature, on NT, it is not much
>  work for the developer to add code to his app to do that. But it
>  is hard to construct real examples where this is really
>  necessary. Most professional developers split their apps
>  into modules anyway, so they proabably will use a core
>  app (or dll) which is identical on both systems, and different
>  support dlls on both systems.
>
Adding threads doesn't involve a lot of work?  It certainly does.  But to an
extent you are right.  It almost qualifies as a full blown NT app.  This is
an unusual situation though, because it qualifies just as much as a Win3.1
app.  A nice situation for developers, but calling it a pure NT app, isn't
entirely accurate, even though it can benifit from running under NT.  That is
something that is going to get quite confusing to a lot of people in the days
ahead.  (Heck it confused me at first)

>Wolfgang Strobl
>#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy