From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Biased Reviews From ZD
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:13:26 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1682C6AE3.CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu>, CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.
edu writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.203539.16323@njitgw.njit.edu>
>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>Well, since you asked.....<g>.  I use Procomm Plus for Windows, and have
>absolutely no trouble with v.32bis downloads while using any of my other
>applications. Perhaps you should give "the latest and best" comm program
>a try.

It would seem that Windows is quite erratic in its communtcations reliability.
 A goo friend of mine has a very expensive complex system and communtcations
 are the only thing that doesn't work very well.  (actually it downright
 stinks on his machine)  On the other hand some people seem to have little
 problem.  (This is good)  They do however seem to be in the distinct
 minority.

>It doesn't force me to change.  Personally, I avoid command prompts when
>at all possible, as I find them to be the least efficient way for me to
>do the things I do.  To each his own, however, and if OS/2 is what you
>need, then by all means go to it.  I'm just trying to point out that
>Windows is a perfectly adequate solution for myself and many others.
>
If that is the case, then might one ask why you don't have a Mac?
(Smiles all around)

>Yes, I've tried it, and found it somewhat lacking compared to real
>Windows.  The only way to take advantage of OS/2's protection is to run
>each Winapp in it's own copy of WinOS2, which means waiting nearly forever
>(at least thats what it seems like) for each to load, and another eternity
>when switching between the two.  If you want the speed of real Win, you
>have to give up the protection, in which case you might as well be running
>the real Windows.

Not quite logical.  There are far more benifits to OS/2 than just protection.
I don't think I need to go into them here.  (See 105+ things OS/2 does that
Windows doesn't)  Windows support, or any other single reason for that matter,
is not sufficent reason to switch to OS/2.  There are however, multiple,
significant benifits using OS/2 and together, they are more than sufficent
reason.

>Which is almost laughable when compared to W4W or AmiPro (IMO).  I'll
>turn this question around and ask which OS/2 apps *aren't* last years
>apps other than DeScribe.

Quite frankly, right now it doesn't matter much.  While I would love for OS/2
specific versions of all my favorite software packages, all the Windows and
DOS ones I use, work pretty well.  I am expecting some good OS/2 apps by
year's end.  Until then, what I have will have to make do, a fact which
doesn't bother me too much.  (Though I can't, and don't, speak for everyone on
this)
>
>>of the OS/2 applications are OS/2 1.x apps, but most of the Windows
>>apps currently for sale are Windows 3.0 apps, so there's no effective
>>difference.
>
>Au contraire.  New Windows applications such as W4W, Excel, AmiPro,
>Procomm Plus for Win, etc, are the latest in software technology.

No.  They are simply some of the more advanced and useful apps for a PC.
There is little that is earth shattering about any of those apps, they *are*
some of the most useful apps availlable under Windows, but none of them is the
"latest in software technology".  Look in certain universities and various
companies R&D departments if you want to see the latest and greatest, but not
on your desktop.  In addition, I know that at least half of the apps you
listed, run just fine under OS/2.  (I say half because I haven't seen the
other half)
t

>Sorry, I'm a user, not a developer, so perhaps you and I are using
>different types of applications.  IMO, the latest Windows applications
>are among the most powerful yet easy to use programs that have been
>developed to date.  Again, that's just my opinion, but then so is
>everything else I've written, so no big deal....

And OS/2 is the most advanced mass market OS that will run on your desktop.
It also is much easier to use and far more powerful than Windows.  (Notice I
didn't say configure, just use)  Are you going to switch to OS/2 or NT when
better apps start coming out for them?  (and believe me, they will)  If so,
why not get a head start on things?.  You lose nothing by using OS/2 except
some disk space and a few hours setting it up properly.  If you are happy with
Windows, fine but don't pretend that it is really powerful.  And since most of
Its apps run under OS/2, and the few that don't can be compensated for via
dual boot, that makes most of what is said above, of little value.

>
>>And your argument will also apply to NT whenever it gets to market.
>
>Who said anything about NT?  I'm talking about OS/2 and running Windows
>applications.  Windows does it better, in my opinion, and I see no
>advantage to moving to OS/2.
>
>Brian.
>

Simply not true.  There are *many* advantages in OS/2.  The fact that it runs
Windows software is just one of them.  (I am making no Windows performance
judgements at this time)  Windows does little that OS/2 doesn't do better, and
in about a month's time (give or take some) it will do nothing better.  I
might see some reasons for not going to OS/2 right now, but Windows isn't a
very substantial one.  And it is one which will dissapear in the not too
distant future.

                                                    Stacy John Behrens
                                                    *===)-------------