Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Help!  OS/2 in Denver
From: jstewart@desire.wright.edu
Date: 11 Apr 92 15:31:12 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Apr10.194013.35344@slate.mines.colorado.edu>, cjmarsha@slate.mines.colorado.edu (Charles Marshall) writes:
> Okay, I've looked high and low.  Talked to a couple computer stores, 
> another dozen IBM reps.  Where can I get a copy of OS/2 in Denver?  I
> really don't want to wait 4-6 weeks for my copy.  I have people to
> the left and right of me BASHING OS/2 and buying WIN 3.1.  I need a copy
> to show everybody what a marvel OS/2 is.  
> 
> Plus, magazine reports are coming out and not exactly praising OS/2.  
> Here's what PC Magazine had to say:
> 
> Five reasons to buy OS/2:
> 1)  You already developed internal OS/2 applications and do not want to
> move them to Windows.  You bought IBM and Microsoft's hype the first time
> around, and now you are stuck.
> 2) You need to develop a high-end application that requires 32-bit
> processing and a real multitasking, multithreaded environment.  This is
> where OS/2 really shines.  OS/2 provides these features today, while
> Microsoft is only promising them for Windows NT.
> 3) You need an application that requires multiple communication sessions.
> OS/2' multitasking, multithreaded features really make this work.  DOS and
> Windows applications can try, but they just do not have the necessary
> protection.
> 4) You are an IBM-only shop.  In this case, you don't need any other
> reason.
> 5) You are ready to meet the future today.  Someday soon, we will all have
> 32-bit true multitasking operating systems, but OS/2 is here now.  Just
> remember that the pioneers are the ones with the arrows in their backs.
> 
> Five reasons NOT to buy OS/2:
> 1) There are few applications.  Sure, you can run DOS applications under
> OS/2.  You can do this on a Macintosh, too, wither proper software.  You
> can also run Windows applicatons under OS/2, though not as smoothly as you
> can under Windows.  But the reason to choose an operating system is access
> to unique applications.  Many software companies are porting one or two
> applications to OS/2, but they are all still concentrating on Windows.
> 2) Unix already offers a 32-bit multitasking operating system. Unix has
> been available for a lot longer than OS/2 and you may already be using it.
> Also, Unix supports a graphical environment, at least in the form of The
> Santa Cruz Operation's Open Desktop.  But do not even think about running
> Windows applications.
> 3) You can run only some Windows applciations.  Yes, you can run most
> windows applications within OS/2.  But the process is far from simple, and
> applications still do not work as well under OS/2 as under Windows.
> 4) The installation process is ridiculous.  A full installation of OS/2
> takes up 30MB and nearly an hour of your time (if you get it right the
> first time) - and this is without installing any real applications.
> 5) You inherit the problems of three operating systems.  You will spend a
> lot of time in OS/2 trying desperately to remember which application is
> running in which environment, and you will experience the problems of all
> three environments.
> 
> Yeah, hmmm.  Sounds like a Windows person wrote that, now doesn't it?  How
> about some REAL reasons for not installing OS/2!!!
> 
> Charles
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Charles Marshall            Bitnet: CJMARSHA@FLINT.MINES.COLORADO.EDU
> Information Services        Usenet: CJMARSHA@SLATE.MINES.COLORADO.EDU
> Colorado School of Mines

	How about listing some of the real reasons to go with os/2 instead of
the half-witted(I'd have rather used another word), braindead ideas above.

							JOhn STewart

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc