From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 2 Oct 92 09:16:55 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Sep30.004820.15289@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>...
>First of all I want to point out that I very much believe that OS/2 is
>a subset of NT.  In all the discussion I've ever seen on this group...

Technically speaking you might be right. Looking at the low level
nucleus of both NT is more advanced than OS/2. Unfortunately (or
fortunately, depending on your vision) that is completely irelevant.

Programmers are going to look at PROGRAMABLE options. OS/2 will have
Win32 maybe even before NT gets momentum, it has already been announced.
This allows most sources (except POSIX althought that has been announced
as well) to be used on OS/2 as well. That is for those using the
Windows user interface. For those using the X "interface" (one of
them) Desqview/X is of cource the best choice but IBM has announced
direct X support as well. Also notice IMPROTANT features of NT have
all been announced by IBM (e.g. symetric multiprocessing). 

OS/2 on the other hand has 1 very important advantage over NT, it
has another user interface. THIS IMO will be the major deciding factor
for programmers. Then can create Win32 apps for both NT and OS/2 
(probably using Borland C++ for OS/2 and NT) and they can create
WPS programs for OS/2.

Now the USER enters the marketplace. ALL apps running under NT
(except for the POSIX ones) can be "ported" to NT the same
way as to OS/2, recompilation. ALmost all companies will
at least do that (except maybe for MS) and have OS/2 and
NT versions of their software using the Windows aproach. The
larger companies will however also make native WPS apps.
(E.g. computer associates, Lotus, Wordperfect, Borland).

In the eye of the programmer and the user this will make OS/2
a SUPERset of NT. No matter that technically speaking it is
the other way around.

A very vital difference is BTW OS/2 is much cheaper than
NT seems to become. I know you believe that that is an
advantage to NT but I have to disagree. On vital
multimedia OS.2 and Win31 will become equal (probably
before december) and on networking Novell rules and
novell is better supported by OS/2 than by NT. Most
manager will not give a ^%$ about TCP/IP. Most of
them even don't know what it is.

>>NT will not be able to run DOS programs as quickly or well as OS/2.
>>NT chose to be airtight (not a bad choice but this is the result).

>The vast majority of DOS programs should work under NT without problems.
>There is no need to run DOS networking or multimedia drivers as
>there is under OS/2.

This is a VERY DANGEROUS assumption. The press might break NT because
of this. Notice that this DOS support looks a bit like the DOS
support in OS/2 1.0. IBM learned its lesson, MS didn't.

>...
>an alternate shell with a simliar flavor for NT. (And remember
>that Cairo will be out in '94 -- it's shell looked similar
>to WPS... but hopefully will be better thought out.)
>The idea of WPS is great, but its implementation is lacking.

Agreed. When the bugs are out (1 month from now I believe?)
the implementation will be better. Please notice that a NEW
computer user handles WPS easier than Win but many Win users
aill indeed stik to what they already "like". I must add
to this Norton Desktop for Windows (which is closer to
WPS in object orientation) is a top seller. Either users
will like WPS more or they will buy Norton desktop for
OS/2 :-)

>Perhaps it will handle Windows program as well once 2.01 comes out (I
>remain skeptical).  But what about a year from now?  It looks like IBM
>will take 9 months to get Windows 3.1 support into OS/2, and they have
>sources...  what about the next time when they don't?  And don't say
>that OS/2 will have all the apps it needs by then...  Windows 3.X and
>its derivatives will clearly be the mainstream platform for some time
>to come.  Most apps will be there first.

Future Windows apps will be Win32 apps. They can be (re)compiled
and user under OS/2 DIRECTLY in the future.

>I see no evidence that the "bread and butter" apps will be out for OS/2.
>A few of the major companies that tend to support multiple platforms
>have said they will be there, but there will be nothing like the
>selection available for Windows 3.X, or even the Mac anytime
>in the near future.

Then you must be blind (I am not usually so hard but I am amazed
you have the guts to say this).

>...
>then they had their apps there first.  You can bet that Borland, Lotus
>and WordPerfect won't let that happen again.

One of their strategies is to develop for OS/2, as fast as they can :-)

>Most ISV's don't make things that MS makes -- how can the OS/2
>market possibly have more money making potential?

IF OS/2 becomes a HUGE success (which I don't think) THEN MS will
lose market share on ALL their apps. This means more money for
their competitors. CA, Lotus etc are not moving to OS/2 fast
for nothing. They KNOW they have a chance to get MS down now.
For the first time MS has a disadvantage (not being able to
produce OS/2 apps) instead of an advantage.

>...
>fance features?  Who cares... with the 30-40% speed up
>from having a Windows 3.X app ported to NT... AND that app

Noncence. A win32 app under win 3.1will be very comparable
to an NT app. Aren't you comparing 16 bit with 32 bit apps?

>is actually being available... NT users will be quite happy until NT class
>OS's are the mainstream.  At least NT users will _have_ native apps.
>Even if OS/2 eventually does get an app base it will be limited
>to those features that Windows 3.X has, as that is the larger
>app base.  Only if OS/2 displaced Windows 3.X would this fact
>not hold... and I seriously doubt OS/2 can displace Windows 3.X.

Since to the programmer NT is a subset of OS/2 I might
also say that NT native apps only use features of OS/2 :-)

>And Novell support won't be there for NT?  It's already being
>developed... remember how long it took for Novell to put it on OS/2?
>The only thing currently different w.r.t. to Novell and OS/2 is that
>a Novell server is planned that will run on top of OS/2.

A VERY important difference. But I agree, in time NT will become
Novell compatibelk, it will have to.

>1) Just what will be its relationship to LAN Server?  Is IBM going
>to abandon it?

Why should they? There are multiple networking packages for DOS,
OS/2 can have them as well.

>...
>I'm amused at this one.  Do you think that DEC, SGI and Sequent
>choosing to support NT at this early stage is unfounded on their part?

No. They are gambling. But NT is not THEIR only horse. For MS
however it is.

>SGI is already shipping systems.  DEC employees are running around
>saying that NT will "save" them.  There are several new vendors

I hope for DEC they know what they are doing. IMO they are taking 
way too large risks for such a large company.

>Now my turn.
>Why should I chose OS/2?

Who cares. You and anyone are free to choose whatever OS they like.
WHat is interesting is trying to predict what the future will
do based on known mass factors. Of cource predicting is a very
dangerous matter, like the NT in 92 prediction proved once
again.

>Brian

Nico E. de Vries
 _ _
 O O  USENET nevries@cc.ruu.nl This text reflects MY opinions, nothing else.
  o   This text is supplied 'AS IS', no waranties of any kind apply.
 \_/  Don't waste your time on complaining about my hopeless typostyle.

"I own so many clocks that I need 1 hour to set them all one hour back
 for Winter time. Nevertheless it does not cost me any time."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy