Path: gmdzi!zeus.ieee.org!dorm.rutgers.edu!rutgers!ub!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
malgudi.oar.net!ucunix.san.uc.edu!dsims
From: ds...@ucunix.san.uc.edu (David Sims)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Windows NT vs. OS/2 2.0
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.232359.26387@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Date: 25 Oct 91 23:23:59 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati Computer Science
Lines: 7
We all seem to concede that OS/2 1.3 and especially OS/2 2.0 are better
than Windows 3.0. But what about Windows NT? It sounds like Windows NT
and OS/2 2.0 will be pretty much the same. Why should Joe User choose
OS/2 2.0 when Windows NT (seemingly) will have the same features and be
much more popular?
--
...david (ds...@ucunix.san.uc.edu)
Path: gmdzi!zeus.ieee.org!dorm.rutgers.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!
timbuk.cray.com!hemlock.cray.com!bgm
From: b...@hemlock.cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Windows NT vs. OS/2 2.0
Message-ID: <1991Oct27.180851.16762@hemlock.cray.com>
Date: 28 Oct 91 00:08:51 GMT
References: <1991Oct25.232359.26387@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Organization: Cray Research, Inc., Eagan, MN
Lines: 36
In article <1991Oct25.232359.26...@ucunix.san.uc.edu> ds...@ucunix.san.uc.edu
(David Sims) writes:
>We all seem to concede that OS/2 1.3 and especially OS/2 2.0 are better
>than Windows 3.0. But what about Windows NT? It sounds like Windows NT
>and OS/2 2.0 will be pretty much the same. Why should Joe User choose
>OS/2 2.0 when Windows NT (seemingly) will have the same features and be
>much more popular?
>--
>...david (ds...@ucunix.san.uc.edu)
David:
A couple of reasons:
A) Windows NT is not yet ready. The SDK is not even out.
TODAY, OS/2 2.0 is on 2 machines I own. This includes a laptop.
B) Steve Balmer of MS say Windows NT will require 8MB and either a 486
or fast 386. OS/2 2.0 runs on a 386SX with 4MB (beta) and 3 MB maybe
at GA.
C) OS/2 2.0 does run DOS and Windows applications. Windows NT's first
release is not suppose to run DOS or 16 bit Windows applications.
D) The Workplace Shell will not be in Windows/NT and when complete it
will really help Joe User! Look at how popular the MAC's interface
is today.
OS/2 2.0 will run not only the Workplace Shell, but a Windows shell,
DOS 4.0 Shell and OS/2 1.x shell (according to the April FTN).
Windows/NT stated direction does not include this type of migration
path for people.
These are 4 reasons/differences.
Bert Mosheir
Cray Research, Inc.
Path: gmdzi!zeus.ieee.org!dorm.rutgers.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!
uunet!microsoft!dant
From: d...@microsoft.com (Dan TYACK)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Windows NT vs. OS/2 2.0
Message-ID: <1991Oct27.152617.18714@microsoft.com>
Date: 27 Oct 91 15:26:17 GMT
References: <1991Oct25.232359.26387@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
<od2O4ne00iUxQ1a4pt@andrew.cmu.edu> <4!dHi9yc3@cs.psu.edu>
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Lines: 44
Why would a user choose NT instead of OS/2 2.0?
1) FUD: IBM has effectively put a gun to the head of OS/2 and pulled the
trigger with the announcement of the joint development deal with Apple.
Whatever their future stategic desktop operating system is, IBM has made
clear that it is not OS/2. Many existing or potential customers get nervous
when IBM describes OS/2 as a 'transition' product. Users have the following
'stategic' desktop environments to choose from IBM: OS/2, Windows (better
Windows than Windows, remember), DOS, Metaphor, Patriot Partners, AIX/Motif,
Mac, NextStep. I work on OS/2 based products (in the MS SQL Server group)
and I assure you that IBM has made life MUCH harder for anybody trying to
sell OS/2 based products than anything that Microsoft has done. Most of the
corporate customers that I talk to have a lot of problems 'just trusting'
that all theses disparate environments will be supported in Pink. Customers
have a pretty good feeling that their Windows investemts in 1992 will
hae a future evolutionary path from MS.
2. Compatibility: NT uses a microkernel architecture similar in concept (but
not in execution) to Mach. It has been designed from the ground up to
offer compatibility to multiple APIs and OS environments, which are
supported through multiple subsystems under the base operating system.
Users can take their existing 16 bit Windows applications to NT and it
will be as painless to them as a DOS upgrade. Users can take OS/2 apps to
NT similarly (SQL Server was 'ported' to the OS/2 subsystem with no
work from my group). Users can integrate 32 bit apps into their desktop
environment as they become available (which pretty much involves a
recompile and link for most apps). I realize that this is all promised
by OS/2 2.0, but most users will feel more comfortable with a 'Windows based'
solution, if they have chosen Windows as their GUI.
3. Availability: there just won't be a very big window between the release
of a production level OS/2 2.0 and NT. Why? Because Microsoft has much
fewer developers working on NT (maybe 10% of what IBM has applied to 2.0).
Anybody who has worked on a large software project knows that anytime you
through resources at a problem, the schedule is bound to be negatively
affected. And, this (building a state of the art OS from the ground up)
is not new to any of the NT developers (I believe it is #5 for Dave Cutler,
the designer of RSX11 and VMS).
This says nothing about why software developers will prefer NT, I'll
leave that to a later post (I should add that the comment made here that
NT is 'equivalent' to OS/2 2.0 is not quite acurate)
Path: gmdzi!unido!fauern!math.fu-berlin.de!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!midway!quads!sip1
From: s...@quads.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Windows NT vs. OS/2 2.0
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.084259.10514@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 28 Oct 91 08:42:59 GMT
References: <od2O4ne00iUxQ1a4pt@andrew.cmu.edu> <4!dHi9yc3@cs.psu.edu>
<1991Oct27.152617.18714@microsoft.com>
Sender: n...@midway.uchicago.edu (NewsMistress)
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 117
I'm not sure this post deserves a response -- sort of like bringing
coals to Newcastle -- but here goes.
In article <1991Oct27.152617.18...@microsoft.com> d...@microsoft.com
(Dan TYACK) writes:
>
>Why would a user choose NT instead of OS/2 2.0?
Er, because OS/2 2.0 is (shortly) for sale and NT isn't? Because NT
demands a 486 with 8 MB and OS/2 2.0 checks in on a 386SX with 3 MB?
Because OS/2 2.0 already has applications which take advantage of
multithreading and long file names and NT doesn't? Because Borland,
Lotus, and WordPerfect have committed to specific OS/2 2.0
applications and have not made similar commitments to NT? Because
OS/2 2.0 will support DR-DOS? Because OS/2 2.0 will support the LAN
that Microsoft built? Because OS/2 2.0 will run Windows 3.x programs
in separate, protected sessions? Because OS/2 2.0 will incorporate
the standard font engine, Adobe Type Manager, instead of a nonstandard
font engine abandoned by Apple? Because a call to IBM for support is
on their dime? Because IBM won't charge its OS/2 customer base for an
upgrade to 2.0? Because driver developers won't experience yet
another bout of undue pain? Because IBM's alliance with Apple allows
it to sell a shell that is "too Mac-like"? Because developers won't
have to compete against an applications company?
>1) FUD: IBM has effectively put a gun to the head of OS/2 and pulled the
>trigger with the announcement of the joint development deal with Apple.
>Whatever their future stategic desktop operating system is, IBM has made
>clear that it is not OS/2. Many existing or potential customers get nervous
>when IBM describes OS/2 as a 'transition' product. Users have the following
>'stategic' desktop environments to choose from IBM: OS/2, Windows (better
>Windows than Windows, remember), DOS, Metaphor, Patriot Partners, AIX/Motif,
>Mac, NextStep. I work on OS/2 based products (in the MS SQL Server group)
>and I assure you that IBM has made life MUCH harder for anybody trying to
>sell OS/2 based products than anything that Microsoft has done. Most of the
>corporate customers that I talk to have a lot of problems 'just trusting'
>that all theses disparate environments will be supported in Pink. Customers
>have a pretty good feeling that their Windows investemts in 1992 will
>hae a future evolutionary path from MS.
At least you labeled the paragraph properly. I enjoyed the evolution
from Windows 1.x to 2.x. I then thoroughly appreciated the transition
from 2.x to 3.0. I can't wait for the next giant leap to NT -- it
should make my day.
If this is protecting the user's investment then thanks, but no
thanks.
>2. Compatibility: NT uses a microkernel architecture similar in concept (but
>not in execution) to Mach. It has been designed from the ground up to
>offer compatibility to multiple APIs and OS environments, which are
>supported through multiple subsystems under the base operating system.
>Users can take their existing 16 bit Windows applications to NT and it
>will be as painless to them as a DOS upgrade. Users can take OS/2 apps to
>NT similarly (SQL Server was 'ported' to the OS/2 subsystem with no
>work from my group). Users can integrate 32 bit apps into their desktop
>environment as they become available (which pretty much involves a
>recompile and link for most apps). I realize that this is all promised
>by OS/2 2.0, but most users will feel more comfortable with a 'Windows based'
>solution, if they have chosen Windows as their GUI.
Is this a change of plan? Do I hear that OS/2 Presentation Manager
applications will run under NT? An official policy statement?
You see, originally Microsoft was reluctant to incorporate any OS/2
subsystem, text mode or otherwise. Until the company discovered that
SQL Server and lots of other "neat" stuff was written for OS/2, that
there would be no "high octane" applications to show off without OS/2
compatibility. Surprise, surprise.
Of course there's no need to mention that yet another set of device
drivers will be required for NT.
>3. Availability: there just won't be a very big window between the release
>of a production level OS/2 2.0 and NT. Why? Because Microsoft has much
>fewer developers working on NT (maybe 10% of what IBM has applied to 2.0).
>Anybody who has worked on a large software project knows that anytime you
>through resources at a problem, the schedule is bound to be negatively
>affected. And, this (building a state of the art OS from the ground up)
>is not new to any of the NT developers (I believe it is #5 for Dave Cutler,
>the designer of RSX11 and VMS).
Microsoft built OS/2 from the ground up. Ditto for Windows. It took,
in each case, three major releases to get to a useful product. And
five years. (Ironic that IBM's first stab at independent OS/2
development was the first to start selling.)
It all depends on how you allocate your programmers. If all those
additional programmers are working on device drivers, then there's no
problem. If fifty are simultaneously working on a new file system
then there's a problem. Funny. One Windows person I spoke with
claimed that NT had more programmers on the job than IBM had on OS/2,
so I'm not sure who to believe.
>This says nothing about why software developers will prefer NT, I'll
>leave that to a later post (I should add that the comment made here that
>NT is 'equivalent' to OS/2 2.0 is not quite acurate)
How much does the SDK sell for? IBM sells C Set/2, Workbench, and
OS/2 2.0 for $175. Will Borland have C++ available for NT in March, 1992?
No. NT adds some features, takes others away. But the most striking
way in which they are different is that one has at least a year's head
start on the other.
The best of luck to you all. Seriously. If you build a better
mousetrap with NT, I'll buy it. Better includes supporting those
users with OS/2 applications (even a few Microsoft ones, it should be
noted). However, if I go to my hardware store and I have a choice
between a blueprint and a mousetrap, I'm going to buy the mousetrap.
If you've got something to sell, fine. I'll pass on the blueprint.
When NT does hit the market, at the same time as, say, OS/2 3.0, will
you also ask me to wait a year for NT 2.0?
--
Timothy F. Sipples s...@quads.uchicago.edu
(Keeper of the OS/2 FAQ List, avail. via anonymous Department of Economics
ftp from mims-iris.waterloo.edu, directory "os2/faq") University of Chicago
Path: gmdzi!zeus.ieee.org!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!bywater!scifi!
watson!arnor!news
From: marg...@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Windows NT vs. OS/2 2.0
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.192738.23340@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 28 Oct 91 19:27:38 GMT
Sender: n...@watson.ibm.com (NNTP News Poster)
Reply-To: marg...@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Lines: 33
Nntp-Posting-Host: lamail
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily
those of IBM
In <1991Oct27.152617.18...@microsoft.com> d...@microsoft.com (Dan TYACK)
writes:
>
> Why would a user choose NT instead of OS/2 2.0?
>
> 1) FUD: IBM has effectively put a gun to the head of OS/2 and pulled the
> trigger with the announcement of the joint development deal with Apple.
> Whatever their future stategic desktop operating system is, IBM has made
> clear that it is not OS/2.
FUD? Let's see - IBM has made it clear that "Pink" *will* provide a migration
path for OS/2 users. Microsoft made it clear that OS/2 was their future
strategic desktop operating system. Then they made it clear that it wasn't
(too bad about those investing $1200 of their hard-earned cash in the SDK).
Now I hear that NT will support OS/2 full-screen sessions? Since OS/2 2.0
will be out long before NT, it's entirely possible that MS will see what a
resounding success it is and be forced to include support for it if they expect
NT to get off the ground (i.e., back to what they promised for OS/2 3.0).
> 2. Compatibility:
> ... I realize that this is all promised
> by OS/2 2.0, but most users will feel more comfortable with a 'Windows based'
> solution, if they have chosen Windows as their GUI.
Make that "this is all *delivered* by OS/2 2.0 today". When did you say NT
would be available?
> 3. Availability: there just won't be a very big window between the release
> of a production level OS/2 2.0 and NT.
OS/2 2.0 - December 1991 / March 1992
NT - ???
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (bitnet), marg...@watson.IBM.com (csnet)