Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:1940 comp.windows.ms:12332 comp.os.os2.misc:1230 Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!barryf From: barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here! vs Windows 3.0 vs NeXT/MACH Message-ID: <066gx8m@rpi.edu> Nntp-Posting-Host: aix01srv.aix.rpi.edu References: <1991May6.171205.9611@watson.ibm.com> Date: 6 May 91 21:59:12 GMT Lines: 103 larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) writes: >In , barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: >>I don't doubt OS/2 will improve on these and other features. But I am willing >>to wait for OS/3 and stick with Win 3.x for now. >> >>If you really want to be impressed, get a NeXTstation with a MACH kernal >>and object oriented everything. I suspect with advances like these on >>the (near) horizon (for $5000, including hardware, software and connectivety) >>even OS/3 will look lame (too little too late). >...If you can afford to spend that kind of money. Supposing ;) that >IBM lowers the cost of OS/2 2.0 to something reasonable (and considering >that they already did for 1.3, this seems to be plausible) and can get it >to run on the popular clones, then your argument gets pulled out from >under you. I see many markets when I look no further than our own institution. Granted there will be OS/2 2.0 enthusiasts. In a small business market with an installed base of '386s price/performance of OS/2 2.0 may win the day. With nominal upgrades to hardware (RAM, networked disk space) it may be a winning combination, given the right applications. Given an amazing development environment it might be even more popular. All this and more I grant you. However (saw it coming, didn't you!?), for those with a drastically limited budget and access to the Internet Win 3.0 remains very attractive. Much of what is needed for development is far more mature than any OS/2 tools (aind forever will be more mature). Many shareware and freeware app's exist (on cica.cica.indiana.edu). It has a relatively low hardware requirement (depending on what you need to do). There are millions of copies out there. >Not to mention that IBM is supposed to release 2.0 at the end of the >year. You've waited this long for it; can you wait another year >(according to MS. I see it more on the order of 2 years) for the >New-Technology kernal (not to mention the performance hit that your >applications will take)? OS/2 2.0 will do what NT is supposed to do (on >a smaller scale): it will run DOS, Windows, and PM applications >concurrently. Do you REALLY care if the kernal is portable, as long as >it runs on your computer (sure, you buy an RS/6000 every day, don't >you?)? To the extent that I work in an environment where I am spending other people's money and have little say in which operating system we use it is a foregone conclusion that we will be using DOS Window 3.x for sometime to come. If any transition occurs it will ibe towards Unix and/or Unix compatible resources (TCP/IP, NFS, mail, News, etc.). I do not logically see how OS/2 would fit into a predominately Unix environment, where hundreds of Macs and PCs are attached to a broadband network. Add to this the installed software base and the related cost of upgrading hardware and buying new software to take full advantage of OS/2 features. And to what advantage? Primarily technical advantages, no killer app's, no promise of massive increases in productivity, no promise of leveraging existing resources, very few flashy applications, few bells and wistles that the average computer user can sink their teeth into. No, I don't REALLY care if the kernal is portable. What we really care about is whether or not file formats are compatible (i.e. Word for Windows, Word for Mac, Word for OS/2 can exchange files). Note that NeXT can read DOS 3.5 disks and that Wordperfect and Wingz are available on the PC, Mac and NeXT. In my book, OS/2 must provide similar app's with similar file compatibility and then it might make on new platforms (not existing platforms). Who cares if a network node is a Mac, Vax, PC, NeXT, Sun, RS/6000, etc. as long as there they are networked and resident app's can share files (and they serve unique local needs)? This is endemic to the university/big corporation market (not the small business market). Other markets will have other concerns, some may not care what is bundled on their clone as long it supports the app's they need. As to function: Sit average user in front of a NeXT with Improv and voice mail, etc. and I dare say you'll get their attention. If anything the NeXT is packaged well, in the same way that the Mac was packaged before it. The hardware and software work well together and everything is bundled in one package (plug and play). It may be relegated to nich markets, but I dare say therein you will find religiously devout backers of the system. None-the-less, I remain satisfied (under the circumstances) with Win 3.0 and its public support. Neither the NeXT or OS/2 can currently claim a comparible audience. This too may change. IMHO, I suspect OS/2 will have to keep an eye on the NeXT et al more so than on Win 3.0 and clones. This may turn out not to be the case. Until OS/2 2.0 (3.0, etc.) is out no one will know for sure. >Cheers, >Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LARRYS@YKTVMV.BITNET >OS/2 Applications and Tools larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com >IBM T.J. Watson Research Center larrys@eng.clemson.edu >Yorktown Heights, NY >Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my >own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a >reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too >seriously. -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Barry B. Floyd \\\ barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu | | Manager Information Systems - HR \\\ usere9w9@rpitsmts | +-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--------------------troy, ny 12180-+