Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:1955 comp.windows.ms:12366 comp.os.os2.misc:1246 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: <-47gvh+@rpi.edu> Nntp-Posting-Host: aix01srv.aix.rpi.edu References: <1991May6.171205.9611@watson.ibm.com> <066gx8m@rpi.edu> <1991May7.164109.13128@amd.com> Date: 7 May 91 21:28:59 GMT Lines: 67 phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: >>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 >Barry, you seem to have overlooked the fact that OS/2 will run Win binaries. >That combined with a High Performance File System and a DOS box which is >better than DOS, should be enough to switch many Win users to OS/2 >>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 >I don't see that you have to spend lots of money on new hw and sw. >-- > The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I do not claim to be an OS/2 expert, but I have not overlooked some of the more basic proclamations found in OS/2 literature. I realize that OS/2 will run Win 3.0/DOS applications. I also realize that until an OS/2 specific application is released that is unavailable elsewhere I am not compelled to run what I got on top of OS/2. Unless some mighty special magic is performed by OS/2, I suspect Win 3.0/DOS app's running on top of OS/2 will not perform better than running as is in their native environment. OS/2 is technically more advanced than DOS, no one seems to deny this fact. Win 3.0 on top of DOS is satisfactory for millions of people, no one seems to deny this fact. Many developers are porting Win 3.0 app's to PM on OS/2, no one seems to deny this fact. To date I am not aware of any "killer app's" uniquely suited to OS/2, that aren't available on Win 3.0 (e.g. Improv on the NeXT taking advantage of OO and Mach is uniquely suited to that environment and isn't yet available on any other). Until such time as a critical mass of app's are available on OS/2 *and* there are one or two *extremely exciting* app's available no where else, why switch? Instead of spending millions of dollars promoting the next big thing in operating systems, why not spend millions of dollars in developing an *amazing* application and let the application sell the OS? It worked with the MAC, it seems to be working with Windows (both had desktop publishing), it might work for the NeXT (OO done to the bones and Improv to show it off, as well as voice/DSP processing, etc.). From day one, IMHO, OS/2 has been a prime example of putting the cart before the horse. You don't sell operating systems to average users -- you sell applications, regardless of the OS. Though it would be nice if your OS enables developers to do *amazing* things that other OSs can't do. For now I am happy with what Win 3.0 enables me to do. Developers may have differing opinions. In the future I hope to have enabling technology on par with the NeXT, at my finger tips... throw in a little neural net technology in the OS kernal to enable it to second guess me and I would be hard pressed to select what, IMHO, may be considered incremental improvements. end 'o ramblin barry -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Barry B. Floyd \\\ barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu | | Manager Information Systems - HR \\\ usere9w9@rpitsmts | +-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--------------------troy, ny 12180-+