Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:1947 comp.windows.ms:12342 comp.os.os2.misc:1237
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!waikato.ac.nz!comp.vuw.ac.nz!conrad
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here! vs Windows 3.0 vs NeXT/MACH
Message-ID: <1991May07.042120.1871@comp.vuw.ac.nz>
From: Conrad.Bullock@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Conrad Bullock)
Date: Tue, 07 May 1991 04:21:20 GMT
Sender: news@comp.vuw.ac.nz (News Admin)
References: <s03gry#@rpi.edu> <1991May6.171205.9611@watson.ibm.com> <066gx8m@rpi.edu>
Organization: Computer Science, Victoria University, Wellington, NewZealand
Nntp-Posting-Host: downstage.comp.vuw.ac.nz
Originator: conrad@downstage.comp.vuw.ac.nz
Lines: 55


In article <066gx8m@rpi.edu>, barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes:
|> 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.

I suggest that you check out the ftp sites archive.latrobe.edu.au,
funic.funet.fi, mtsg.ubc.ca, terminator.cc.umich.edu et. al. There are
actually a surprisingly large number of freeware or shareware for OS/2, all
you have to do is look for them.
I would certainly dispute the statement that the development tools for
Windows are more mature - in fact the very features of the operating system
make development of (and with) tools like Multiscope for OS/2 a lot more
mature.
As for cost, IBM's price for OS/2 is less than that of DOS + Windows, and
OS/2 2.0 will also be US$150 list (including header files for producing
OS/2 apps).

|> 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.

There are at least two very good TCP/IP packages for OS/2 (FTP Software
and IBM). I would say that OS/2's installable file systems and multitasking
would make it much for suitable for integration into a Unix environment
than many other systems.

|> 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).

Well of course WordPerfect is available for OS/2, and does use the same file
format.
-- 
Conrad Bullock                     | Domain:   conrad@comp.vuw.ac.nz
Victoria University of Wellington, |     or:   conrad@cavebbs.gen.nz
New Zealand.                       | Fidonet:  3:771/130
                                   | BBS:      The Cave BBS +64 4 643429