NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/3035

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-21 | 5.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!rutgers!njitgw.njit.edu!hertz.njit.edu!dic5340
From: [e-mail] (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Biased Reviews From ZD
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:35:39 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.
Lines: 108
Nntp-Posting-Host: hertz.njit.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>I'd like to pose you a question.  Supposing that Windows 3.1 currently runs
>just fine on my system.  (It does.)  Further suppose that I have no trouble
>with stability with it.  (I don't.)  Further suppose that I run almost only
>Windows applications.  (I do.)  Given these conditions, what can I gain by
>moving to OS/2?

The better multitasker.  I don't know about you, but while doing
ZMODEM downloads in Windows 3.1, I can't do much in other applications
without causing large amounts of tramsission errors.  Sometimes, they
lock my Windows-based terminal program, forcing be to CTRL-ALT-DEL in
order to get it out of memory.  True, under Windows 3.0, I'd have to
reboot to do this, but under OS/2, I don't get the errors in the first
place.

>I can't gain any more stability than I have now, without running each of my
>Windows apps in it's own version of Windows.  This would cause a major
>increase in the amount of time required to load each app, not to mention
>the time required to swap between them.  Why should I be willing to do this
>if I'm not having problems with Windows?

If you're not having problems with Windows, then stick with it.  But I
wonder how many problems you're not having simply because you've
changed your work-style to compensate for Windows' flaws.  For
instance, I like to work with 2 or 3 command prompts open at once.
Under Windows, three DOS boxes will usually kill the system - so I
don't do that any more.  Windows doesn't crash - but only because I've
changed my style for it.

The OS shouldn't force you to change the way you'd like to work.

>I own a copy of OS/2 and have spent quite a few hours using it to get a feel
>for the interface, etc.  I like playing with it, but I don't use it when I
>have real work to do.  Windows is sufficient for me, and I suspect that it
>is sufficient for many others.

Have you tried using it to run your Windows apps?  Even in full-screen
WIN-OS2 sessions, you're probably better off.  You'll get the improved
memory management, VDM support, and you won't need DOS or Windows on
your hard drive.

>I can see a couple of areas where OS/2 is superior to Windows.  One is in
>it's MVDM's for multitasking of DOS apps.  If a person is using mainly DOS
>programs, then OS/2 is a good choice.  Another is for running BBS systems,
>where I understand that Windows is not a very good choice.

Both absolutely correct.

>A third is in running OS/2 apps, although for the life of me I can't
>see why anyone would want to run last year's programs when newer and
>better versions are available for Windows.

What OS/2 apps are "last years" apps?  Only the ones from Microsoft.
And this is because Microsoft has pledged themselves to the eventual
destruction of OS/2.

Many other companies have continued their support of OS/2 and OS/2
applications.  For instance, the DeScribe word processor.  True, much
of the OS/2 applications are OS/2 1.x apps, but most of the Windows
apps currently for sale are Windows 3.0 apps, so there's no effective
difference.

>Perhaps when the promised OS/2 apps become available this will be
>more of a "feature" of OS/2....  Some OS/2 advocates are fond of
>pointing out that OS/2 has all the latest OS features such as
>32-bitness, threads, etc, NOW, and can't understand why people want to
>wait for NT sometime in the future.  I'd like to point out that the
>same argument applies to the current crop of Windows applications,
>which in general are the latest and best available.

You make many blanket assumptions here.  Who says that the current
crop of Windows applications are the best available?  Latest doesn't
mean a thing - I still develop applications with Microsoft C 6.0,
because version 7 - the "latest" version - is crippled with respect to
OS/2 development.

And your argument will also apply to NT whenever it gets to market.
By that time, OS/2 will have the application base, and the same
argument will apply - why upgrade to NT (from anything) when all the
good apps are already out for existing platforms.

For that matter, why not just stick with DOS 3.0 - you could run Lotus
1-2-3, and Word.  What more could you possibly want?  At the time
Windows came out, "all the latest and best" applications were NOT for
it.  But people switched anyway.  And applications followed.  And the
platform became a standard.

Well, it's the same thing now.  The platform is here.  People are
switching.  Applications are coming - some now, many later.  And the
platform will become a standard.  The difference here is that you
don't have to quit the OS/2 environment to use your existing
applications.

>Why should I witch to OS/2 apps which are at best a few months old?
>When OS/2 apps are available, perhaps then it will become viable
>technology.....

Ignoring the debate as to what apps are old or obsolete, you don't
have to switch.  You go on using your existing apps under OS/2 until
you find OS/2 apps that fit your needs.  That's what IBM calls
"freedom of choice" and I call "freedom from choice"

--
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  [e-mail]   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.