NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/12702

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-24 | 5.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!umd5!macbeth.umd.edu!jp776
From: [e-mail] (Robert S. Rodgers)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: PRO/CON on Mirrors (was Re: AmiPro for OS/2)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 93 13:41:58 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 121

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Waters) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Franklin) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>>>>
>>>> AmiPro for OS/2 2.0 will be full 32-bit, Workplace Shell aware,
>>>> multithreaded, HPFS aware, etc.  Ditto 1-2-3 2.0, Freelance Graphics,
>>>> and cc:Mail.
>
>
>>    Well, now.  Will it use Mirrors?  What, in this context, does
>>    "Workplace shell aware" really mean?
>
>Does it really matter?  I've heard some people saying that everyone
>should boycott and whine about programs that use Mirrors, but I think
>that this is ridiculous.  An app should be judged on its own qualities,
>and not on the API used by the developers!


    My real objection to apps that use mirrors is this:
    Mirrors is going to be compiled into the code of the program.
    As time passes, we can assume that newer, more efficient
    versions of mirrors will come along and most of us (tired with
    the lousy performance that Mirrors programs will likely
    give--Word for PM used tricks very similar) will probably upgrade.

    As long as you're going to be running Windows code, why not buy the
    versions that are more likely to be less buggy, updated more
    often, and are only dependant on the quality of WINOS2 (which can
    be updated independant of the application) for efficiency?

    The fact is, buying Mirrors-based products only encourages more of the
    waffling on OS/2.

    So yes, it really does matter.  If they're using mirrors, chances are
    they're just having their Windows programmers do the job of quickie
    patches to a windows core.  A sure fire way to get a lousy, buggy product.
    It would not "matter" if it was printed on the box.  In cases
    such as that, I would simply buy the Windows version and move on,
    unless I had heard that it *specifically* supported OS/2 features
    that outweighed the very-possible chance of ending up with a bug-ridden,
    slow, non-OS/2-consistent product.



>I see it as a way for companies to easily dip their toes into the waters
>of the OS/2 market.  Companies that use Mirrors, in fact, may be the



    Dip in, pull out at the first sign of trouble.  OS/2
    needs companies willing to sit it out and build a market,
    creating applications in the meantime that draw users
    to OS/2.  Mirrors products are the antithesis of this goal.
    How likely is it that a Mirrors app will run any faster than
    a win app under the 2.1 beta?  Under the 2.1 GA?  Not very,
    considering that the 2.1 that I've seen runs them at about
    95% to 101% of the speed (not, of course, seamless).




>ones that need the strongest encouragment and response from the market
>to help broaden the OS/2 vendor base.  If their Mirror-based product
>doesn't sell, they may give up on OS/2, whereas, if it does well, they
>may switch to native API in a future version.  Thus, it might be argued
>that it would be better to buy a Mirror-based program if other things
>*are* equal.


    Wrong.  Buying a mirrors based product only encourages
    more of the same ("whatthey really want is just a straight
    port of the Windows version").

    If they want a strong response for the market, they can write
    an OS/2 native versionwithout using a hack like mirrors.  Then
    they'll see a response.  If AmiPro is a native app, you can
    kiss DeScribe goodbye.


>But basically, I see the use of Mirrors as being *very* far down the
>list of qualities I'll look at when evaluating a program.  If someone is


    Speed?  Is the user interface OS/2 consistent?  Bugs?

    All of these are not just program issues, but *mirrors* issues.


>IMO, one of OS/2's biggest strengths is all the options it offers--DOS
>and Windows *plus* native OS/2--and Mirrors is merely one more option.


    Mirrors is just a sneaky way to sell Windows products to
    OS/2 users and fool them into thinking they're getting
    a real OS/2 product.


>It seems like some of the loudest shouting against Mirrors comes from
>anti-OS/2 crowd.  Do any other OS/2 *advocates* have any comments or
>opinions about Mirrors to share?


    It's always the anti-OS/2 crowd argument.  Some grand and global
    anti-OS/2 conspiracy, for instance, that keeps OS/2 apps (ha)
    out of stores.  Some omnipotent pack of OS/2 haters that keep
    IBM from creating even remotely clever advertisements, let alone
    honest ones.

    Mirrors is a lot like computer companies that talk in their ads
    about the high quality of the parts, etc--and charge twice as much
    for the system.  When you get it home, you take a peek, and see
    nothing but the industry standard names that your friends clone
    has, but he paid 1/2 as much.


    <important:  all  mail to [e-mail], mail to this
    account will not be read/replied.>