Autor: Piotr Pekala (ppekala_at_phys.amu.edu.pl)
Data: Thu 12 Sep 1996 - 14:07:59 MET DST
Polecam ponizszy tekst (Battle of the 4.0's!) wszystkim zainteresowanym
systemami OS/2 i NT
pozdrowienia
Piotr Pekala
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Institute of Acoustics Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland
e-mail : ppekala_at_phys.amu.edu.pl, http://phys.amu.edu.pl/~ppekala
pgp finger : ppekala_at_rainbow.ia.amu.edu.pl
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:46:12 +0800 (HKT)
From: Fred Ng <fredng_at_hkstar.com>
Reply-To: Brad Wardell <wardell_at_ibm.net>
To: OS2News Posting <os2news_at_teamos2.org>
Subject: OS2News: OS/2 Warp 4.0 vs. Windows NT 4.0
BATTLE OF THE 4.0'S!
Windows NT 4.0 vs. OS/2 Warp 4.0!
by
Brad Wardell
Disclaimer:
I am employed by an ISV that writes software primarily for OS/2 but
also for Windows95 and Windows NT. I believe this review to be
objective and correct but it is important for the reader to be aware
of any possible bias's. You may reprint this, re-post this, or do
whatever else you want with it as long as the contents remain intact
(except for this disclaimer and general editing). Please send any
comments to wardell_at_ibm.net. Please let me know if you do choose to
re-print it. This review will also be posted to Stardock's Compuserve
forum: GO STARDOCK. The Compuserve forum is quickly becoming a hub of
professional discussion on the industry, politics, and technology (as
well as Stardock technical support).
Introduction
People on-line spend a great deal of energy debating the merits of
their favorite OS. Whether that be Linux, MacOS, Amigados, NeXTStep,
OS/2, Windows95, or Windows NT.
On September 16, 1996, Stardock (http://www.stardock.com) will begin
conducting a survey to get a real idea of the on-line user base. While
not the end-all way to gauge OS use, it is a good way to see what
sorts of ratios of users are on-line.
Every OS has its strengths and weaknesses. Most .advocacy forums are
filled with users who are unwilling to admit that their OS has any
weaknesses while at the same time not admitting that other OS's have
any merits.
This article will discuss the case for NT 4.0 and OS/2 Warp. In my
best schizophrenic way, I will argue both sides using many years of
arguing and debating on-line. By the way, make sure you read both or
you only get half the story.
The Case for Windows NT.
The industry has already chosen the next standard desktop and it's
Win32. Linux, OS/2, and the rest will always be niches. Niches used by
either corporations who have legacy applications, need certain custom
applications developed or by a hand full of vocal and militant
advocates who damage their own cause by venomously attacking all those
who they feel are responsible for making their OS choice a niche. Look
at the OS/2, Amiga, and Linux news groups and view the dozens of loud,
vocal, and hostile users who name-call not only users of other OS's
but their own ISVs not realizing that because their OS is a niche, the
only methods ISVs have to get any discussion or presence about their
software is through on-line channels given that the mainstream media
only wants to talk about Win32.
But why deal with all of that? Win32 has already won. NT already has
the support of the ISVs that count in the "real" world. NT has a
modern architecture that is truly bulletproof. It may not be as mature
as OS/2 is and thus suffer from some performance issues but with
virtually the entire industry behind it, those flaws will go away. If
Microsoft doesn't solve a given problem, one of the hundreds of active
Win32 ISVs will solve the problem for it.
NT 4.0 also supports DirectX which is far and away superior to OS/2's
DIVE. DirectX not only can do full screen at any resolution very
easily, it also supports bank-switching, hardware acceleration (both
2D and 3D), and encompasses sound, graphics, and network under a
single API. Meanwhile, IBM has done its best to scare off game ISVS
and allowed DIVE, which had a 2 year head start on DirectX, to
languish with no reliable way to even do 640x480 full screen mode,
barely documented DART, and no real easy way to write multiplayer
games (conventional methods still work of course).
NT 4.0 is also just plain nice to deal with. With lots of sound
effects that can be present for any system activity. The fonts and
icons can be anti-aliased on the fly to provide crystal clear images
and is easy on the eyes. Setting up a graphics card is a treat too.
Most adapters allow you to change the vertical refresh rate to a
comfortable 72hz or an even better 85hz right from the display
settings. In contrast, OS/2 still uses a DOS program called SVGA to
change refresh after running the adapter card's DOS setup program (if
you're lucky). A walk through any OS/2 site will show you that most
users run at painful 60hz.
Plus, by choosing NT you get the help of the mainstream world. It's a
pity that OS/2 gets so little press coverage but OS/2 users don't do
themselves any favors when they write hate mail to the magazines every
time they try to write an article on OS/2 software. Plus, most OS/2
software is generally inferior to their Windows counterparts. Describe
vs. Word 7? OS/2 users will yell "I don't do Doze, don't want to give
any money to Billy Boy and Microsloth!" and then say "Describe is way
better" but they delude themselves, Offic95 is at least 2 generations
ahead of any current OS/2 office application. Though Star Office is
pretty much on par, it's still in beta and Office95 is here now. Where
is OS/2 software when I need to do desktop publishing or graphics
design or rendering or photo editing or music composition or a decent
encyclopedia or other applications that users need every day.
There is also the knowledge that Microsoft is 100% behind NT.
Microsoft would go out of business before giving up on Windows. IBM is
constantly questioned about their commitment to OS/2. Parts of IBM do
more business using NT and Windows95 than OS/2. Lotus barely
acknowledges OS/2. If IBM doesn't use OS/2 why should you? NT is
supported by every major company including IBM.
NT is also very fast. Its GUI allows you to quickly browse through the
folders just like a Macintosh or OS/2 but much faster. Sure it's not
truly object-orientated but who cares? It's fast and it works for
millions of people.
NT also does long file names reliably with any type of app. On FAT or
NTFS, long file names are available, even from the command line. OS/2
only supports long file names on HPFS partitions with OS/2
applications (except through extended attributes which can only be
seen from WPS apps). Want to see long file names on FAT partitions
from a prompt? Too bad if you're running OS/2.
As for the Internet, JAVA is probably doomed in the long term as an
open standard. ActiveX, which is what IBM's Lotus uses, will ensure
that JAVA always remains in the Win32 fold and how long will Netscape
survive in a war with Microsoft?
If you want to get real work done today on real applications on an OS
that is rock solid, supported by just about everyone, and multitasks
great, then the choice is clear: Windows NT 4.0.
The Case for OS/2 Warp
There is an old saying that goes something like this. "A million X
can't be wrong." Where X is the user of some product or foodstuff. Of
course, it doesn't always work out that way. You could also say the
same thing about garbage. "A million flies can't be wrong."
OS/2 represents a better way of computing. It has a real object model,
it is already a proven and reliable operating system. It runs DOS
programs far better than NT does, it runs Windows (Win16) programs as
well as Windows NT and it runs native 32bit OS/2 programs which NT
cannot do. NT 4.0 cannot even run HPFS (unless you hack it with 3.51
files) which means moving from OS/2 to NT 4.0 quite painful.
Sure OS/2 doesn't currently have the native application support of
Windows , but it does run Windows programs very well and Win32 is far
from being that widespread. What is the difference between Word 6.0
and Word 7.0? Very little. And Star Office is nearly here as well as
Smart Suite '96 which are also very competitive. Sure, OS/2 users have
had to wait for next generation applications but how long did Windows
wait to get a decent multitasking 32bit operating system? Answer: at
least 3 years longer. While Windows users were dealing with UAEs,
GPFs, terrible multitasking, and ancient UI's, OS/2 users have had it
all so what is so bad about waiting a couple months to get a new set
of high end applications?
And with companies like Corel, IBM, SUN, Netscape and pretty much the
rest of the world getting behind JAVA, OS/2's future seems secured
from an application standpoint. OS/2 will shortly have its own unique
set of applications and OS/2 users will be able to choose between them
and or the new JAVA applications. With the emphasis IBM is putting on
JAVA, it's pretty certain OS/2 will be able to run them better than
any other OS.
And IBM is behind OS/2 in a big way. Will IBM ever risk its life on
OS/2? No way. IBM is a $70 billion dollar international corporation.
Microsoft would be a minor division of the IBM corporation. IBM makes
more money selling services than Microsoft makes period. The division
that makes OS/2 known as PSP, grosses a few billion a year alone which
would make it a Fortune 500 by itself and it's just a small part of
IBM. The analogy would be if some big company bought Lotus, Corel, and
Microsoft and then have people complain that some employees use Word,
others use Word Perfect and others WordPro. Moreover, why should IBM
try to conquer the OS market with all its might? What does it get out
of that? The PC OS market is only a few billion dollars and little
profit. Since IBM doesn't really make PC applications, it can't even
capitalize on the success of an OS. So from IBM's standpoint, OS/2
works as an awesome strategic platform for running software for its
corporate customers which, guess what, happen to use IBM software.
Whether that be development tools, client/server applications,
Internet software, etc., IBM does have a strong strategy even if they
can't communicate it. It should be remembered that IBM bought Lotus
for Notes, a work group product and not Lotus 123, Ami Pro, or
Approach. Why do people expect or even want IBM to compete head to
head with Microsoft on the OS market? Pride? Zealotry? It doesn't make
business sense. OS/2 is perfectly suited for its future as the
premiere connectivity product, custom application server, and power
user consumer platform. That strategy is profitable for IBM and
therefore ensures OS/2's future. . (I just saw an OS/2 commercial
while writing this -woha).
So Win32 may, in the short run, be the API winner but JAVA offers an
open way of getting applications on every platform. OS/2 also is the
home of OpenDoc, a superior way of building component software, the
dream of most large corporations who want to develop custom software.
OLE and its minions are still far behind in this sort of object
technology.
OS/2 also did its interface right. It may not be quite as fast at
filling a folder with icons but the difference is decreasing every
year. OS/2 V4 is now very fast at bringing up icons and third party
products like Stardock's Object Desktop can even cache commonly used
folders and use .3 extensions too which eliminates the Windows NT
advantage.
It's not just doing the file associations, OS/2 lets you work the way
you want to. Put anything on your desktop that you want. It is the
only choice if you want to work in an environment that lets you treat
your desktop like a real desktop and from a productivity standpoint,
nothing can compare to OS/2. OS/2's interface is the power user's
dream interface while at the same time giving corporate IS managers a
way to standardize on a single desktop using third party applications
such as Object Desktop Professional which just isn't available on NT
so want to create a standard desktop on NT that is specific to your
corporation? Too bad. Go get "Power Toys" and muck with that for
awhile to see how much of a hack (an OS/2 wannabe) the NT/Win95 user
interface really is.
With NT, files can be distinguished only by their .3 file extension
whereas OS/2 uses extended attributes making "Fourth Quarter Report"
identifiable to the OS as a specific file type without an extension.
So by choosing NT, we take a big step back in usability. Is this where
people want to go? Windows NT's "Short Cuts" are sad hack that are
very fragile. OS/2 provides shadows which truly link with file.
And what about scalability? I've talked to many IS managers who admit
that OS/2 is far superior as a network client to NT. So why aren't
they using it? "Because the world is moving to NT." It is good that
the media wasn't so influential when the decision to use AC or DC
electricity or we'd all be in a world of hurt today. OS/2 is a great
choice for scalability and there's no better PC Server than OS/2 Warp
Server.
And OS/2 is also very nice from a customization standpoint. For
example, every folder's background color, icon font, etc. can be
customized making OS/2 a very attractive OS when customized.
If people have wondered why there are so many "OS/2 bigots" it's
because if OS/2 became the dominate OS, the world really would be a
better place. A level playing field for application developers, a
forward looking user interface (which counts for a lot), and the home
for component technology. Microsoft may have narrowed the lead OS/2
has but that lead is still there. So you could say that the reason for
OS/2 bigotry is that OS/2 users feel that they are trying to make the
world a better place. Whether or not you agree with them, there is no
denying their motive. No OS has ever garnered even remotely as much
grass roots support as OS/2 and there is a reason for this that
hopefully users who are interested in the best choice should not
ignore.
So if you want to have the best OS for high productivity with a true
Internet/Intranet connectivity vision behind it, backed by the largest
computer company in the world, and works the way you do, OS/2 is the
one for you.
Conclusions
Well there you have it. I hope I have adequately addressed the
arguments from both sides. I am sure readers will ensure that any
faults in logic or argument will be addressed. I think, however, that
this pretty much sums up the arguments for both sides. Both OS's have
many strengths and some weaknesses. You can't really go wrong either
way. There is little real risk in an IS manager choosing OS/2 or
Windows NT.
There are a lot of myths out there to deal with. OS/2 is not dead and
Microsoft software is not bad. It is important that technical users
out there try to look beyond their personal prejudices and realize
that all OS's have strengths and weaknesses. After all, in the end,
it's just an operating system.
Brad Wardell can be reached at wardell_at_ibm.net
To archiwum zostało wygenerowane przez hypermail 2.1.7 : Tue 18 May 2004 - 12:53:53 MET DST