[comp.os.os2.misc] Blind taste test - OS/2

bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) (04/27/91)

    I recently switched to OS/2 1.3 to see what everyone was talking
about.  (Not quite a blind taste test :-)  *We secretly switched
their normal DOS/Windows enviroment with OS/2.  Let's see what happens*)
I was running Windows 3.0/DOS 4.0 on my 386/25 clone (4megs RAM,
40mb MFM HD, 80mb SCSI HD, SVGA, built from major third party vendors),
and I do Windows development for a living.  The first thing I noticed
was how close to DOS/Windows things were, and the second were the
differences.

     If you sit a non-techie down at an OS/2 machine and have him/her
run Excel, Word, or Pagemaker, they probably wouldn't notice much of a
difference with Windows or Mac, and would not require much re-training.
The Desktop Manager (Program Manager in Windows) is different, but almost
nothing else stands out at first.  Word doesn't look any different (I
upgraded my WfW to PMWord for $50 direct from MS - took a week).  My
housemate used Word for OS/2 w/o any adjustment problems. (He has used
WfW for his two earlier papers, but everything before that was w/
typewriter) Of course, OS/2 and Windows were designed this way.

     Then you begin to notice that OS/2 doesn't go into seizures like
Windows does when you have a few processes doing work.  Ever try to have
two windows up and do any lengthy process on both under Win? Ka-chunk;
Kachunk. I formatted a bunch of disks while I worked on a paper and
downloaded a file at 2400baud under OS/2, and tho the system was
swapping, I only noticed a smooth slight slowdown.  *NICE*
File Manager is better (not good enough yet, but definitely better) and
assocation of files as well as other commands are enhanced.  Scroll
bars reveal the size of the scrolled region (a la NeXT or some
X Windows WM's) and Adobe Type Manager is built in.  DOS is really a
"penalty box" in 1.3, but it should be remedied with 2.0.  Also, while
Windows is definitely a slick product, and OS/2 benefits a little from 
that, it's still rough around the edges, more like Win 2.0 as far as
things like installation and the control panel. The big points tho were
HPFS (long file names!), smooth multiprocessing, and protected VM's.
I ran a piece of OS/2 freeware that was rather old - it died, and OS/2
shut it down w/o a problem.  Running Mac or Windows, you would have
a 50% chance of being hosed completely, with a system reset (or
three finger salute) as your only alternative.

    Problems?  Yeah...  Little driver support!!!  I blame MS for this
(see next paragraph).  My Video7 1024i SVGA card has OS/2 1.2 drivers, but
they don't work properly w/ 1.3.  OS/2 supports the major IBM standards
out of the box, so I'm running straight VGA.  My brand new Adaptec
1542B sCSI controller has OS/2 drivers dated 1989!  It works,
but only supports FAT partitions (no HPFS).  Adaptec is reportedly
waiting on MS to finalize some things and will release the drivers early
summer.  Printer support is much better now tho.  Other problems
include the maximize function of windows... under Windows 3.0, if you
maximize a window, it covers the full screen and you can't move it around.
Not so under OS/2 1.3 - it covers the screen, but the window is still
moveable.  Built in network support - seems very lacking, but I didn't get
into this.  Also, MS's ports of Word and Excel don't take advantage of
OS/2.  They're really just Windows apps that run under OS/2.  All of
these could be and should be fixed by the time 2.0 comes out.

    With all that said, I must say that I'm disappointed with MS.
They looked at their monthly ledgerbook instead of their 5 year
plan when they switched emphasis from OS/2 to Windows.  Shades of
the American auto industry.  It really does their customers injustice,
as well as create confusion in the marketplace.  Now, the
drivers/programs for OS/2 aren't there yet. Those programmers were
pulled to work on Windows.  Witness WordPerfect - they stopped all
OS/2 dev and put them on the Windows project.  While I like the what
I saw of WordPerfect for Windows, and under the circumstances it was a
wise economic choice for them, I believe that the PC future suffers
from this half step.  Or maybe this is all a MS scam...  talk developers
into OS/2 as DOS 5.0.  Convince them of GUI and of the "Things to Come",
and then blow them away with Windows.  While they're reeling from the
shock and busy changing from OS/2 to Windows dev, change back.  Stay
a year ahead and win with both solutions!  No wonder the FTC is looking
into MS.

    All in all, I'd love to get OS/2 2.0.  If OS/2 1.3 is a good
indication of the direction OS/2 is going, then I think 2.0 is gonna
be pretty good, and most people with a 386 will probably convert.
Hopefully in the next six - nine months, drivers will start coming out
in abundance and the focus will *finally* shift from Windows to OS/2.
But to put this all in perspective, I would still rather get a NeXT.
Order of preference - NeXT, OS/2, Windows == Mac (even w/ Sys7) as
PC's or personal workstations.  I welcome responses to my babbling by
e-mail or posts.

--
Bill Chin			internet:bchin@umd5.umd.edu
PC/IP, Computer Science Center	NeXTmail:bchin@is-next.umd.edu
U-Maryland, College Park        *Standard Disclaimers Apply*

wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Wim Bonner) (04/28/91)

In article <8494@umd5.umd.edu> bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) writes:
>    Problems?  Yeah...  Little driver support!!!  I blame MS for this
>(see next paragraph).  My Video7 1024i SVGA card has OS/2 1.2 drivers, but
>they don't work properly w/ 1.3.  OS/2 supports the major IBM standards
>out of the box, so I'm running straight VGA.  My brand new Adaptec

Your video7 1024i drivers don't work with 1.3?  How so?

I'm running OS/2 1.3 on my 286 with a 1024i running in 16color1024x768 mode, 
and not having problems...  I know that the 256 color driver does not work 
properly, but I don't think it worked properly with 1.2 either, even though it 
was advertised as doing so.  

I think you mentioned that you do some windows development.  One interesting 
thing I noticed recently was that the Windows Resource compiler is bound, and 
can be run under OS/2.  If only Windows and OS/2 used compatible resources..  

What were they thinking?
-- 
|  wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu  | The Loft BBS
| 27313853@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu | (509)335-4339
|  72561.3135@CompuServe.com  | USR HST Dual Standard HST/V.32