frank@odetics.com (Frank Merrow) (09/27/90)
Hi, I need someone who is familiar with OS2/PM and/or MS Windows as well as someone who is familiar with both Windows 2 as well as 3 to comment on the following line of reasoning: I want to start a new project using a graphical interface at home using a "PC environment". I have worked with Sunview before and so I am somewhat familiar with the concepts involved, but I have no direct experience with OS2 or MS Windows. My understanding is that even though both OS2/PM and MS Windows were written by Microsoft, THEY ARE MILES APART so porting a program between the two is difficult at best. Eventually, I would like my program to run under BOTH environments. Because of this it seems appropriate to do the Windows version first. First, Windows currently has a larger user base (and thus more customers) and second because in the Windows environment I won't get "suckered" into splitting my task using Multi-tasking concepts and so forth, because for the most part they just are not available under Windows to begin with. I am assuming that the eventual port to OS2/PM would be easier than a port FROM OS2/PM to Windows (given that neither is likely to be "trivial"). Once the decision is made to write the program in Windows, the next question is Windows 2.x or Windows 3.0. The problem with Windows 3.0 is that the customer base is (I presume) signifcantly smaller (unless MS has made the upgrade so cheap "everyone" is upgrading). On the other hand if I write to 2.x, I am already "behind the times" and the product will age faster. Anyone care to comment? frank@odetics
spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) (09/27/90)
In article <1990Sep26.204620.10987@odetics.com> frank@odetics.UUCP (Frank Merrow) writes: | I want to start a new project using a graphical interface at home using | a "PC environment". I have worked with Sunview before and so I am | somewhat familiar with the concepts involved, but I have no direct | experience with OS2 or MS Windows. My understanding is that even though | both OS2/PM and MS Windows were written by Microsoft, THEY ARE MILES APART | so porting a program between the two is difficult at best. Not entirely true. Porting a program between the two means replacing all the Windows API calls with the corresponding OS/2 ones. The trouble is that there is not a 1-1 correspondence, so this isn't straightforward. Also, there are minor differences like OS/2 uses bottom left as the origin and Windows uses top left. So porting is indeed a headache but not impossible. The best approach is to write a "layer" between Windows and your code; then you can isolate the part of the project that you need to port. This is the approach most of the industry uses for writing applications that run under, e.g., Windows and Macintosh. Microsoft is selling an alpha-release (read: literally HUNDREDS of serious bugs) version of a "Software Migration Kit" which is supposed to somewhat automate the conversion process. In reality the SMK bogs down programs so they run much slower in OS/2 than in Windows. In addition it is poorly supported. But, one day, the SMK might really work. | Eventually, I would like my program to run under BOTH environments. Because | of this it seems appropriate to do the Windows version first. First, | Windows currently has a larger user base (and thus more customers) and | second because in the Windows environment I won't get "suckered" into | splitting my task using Multi-tasking concepts and so forth, because for | the most part they just are not available under Windows to begin with. I | am assuming that the eventual port to OS2/PM would be easier than a | port FROM OS2/PM to Windows (given that neither is likely to be "trivial"). Microsoft keeps telling people that OS/2 Version 2.0 will "run windows applications unmodified". I am personally extremely skeptical about this because (1) it will bloat OS/2 to about twice its present bloated size (2) Microsoft, says InfoWorld, is pulling its programmers off of OS/2 and putting them into Windows, and (3) Microsoft's current state of disagreement with IBM over OS/2 is likely to dampen everyone's enthusiasm for OS/2 for a long time. Especially if a future version of Windows supports HPFS and threads. | Once the decision is made to write the program in Windows, the next | question is Windows 2.x or Windows 3.0. The problem with Windows 3.0 | is that the customer base is (I presume) signifcantly smaller (unless | MS has made the upgrade so cheap "everyone" is upgrading). On the other | hand if I write to 2.x, I am already "behind the times" and the | product will age faster. Wrong - the customer base for version 3.0 is MUCH bigger than the customer base for 2.0, in fact, it is even bigger than the customer base for Macintosh. Everyone threw 2.0 out the window; I doubt if you could still get the 2.0 Software Development Kit any more. Besides the fact that the technical benefits of developing for 3.0 are significant. Joel Spolsky spolsky@cs.yale.edu Silence = Death
tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) (09/28/90)
Frank Merrow <frank@odetics.UUCP> writes: > I want to start a new project using a graphical interface at home using > a "PC environment". I have worked with Sunview before and so I am > somewhat familiar with the concepts involved, but I have no direct > experience with OS2 or MS Windows. [...] > Eventually, I would like my program to run under BOTH environments. One avenue to consider is the use of the XVT libraries (Extended Virtual Toolkit); if you write your application entirely using XVT calls, you will be able to port it to Windows, OS/2, Mac or X-Windows by simply writing a resource file and recompiling your source. However, at around $800, XVT may not be an option for you. On the other hand, with the Great IBM-Microsoft Rift, maybe Windows 4.0 will run OS/2 binaries? :) :) :) [ \tom haapanen --- university of waterloo --- tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu ] [ "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]