CompuServe Messages

Hi Wayne. OS/2 is technically inferior to NT because it was Microsoft's first go at a multitasking OS. It is slower, does not provide good Windows 3.1 compatibility (OS/2 2.1 is much better than 2.0 or 1.3), and does not have many native apps. Let's not forget that Microsoft did both OS/2 and NT. It's amazing to me that they cleverly sneaked out of their association with OS/2 and have now made it seem like it's all IBM's fault. While IBM's claiming OS/2 will have SMP support, NT has it now, and it works, INCREDIBLY WELL. I use a box with 4 DX50 processors running NT, and it truly screams (appropriate term in this forum!). Regarding NT's resource requirements – there's no question that it's not for the average PC user today, even those with 486 machines. NT is for power Intel users, RISC workstations and server systems. "Chicago" which will come out probably early next year, is essentially "NT-Lite" and will probably be called Windows 4.0. It will finally do away with the separate MS-DOS/Windows components, but still provide backward compatibility with both while also providing the 32 bit multitasking, network client support, etc. It will be THE thing to have.