Comdex Report 2
41 messages in this thread
Howdy…
Not too much that might interest Amigaheads directly, but there are some
interesting sights nonetheless.
Of course, everything in town is PC related, nearly. My joke is
that there are 140,000 fellow geeks in town, and nearly all of them are
working for Bill Gates.
Talking about Bill Gates, there are countless clones running Windows
NT. If anything in the PC world is going to give the Amiga a run for its
money, its something running NT. NT is *very* fast from what I can see,
especially when running on non-Intel equipment. I have seen some very
complicated graphical tasks running simultaneously on an NT machine, with
almost no visible degradation. NT is going to be a very important product
in the next two years, no doubt about it.
More interesting to Amigaheads is the new Atari Falcon '030. This
is a very potent machine, and it was running real software, with a real
multitasking OS. One shocker was seeing some very mature productivity
applications running on it; there was Calamus, which is an amazing DTP
package. It has the best features of your favorite page layout program,
with healthy doses of Photoshop and Illustrator thrown in. This is going
to be ported to Windows (an Amiga port is out of the question), where I
expect it to be a great success. It is very fast, and a great interface.
Another nice program was an illustration program with animation and 3D
abilities, as well as great MIDI apps.
This brings me to a question that has been echoed here over and over
again…where are the serious Amiga apps these days? I mean, how come we
don't have a Video Spigot kind of thing? We have a fast bus, we have fast
throughput, but instead we see this kind of thing for slow ISA bus PCs…
Hope to see the Amiga booth tomorrow, or perhaps, Friday. I hope
that it as least as impressive as the Atari booth, which made it look like
Atari actually had viable products. There were a surprisingly large amount
of impressed folks there…hope to see the same at the CBM booth.
Last…minature devices are very big this year. There are some
Jonathan,
The Falcon's pretty impressive for a Tramiel product, but it has a 68030
with 16-bit RAM. Yuck.
If you spot the NewMedia booth, check 'em out. They're supposed to have
some PCMCIA cards specifically for the A600/A1200.
NT fast? You've *got* to be kidding! NT is slow and huge and still has
the same horrible interface as Windows 3.1, at least when running on any
normal machine. (We've got it running on a 50Mhz 486 system with graphics
accelerator and 16 MB RAM. It takes a third of the 250M Hard drive, and
*needs* all those 16 MB to run.) IMHO, If NT ever manages to get
anywhere, it will be in a limited niche as a server for Windows 3.1
systems, at least for the first half of this decade. Ask me again in a
year (assuming it's released by then, which I consider a 50/50 chance),
and I may have changed some of these opinions, but as it stands now, the
only reason we're even considering NT is because it's not too much of a
stretch to keep our options open.
NT *does* appear faster on the non-Intel platforms it's designed for
(R4000 systems only, right now…), but considering that virtually nobody
is producing those platforms (anyone remember ACE?) I don't see much
future for it right now in that arena.
–>Steve Bennett
Maybe Jonathon and I were fooled by the same demos. I, too, saw a
"regular" 486/33 running NT, running some demos that reminded me for all
the world of those simple random square, line and dot demos that came with
the original Amiga. They were all running at the same time, it was clearly
preemptive multitasking, and it felt a lot better than Windows 3.x, and
more like an Amiga than I'd ever seen on a PC. Now until we see the second
generation of NT, I'm not ready to dismiss it. Win 2.0 wasn't as good as
Win 3.0, and 3.1 cleaned up a lot in 3.0. And the SPA estimates that by
the end of this year, Windows software sales will eclipse DOS sales for the
first time.
But that was reported in the same issue of Computer Shopper that recommends
a $600 smart switch that lets you share a single keyboard and monitor
between several PCs as "the way multitasking was meant to be." 🙂
I've used NT on a 386, and it seemed much faster then W3.1 on a 486. Time
will tell for that, I guess. For now it's still vapor. 🙂
Steve
John,
Interesting thought…SPA estimates that by the end of the year,
Windows software will eclipse DOS sales.
How's that occur when Windows requires DOS to run? <Grin>
Don
Steve;
First of all, the version of NT I saw was pretty quick; faster, at any
rate, than what everyone had been saying about it. However, it was slower
than normal Windows, which is slow enough. Again, when I sat down at it,
it was running about 15 applications, so there was some kind of load on
it. The DEC PC had 24 megs of RAM.
NT appears to be quite stable, and that was the buzz going around the
show. If its so stable, why not release it now? Probably, to optimize
the beast, and get the speed up.
You say that NT is not likely to get anywhere except as a limited niche
server for Windows 3.1 (for the next 5 years); I disagree. It will get
somewhere when there are dirt cheap Pentium computers. This is likely to
happen before 5 years are up.
NT *does* not appear to be faster on non-Intel platforms; it is faster,
period. Much faster. It is running on MIPS platforms, which are being
produced by two or three companies (SGI is one, Olivetti is another).
Additionally, it was running on Alpha at the show as well, so it now runs
on three platforms. This alone is quite an accomplishment, actually.
Lastly, we should see a SUN version with the initial release; you can bet
that there will be a PowerPC/RS6000 version, too.
I think that there were messages like yours circulating when Windows
3.0 was released. It, too, was very slow (especially on the hardware of
the time); it also took a fair amount of RAM (yup, four megs on a PC was
pretty outrageous even then; 8 was insane. Witness the failure of OS/2 as
a result). Many folks said that there was no future for *any* GUI on the
PC at the time; now, Windows applications have finally outsold DOS
applications.
Sooo…I opine that the NT has a rosy future, and will take off quickly
after release. There will Pentiums to run it, in circulation, and
hopefully (not for NT, but generally) RAM prices will be lower. The
Microsoft hype engine will be in full speed mode. Just you wait; this is
<continued>
the OS that is going to eat the micro, and possibly, other markets.
Jonathan, via AutoPilot // Only Amiga makes
\\// it possible…
Well, I'll believe NT will succeed when it has succeeded, not before. It
still has a LONG way to go before it is stable (Assuming I have been
running the same version shown at the show, the Oct beta version, then it
isn't very stable at all…) and you can expect lots of bugs to appear in
the initial release, to be fixed about a year later with the ".1" release
of it. (Or perhaps the ".2" release… I've seen NT called "Windows NT
3.1" in places, so perhaps it will start that way…)
OTOH, I don't believe OS/2 is quite as dead as it appears. It does much of
what people might consider NT for right now, and is stable, solid, and not
nearly as bad a memory hog. If people *do* really want what NT offers,
OS/2 is right now in a good position to steal away those customers.
It really all depends on whether people fall for Microsoft's marketing in
the long run. If they believe the hype, and machine and memory prices drop
enough (memory prices being the big sticking point, IMHO), NT might have a
chance of competing out there. Ultimately, however, I think that most PC
clone users will look at it, wonder whether the added benefits are worth
the costs in hardware and software upgrading (and no matter *what*
Microsoft says, there will be a LOT of software to upgrade, starting most
probably with their own…) and probably find it not worth the effort, for
several years to come.
–>Steve Bennett
Steve,
I just read an article in the October issue of PC/Computing where
it disputes what you're saying about OS/2. Among other things, the article
said that tests shows that programs that ran fine with only 4 Meg of RAM
under Windows, wouldn't run at all under OS/2. That OS/2 was only faster
when a single program was active, as soon as you started up another…it
became slower than windows in the same situation. It also said there were
serious problems running programs like Excel 4.0 under OS/2 and IBM has
acknowledged the problem was theirs, not Microsoft's and IBM will fix it in
a future release.
It also said a few nice things about OS/2…but all in all, after
reading the article…I wouldn't touch OS/2 on a bet.
Don
Don,
There's a real OS/2 phobia amongst PC journalists. It's a LOT better than
Windows. The only real problem is that you need 8MB of RAM to get decent
performance out of it. IBM's problem was saying that it would run in 4MB.
In 4MB it's a dog performance wise. With 8MB it's as close to the Amiga as
you can get on a DOS platform, when it comes to multitasking.
The bug fix release is already out there for download.
I have played arround with windows a little at work, and as I browse
arround computer shows. The only time I have seen its gui run anywhere
near a smooth as Workbench, was on a 486 DX2 @ 50 Mhz.
That seems to be type of hardware you need to get windows to run like WB
on a 7.14 Mhz 68000.
As an Amiga/PC and MAC user, I am a little surprised by your comments. I
run a PP&S 040/28 board w/ 16Mb Ram in an A2000 and a 486/33 with ATI Ultra
and 16Mb Ram.
While I love my Amiga for Video work…Workbench seems a pretty slow GUI.
Perhaps its because of slow chip ram (i.e Video addressing) and a 16bit
bus…but at least on MY 486, Windows 3.1 flies.
I will grant you that Windows requires a ridiculous amount of time to get
optimized and the purchase of a speedy graphics card. BUT with my PC, I
have 1024*768*256 or 800*600*24bit…and it doesn't hang around!!
Perhaps I'm biased (I started with PC's and migrated to the Amiga because
of the toaster), but my PC 'feels' faster in most real world apps. Of
course, horses for courses. The Amiga IS a great machine. For the money,
its outta the box abilities are impressive and it's native multitasking
abilities work well. If you gave me $2,000 however, Intel's crew would get
the nod.
Suresh,
Well, all I can say is that my experience is opposite yours. Every machine
I have ever used with Windows, with the exception of the 486 DX2 I talked
about, has seemed "slow", even compared to a 68000, 7.14 MHz Amiga. I
currently have and use both an A500 and an A2000 with a 28 MHz 68030 and 5
meg of RAM.
While the Chip ram may be slow, because it is accessible to the Amiga's
custom chips, it is "faster" for display purposes.
While I admit Amiga has fell behind in resolution to PC's, I don't think
having an 800*600*24bit gui is necessary or useful.
I would be interested in other's oppinion on which has the "snappier" GUI,
Amiga or Windows?
My vote is for the Amiga. When using Windows, I looked at getting a 25 mhz
486SX with Windows 3.1 for my wife and I always get the feeling that the
CPU could be running light speed if not dragged down running Windows. I use
a 25 mhz 386SX without Windows at work and it flies like at bat out of
hell.
Windows still has some "growing up" to do. When it gets to the point where
it works with the same performence regardless of the CPU speed or amount of
RAM. Then it will be of equal value as the Amiga Workbench.
Richard – via Whap on the Amiga 1000
Michael,
For what it's worth, I rarely use the WorkBench, but have done a
few "seat of the pants" comparisons today…mainly because I've been
playing with a noteboot for the last few days trying to learn Windows.
Part of the problem in doing a comparison is that what's going on in the
machines is different. For example, Window's icons pop up a lot faster
than the Amiga's icons…particularly if you've got a lot of files in a
directory on the Amiga. Clicking windows to the font is about the same
speed on both. Redraws of the whole desktop do seem somewhat faster on the
Amiga. All in all…I'd say it's about a draw.
The notebook is a NCR 3170 Safari with 4 meg of RAM and a 25Mhz
386SLC. My Amiga is a 2500/20 with 4 Meg of RAM, (2 Meg of CHIP and 2 Meg
of 32 bit FAST).
That particular notebook is on loan to me from NCR. I've got one
on order that should be here in a week or so. It'll have 8 meg of RAM, so
I'll get to see how much difference that makes.
So, that's my opinion…from someone who rarely uses WB and is just
getting into using Windows at work.
Don
Michael,
My experience too, is that the Amiga in general is much "snappier". I do
lots of work in Windows at 1024 x 768 x 256 on my 486-33. Video
performance is usually OK but I often find screen refreshes taking 2 or
more seconds. My A3000 and even my old A1000 seem generally much faster
than that. Sure, I could get a video accelerator card, (and probably
will), but the point is, that right out of the box, my Amiga provides a
very responsive interface that I can match on the Intel box only with some
extra $$ and aggravation.
Bob Finger
Denny,
That may be, their main concern was running current applications
since there aren't very many OS/2 applications out there, nor are there
many developers flocking to it (yet).
Having never used OS/2, I have no personal experience to base the
factuality of the review. They stated they ran the performance tests on a
single machine that did have 8 Meg of RAM, and then they ran compatability
tests on various machines and those machines only had 4 Meg of RAM.
Don
Don:
DIdn't that articel also say that the those types of problems would
disappear with software written for OS/2, (ie: not dos or windows running
under OS/2)?
FWIW, where I sit (Wall St.) I'm seeing signs that OS/2 is becoming an
alternative to UNIX for "serious" distributed applications as it lets
companies stay on the same hardware migration path. My company
(OppenheimerFunds) is considering os2 as our DOS/Windows multitasking
vehicle and we're also evaluating some native os2 investment
applications.
I, for one, am a fan and, speaking only as a user, I'm pushing for it.
Your thoughts pretty much reflect what [little] I am hearing.
I'll second that for the D.C. area. I scanned the want ads in the Sunday
Washington Post to see what skills are currently 'hot' and was surprised
at the number of OS/2 programming jobs being advertized (especially for
client/server applications.)
Ed
Michael,
The article implied that many of the problems would go away with
software written specifically for OS/2, but it also pointed out that not
very many of those programs exist, nor are there very many software houses
currently working on OS/2 applications.
My impression from casual reading is that OS/2 isn't dead, but it's
on life support and may not make it through the night (so to speak).
WindowsNT, which is due in a few months (1qtr '93) may be the final
blow… either for or against OS/2. If NT is accepted as widely as 3.1,
OS/2 is DOA (IMHO), if NT isn't accepted, or is really bug-ridden…OS/2
may have a chance.
Don
Don:
You're right… I forgot that the article pointed out how few developers
were working on OS/2 s/w. If nothing else, it will be interesting to
see how things develop for PC's over the next few years… splintering of
operating systems and environments would have a ripple effect on the
entire industry, possibly making specialty s/w development more lucrative
(in the long run). If the 100 million installed pc user base is cut by a
third because of Operating System wars, the MAC and Amiga platforms might
actually begin to look more attractive for development. ??
Wouldn't that be exciting!
-Sean
Michael,
Even if cut 1/3, a 30 million installed base is more than likely
still more attractive than a 4 to 5 millioin installed base. <sigh>
Don
Of course it is… but it also fragments the market, to maybe 30 million
here, 30 million there (the majority of which are NOT the 'active'
computerists that we are) and then 5 million here, 8 million there. It
doesn't exactly level out the playing field… but just maybe it'll
improve it a bit.
Don, yeah…. WindowsNT is gonna be released RSN now, RRSN <rotfl>.
Um… When have you ever heard of Microsoft making a first release of ANY
of thier software products which WASN'T bug ridden? Or even the first
release of a major upgrade? It got to the point where it was a common
joke that a "X.0" version of a Microsoft product can be depended upon to
be bug ridden and that you need to wait for an "X.1" release before it's
any good; so much so that Microsoft started releasing versions like "X.0a"
and "X.0b" instead of "X.1" and "X.2" to look better. I've even seen
references to Windows NT as "Windows NT 3.1", which I presume is a sneaky
way of avoiding producing ANY NT "X.0" version.
Oh, and as I mentioned elsewhere, Microsoft's ads may say first quarter
93, but their press releases have slipped things to June 93, and I have
always predicted that they'll ship (not necessarily that anyone will get
it, just that they'll ship the boxes…) the last week of 93 just to be
able to say they made their planned release year… <g>
–>Steve Bennett
Well, that's all well and good if your primary use of OS/2 is to run
Windows products. There are bound to be a few glitches in that, which will
get fixed slowly. OS/2 runs DOS programs MUCH better than Windows 3.1, and
Windows NT is currently lucky to be able to run DOS programs at all. OS/2
runs OS/2 programs extremely well also, which isn't too surprising.
In my experiences with OS/2, with the exception of some problems using
the HPFS, which I only tried for testing a program out (HPFS ran just
fine… It was dual booting which went a bit wrong when HPFS was in use.
I'm not sure why, but it's not so much an OS/2 problem than a problem with
putting both HPFS and FAT partitions on the same disk…), OS/2 has been
*extremely* solid in comparison with both Windows 3.1 and Windows NT. I
have NEVER been able to crash an OS/2 system in it's entirety except when
trying to debug one of my own programs (a mouse driver, which the system
kind of needs to work right or else…) and the only programs which have
ever crashed individually are the occational Windows program (mostly those
written by Microsoft, interestingly…), and other programs I'm writing and
trying to debug.
I've never felt comfortable recommending Windows to ANY of my clients,
due to the extremely kludgy and unstable nature of the product. OS/2, on
the other hand, is a refreshingly stable program in comparison, and I
*would* recommend it to a client who needed features like that, over
Windows any day. And for anyone waiting for Windows NT, I'd also recommend
OS/2. With Windows NT not even going to be out for about a year (if then…
Given Microsoft's record, it may be 1994 before NT is out), and about
another year beyond that before it becomes stable enough for general use,
it's not even a contender at this point. –>Steve Bennett
Steve,
For what it's worth, Microsoft is now advertising that NT will be
available to end users in "..early 1993"
Now, you and I both know that ads are worth about the cost of the
paper to print them on….but I suspect that Microsoft really does intend
to get NT out the door during the 1st quarter. This ad was in the December
issue of PC/Computing.
I do agree, the first release may not be the most stable, but I
suspect based on casual reading that NT may well be the MS-DOS of the 90's.
It may not be the best OS, but it'll be the defacto standard.
Don
Why should WindowsNT be the defacto standard of the 90's? MS has already
backed down off of full support for Windows and DOS applications (it will
now support the 'most popular' Windows and DOS applications instead, would
you like to bet your companies current software investment on that?), it
will make OS/2's resource requirements look tame (12 to 16MB RAM minimum
for reasonable performance, as opposed to 6 to 8). Also, what will
WindowsNT offer that OS/2 doesn't (or won't have available by the time NT
is released.) It might just come down to which company are you more
comfortable doing business with, MS or IBM. A lot of journalist appear to
love MS more than Big Blue, but businesses seem to be a bit more
ambivalent with regard to them both.
Ed
Ed,
Simple…users are used to the name MicroSoft. Users are switching
to Windows in droves. More Windows software is now being sold than MS-DOS
software.
Yes, I suspect there'll be quite a few programs that break under
NT, but I'd presume they'll break under OS/2 also. So if the user switches
OS to either, they'll have to update the software to a compatible version
no matter what.
Businesses are not comfortable doing business with IBM any more.
They're tired of IBM's attitude, underpowered machines, and high prices.
Why do you think they've switched to clones? And what operating system and
software packages come with those clones? Right…MicroSoft software and
operating system.
Also, don't forget, those users also read the magazine articles
written by those writers who are so enamoured with Windows. And those same
users don't know much about computers from a technical end…so trust
magazine articles. And they also remember when they could buy IBM, or pay
half the price and get twice the machine from someone else.
The name "IBM" carries very little weight with the average user
these days.
Don
Don,
Windows is being shipped in large quantities, but how many of those
copies of Windows do you think are actually being used? It's almost
impossible to buy a PC today without getting Windows preinstalled on it,
but that doesn't mean the owner wants, likes, or is using it.
It would be surprising if Windows software sales weren't greater than
DOS sales, given the relative maturity and saturation of the DOS market.
If you want to run Windows software you almost alway have to go out and
buy a new package, if you want to run DOS software you've probably already
got it. You might want to upgrade it, but that is frequently done
directly with the vendor and doesn't show up in the retail sales rankings
published in PC Mag etc.
There are DOS and Windows programs that WILL break under NT that WILL
NOT break under OS/2; it has to do with NTs efforts to be certified for C2
security. They cannot allow programs to directly access hardware devices
within the system, and this is why MS has backed off of their earlier
claims of complete DOS and Windows compatability under NT.
Yes, IBM has an image as a big business bully; but MS is hardly viewed
as the kindly corner software company by many. As for underpowered, high
priced machines; so what, we're talking about an OS here, not the iron it
runs on.
The name "IBM" may carry very little weight with the average user these
days, but WindowsNT and OS/2 aren't really aimed at the average user right
now. How many "average users" are going to need (or have the hardware to
support) what NT and OS/2 have to offer. Most of them will probably
muddle along quit nicely with what they've got for several more years.
It's businesses setting up client/server databases etc. that will be the
potential market for MS and IBMs new toys in the near future. IF MS gets
a stable version of NT out in '93 it'll be an interesting contest, but if
not …
Ed
Ed,
Yes, you're right…no one needs real multi-tasking <grin>.
Seriously, yes, it's true, an awful lot of MS-DOS stuff is doing simple
tasks that would still run fine on an old XT with MS-DOS 3.0. There's no
need, push or desire for them to upgrade to anything. But there's an awful
lot who are finding out that integrated packages under Windows are
improving their productivity…and they want more.
As to why IBM's underpowered/high priced machines affect the
current view of OS/2…fairly simple. IBM has left a bad taste in the
mouths of lots of users and they flat won't deal with anything that has
IBM's name on it…hardware or software.
I honestly believe that OS/2 would have a much better chance at
success if it had someone else's name on it…almost anyone else's name.
Don
Ads are saying first Quarter. Articles are reporting that Microsoft has
slipped the shipping date till June. Based on prior experiences with
Microsoft, and the current state of the product, my guess is that around
March, Microsoft will slip the date to late summer/early fall. In the
summer it will change to "by the end of 1993". Odds are it will be
released the last week in 1993 to make that deadline.
Windows NT is really horribly incomplete at this point. It looks complete
on the surface, but lots of features are missing still, the DOS emulation
is nearly useless, the Windows 3.1 emulation only slightly better. It
looks complete and solid at first glance, but play with it for a few hours
and it really shows how far it has to go. (And despite what Microsoft
calls it, NT is still in Alpha test, not Beta. It is, admittedly, one of
the largest Alpha tests I've ever seen…)
Microsoft themselves don't really expect NT to be an MS DOS replacement.
Their own PR has it aimed at a mid to high range Workstation market, with
most users sticking with normal Windows 3.1, or Windows 3.1 with Win 32 on
top. If Windows NT becomes the defacto standard, it will be only due to
massive marketing by Microsoft and a lot of willful blindness on the part
of the public, and even then it will still take the 5 years (or more) to
happen.
If you want a good example of why I feel that way, take a look at the
history of OS/2. Not only did the press and Microsoft and IBM hail it as
the "replacement for MS DOS", they did so in the absence of any OTHER
possible competition at the time, and it still hasn't done the job. It
took OS/2 5 years just to become a reasonably stable OS. NT is a much
larger monster and thus probably will take longer to become stable.
Frankly, I could do without either. I've got AmigaDOS, after all…
grin>
–>Steve Bennett
Steve,
I agree…it's going to take quite a while to drop MS-DOS to a "has
been" status. If nothing else, there's nothing urgent about moving from
MS-DOS to anything else (for those currently using MS-DOS of course).
It'll only be as they decide they need new features or better software that
they'll move to something new. For right now, that's Windows. And since
Windows 3.1 is so new (relatively) it'll take a while before the move to it
settles down. That's why I say IF NT can run Windows 3.1 programs better
than 3.1 can, it'll be in good shape. If it can't run 3.1 programs…then
MicroSoft has just wasted a lot of time, effort and money.
As to when MS will really release NT…no idea. I'm certainly not
a big fan of Intel machines…I just use them because I have to at work,
but all things considered, I believe that MicroSoft is going to lose
support if it doesn't get NT out within the first 6 months of '93. And by
"out", I mean a relatively stable version…no a bug ridden beta version.
IF they don't, lots of people will realize that the ads now are
simply a ploy to get people to not look at OS/2. And that's going to make
them wonder what's so good about OS/2 that MS is so afraid of it they're
willing to advertise a product as being available in a month or two…when
the truth is closer to a year. In particular, magazine writers may rethink
their positions.
Don
I am a complete ninny about all this, but your discussion of NT prompts me
to ask some questions, please. First, is NT a GUI shell for some viral
strain of Unix as someone tried to tell me? second, if IBM and Apple are
already announcing to switch to a new Motorola mpu chip will NT be able to
follow them to it? I even hear CBM might look at it. Wouldn't that be a
sight to greet a king, everyone on the same hardware, and then what would
be the selling difference? Does NT have anything new we can't get
elsewhere, and if not why the hoopla?
NT is basically a new 32 bit multitasking OS using Windows as it's primary
(but not necessarily ONLY) user interface. It's supposedly being written
in a portable fashion so that it can easily be ported to other
architectures, with it's primary emphasis (at this point) at the ACE
(R4000 based) architecture, and secondarily at the Intel and DEC Alpha
architectures at this point. (It is definately running better on the
R4000 at this time, but this may change before release…)
NT is NOT a UNIX shell, although it does nearly everything UNIX does, not
necessarily better. Nor does NT sit on top of DOS like Windows 3.1. It's
a self contained OS and GUI.
NT could, in theory, be ported to the Power PC architecture (the one IBM &
Apple are working towards) but it seems unlikely to me, considering they'd
be going up against IBM & Apple's OS entry into the arena, which would be
much better optomised for the environment. NT would probably look
painfully slow and resource intensive in comparison, so IMHO they'll avoid
it and try to convince everyone that Power PC is a doomed environment.
I doubt you'll see NT on a 68K architecture at all for that matter.
Nearly all the machines with that architecture already have an OS with
them, and nearly all of those OSes can run rings around NT in their
environment, so they're probably also doomed by Microsoft
pronouncement…
Does NT have anything new? Not really. Nearly everything it offers is
done somewhere else, in most cases better. NT just throws everything in
and mixes. The hoopla, as you put it, is primarily due to two things: A
lot of Microsoft worship going on in the press by people who think Windows
3.1 is a wonderful OS (hah!), and a lot of Microsoft money being spread
about. I'd worry more about it when it gets released. Which won't be for
quite a while yet, IMHO.
–>Steve Bennett
Tom,
What Steve said is true. NT is a complete operating system in and
of itself. It is not UNIX, does not run on top of DOS and most definately
is not a GUI shell.
I think part of the problem with what is what, is that terminology
in computers has changed from their original meanings. 'DOS' stands for
Disk Operating System. It's how the system reads/writes and creates files
and how the user accesses those files. 'OS' means operating system…it's
what makes the hardware work. DOS works with the OS to do the actual
reading and writing of files. Once a file has been read from the disk, the
OS takes over and it's what "runs" the program. OVer the years, those two
separate ideas have merged (at least in people's minds) into a single
entitiy. Even though they are inter-related, they aren't the same thing.
Thus, we have MS-DOS meaning the whole sheebang, just as we call the system
software set for our machines, 'AmigaDOS'.
Windows 3.1 is not a true operating system, just as the Amiga's
Workbench is not a true operating system. Exec is the operating system on
the Amiga and Workbench runs under Exec. MS-DOS (a misnomer) is the
operating system on IBM type machines and Windows 3.1 runs ontop of it.
Windows NT is a true operating system that includes a GUI as part
of the package. It does not require MS-DOS for NT to work but it's
designed so that programs that were written for MS-DOS can work under NT.
In essence, MS-DOS was written into NT so it'd be compatible.
And none of the above has anything to do with UNIX although many of
the features of UNIX are included in them.
Don
Don't forget that there is now a major update to OS/2 which may fix all
those problems….
The thing is that win 3.1 provides most of the multitasking I need… so
why hassel with OS/2 at all.. takes more space, more ram, and until os/2
software is avaiable there is just no big benefit… Nothing worth the
hassel anyways…
Joe Flanagan
A&a Printers