🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dr. Joseph C. Coughlan" <jcoughlan@gaia.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>William Taylor wrote:
>> 
>> In article <dke-2303960719590001@adnline15.adnc.com> David K. Every,
>> dke@adnc.com writes:
>> >Sadly NT is doing a better job of creating a good enough design for doing
>> >engineering and data acquisition, serving, etc... and has a better unified
>> >interface... and feels more consistant from variant to variant... AND has
>> >a marketing behemoth behind it. 
>
>This is completely WRONG.  NT's a poor chocie for Engineering and I know
>first hand that OS/2 is replacing DOS/WFWG as an Engineeing platform for
>data aquisition.
>

For someone who has never used NT, your still running at the mouth eh.  NT 
is an excellent platform for engineering as it's advanced graphics API 
capabilities make it ideal for modelling and design.  Data aquisition?  
Like National Instruments?  They've done a lot with NT over the last 
couple of years.  Labview has been running strong under NT for quite a 
while now.  

>NT cannot be run without the UI while OS/2 can be run in character mode.
>OS/2 is a far lighter and easier to embed OS.  (That's why OS/2 is used 
>for ATMs and in stores for mmedia terminals).  
>

Most engineers are into graphics now-a-days.  It's a makes it easier to 
design.  

>OS/2 runs on laptops with less power drain than NT!!!!
>This is hugely critical to us scientist and engineers!!
>

You didn't test this.  This is heresay at best though there are no auto 
shut down features under NT as there is under Win95.  Most laptops will do 
this anyway.  I don't doubt what you say about this, but it's coming from 
the wrong person as I seriously doubt you have any experience in this.    

>For instrumentation, OS/2 can replace 3 DOS laptops with 
>one premeptively multitasking OS/2 laptop.  It's better than 
>legacy systems based on DOS and is fully functional in 4 MB of RAM.
>

This is fantasy island stuff at best by the way.  

>The US Govt's research labs have adoped OS/2 and have freeware 
>OS/2 software to allow for the use of OS/2 in the field for 
>monitoring instruments.
>

Some do and some don't.  You don't speak for the entire organization, just 
a small faction.  

>Locally NASA's got some researchers doing AI embedding and the
>OS they run is OS/2.  NT's horribly suited for this and WIn95 was
>tried and dropped because it's not a robust multi-tasking OS.
>

LOCALLY.  This is not the entire NASA organization (nor vindicative of 
it) by ANY means of the word.  

>
>NT's good for people who want a MS based OS running MS's software and 
>standards.  If you add one non-MS OS you have problems.  For this reason
>I think the predicted NT revolution will never happen.  The world is
>too diverse in computing needs and thus any system that requires 3rd
>party support to integrate will be deselected by market forces.
> 

Huh?  If you add one non-MS OS you have problems?  Problems with what?  
You must have meant non-MS software.  In any case, it sounds quite 
unsubstantiated.  

>When you pay WORKSTATION PRICE you can get good quality however as
>we advance in our comptuing power our needs advance just as fast.
>Today's PC is still too weak to replace a workstation and will never
>keep pace with the quality and performance a workstation user needs.
>I agree with you.
>
>I'd be glad to compete with any NT user using my OS/2 and UNIX  
>systems. 

Compete?  As in how?  Let's hear more.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Edmond Underwood
E-mail:  underwoe@Colorado.Edu
Bench32 1.10 final beta for Windows NT
Bench32 1.07b for Windows 95
http://www.rmii.com/~underwoe/bench32.html.