


                           Windows 95 and OS/2 Warp
                         Copyright 1995 by Herb Chong

 Windows 95 is now finally with us.  Those who planned to upgrade to the
 newest Windows have done so. Those who wanted to wait and see are waiting
 and seeing some more. Those still using OS/2 are either gloating at the
 problems people are having with their Windows 95 upgrades or wondering
 why they havent made the leap over to Windows.  Somehow, the grass
 always looks greener on the other side, but not green enough.  The press
 argues once more about the relative merits of Windows 95 and OS/2 and how
 they perform.

 Just what is it about the operating systems wars that make it natural to
 mention Windows 95 and OS/2 together in the same breath seem so natural?
 If you believe some of the articles in the press and some of the press
 releases from Microsoft and IBM, Windows and OS/2 are locked into a
 battle to the death for control of the PC desktop. This might be true in
 the minds of some, but frankly there is more imagination in this way of
 thinking than fact.

 Windows in general, Windows 95 in particular, and OS/2, are designed for
 two different sets of users, for which there is very little overlap. This
 doesnt stop Microsoft and IBM from marketing and selling their products
 to the others sets of users, but so far it's been mostly a futile
 exercise for both. The only warring there is to speak of is over the
 small group of users who sit in the middle ground where both Windows and
 OS/2 might be an equally good solution for them. This group is much
 smaller than people like to admit.

 Let's look at Windows 95 first. Just what is Windows 95, aside from lots
 of advertising dollars and marketing hype? What is it and what is it
 designed to do? Way back in April of 94, Microsoft released some-thing
 called the Chicago Reviewers Guide. In it, there are four points that
 form the basis for much of how Windows 95 is designed:

 *  Compatibility with existing DOS-based and Windows-based applications
 *  Compatibility with existing hardware
 *  Performance equal or better than of Windows 3.1
 *  Safe, hassle-free upgrade and migration

 Given that these are the guiding principles, one can deduce several
 things about the target market.

 *  It's very price sensitive because of the compatibility requirements.
 *  It's geared toward people who dont write their own applications.
 *  It's skewed toward people who dont have a major investment in hardware
 *  It's written for people who are not computer experts and/or dont have an
    expert support staff.

 In a short, its the consumer and SOHO market!

 How does OS/2 fare on these design points? Its compatible with many, but
 not a large majority of DOS-based and Windows-based applications.  Most
 run fine, some run fitfully, and some not at all. OS/2 is fussy about the
 hardware it runs on and generally wont work except on well-known or very
 generic hardware. It demands higher compatibility and supports less
 variety of systems. Under most conditions, running Windows programs in
 OS/2 are slower than in native Windows with adequate hardware resources
 and downright abysmal in minimal configuration. Its meant to be a
 migration tool so that users can run the Windows applications they still
 need while moving over to running native OS/2 applications. The install
 and upgrade process for OS/2 Warp is more cantankerous than Windows and
 requires much more technical expertise if something goes wrong.

 The people OS/2 is targeted for are the people who are not very price
 sensitive because they are willing to buy compatible hardware to make it
 work well. They are willing to write their own applications because there
 are few to choose from. Also, they are either computer experts or have a
 staff of experts on hand to solve their problems. This is medium and big
 business.

 Although it's hard now to find something documenting OS/2's original
 design goals, one can infer some of them from reading the IBMs press
 releases and looking at its design to see what they ended up with.
 Making these into four points, just to match Microsoft's guidelines for
 Windows 95, we have:

 Integrate into the enterprise computing environment
 Provide migration environment for Windows users
 Provide a protected environment for supporting mission critical computing
 applications Provide a multitasking, multithreading, environment for
 client/server applications

 IBM today essentially still owns the enterprise computing environ-ment.
 For better or for worse, if anyone enters the enterprise computing
 market, they have to talk to IBM hardware and IBM software.  OS/2 still
 provides, for desktop operating systems, the most complete and up-to-date
 support of mainframe and enterprise connectivity. Enough of the major
 Windows applications run on it to make it a useful migration or
 compatibility environment for corporations to write their in-house
 client/server and mission critical applications for OS/2 while still
 letting them run their Windows productivity applications. For the moment,
 OS/2's protection is still better than Windows 95's. Corporations care a
 lot more about that than individuals do.

 How does Windows 95 measure up against these criteria? Although Windows
 95 provides several LAN support options, it really doesnt support many
 of the other protocols needed to talk to IBM mainframes without
 connecting to a helping server. Its migration environment is much better
 in that it is Windows. For many corporations, the protection that Windows
 95 gives to applications is inadequate. An errant application needs to do
 less to bring down the system, or worse yet, corrupt data without being
 detected. Finally, because of the Win16 code still remaining in the
 kernel, Windows 95 cant multitask as well as it needs to so as to
 prevent lockouts caused by badly coded or designed applications.

 Windows 95 and OS/2 are both designed to do different things well, and
 they do. People who really need to spend time deciding whether to use
 Windows 95 or OS/2 are people for whom all eight design principles are
 important. For most people, it is immediately obvious that one set of
 four are more important than the other set.  Marketing people who try to
 sell their product to the other set of users face an uphill battle
 because they have to both convince them that the opposite four design
 principles are not as important and also that their own set of design
 principles are more important. It's no surprise that OS/2 has had a
 limited penetration into the home market and that Windows 95, within the
 corporation, has a role mostly outside that of enterprise computing.  It
 makes no sense to say they battled over the PC desktop because they each
 were designed for different, and dissimilar, segments of it.  Its like
 comparing a pickup truck with a sports car. They both have four wheels
 and an engine, ut you would never use a sports car for fixing fences on
 the range, and you wouldnt use a pickup truck in the Daytona 500.

 Herb Chong is the Contributing Editor of WindoWatch.  His reputation as a
 careful and knowledgeable programmer carries over to his lucid written
 presentations. Herb has been a contributing writer for both Windows Sources
 as well as the Cobb Group's Inside Microsoft Windows.


                                   ww

