From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 a dead end?
Organization: University of Utah Computer Science
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 05:38:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.225130.7492@gw.wmich.edu> 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>In article <C1FoqA.GvD@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel) writes:
>>>:  o it has fewer users than the Amiga
>> 
>>>How many people bought Amiga in the first year?
>> 
>> The Amiga's rate of sales increased over time; OS/2's is decreasing.
>
>	Where did you get this statistic?  OS/2 sales at retail are
>decreasing, OS/2 shipments via OEM are increasing.  Overall OS/2
>shipments are increasing.  The Amiga is not a market that is increasing.
>This year will probably see an increase in Amiga sales but 1985 to 1992
>saw the Amiga losing ground not gaining ground.

Were did you get your statistic?  Sorry, but IBM's numbers do not show
OS/2 sales rates as increasing.

	Sales Rate:
	Apr-Jul:	1 million / 4 = 250,000 per month
	Aug-Oct:	.5 million / 3 = 167,000 per month
	Nov-Dec:	.5 / 2 = 250,000 per month.

If you consider that the later you get in the year, the more of OS/2 sales
would be from bundling, then it's not totally unreasonable to say that
it is decreasing, but I think the fairest classification is that the
sales rate is flat.
>
>> 
>>>:  o there are essentialy no native applications for it (I know people are  
>>>claiming
>>>:    a thousand applications exist, but when I walk into CompUSA or Egghead, I
>>>:    don't see any...)
>> 
>>>You don't need OS/2 applications to take advantage of OS/2.  I'm not forced to  
>>>buy OS/2 applications until I'm ready.  And plenty of choices on the horizon.   
>> If there are no apps for it, but just the ability to run what people can
>> already run without it, why would anyone see a reason to move to it. Only the
>> technical types and those who really need OS/2 for something specific would
>> see a reason to buy an OS that has some technical advantages over Windows,
>> namely improved multitasking.
>> 
>>>How long did it take to get native Windows apps from anyone except MicroSoft?
>> 
>> Much less than nine months. And We are still building on those nine months.
>> Lots of vendors were behind Windows before it came out, and soon after, they
>> were flocking to it in large numbers.
>> OS/2, by contrast, has nothing but shareware utilities going for it.
>> 
>
>	I don't think you used Windows in the "early" days of 3.0.  
>I had no specific 3.0 apps available to me until spring of 1991, a year
>after Windows 3.0 was released.  You can't count the 2.11 apps of Windows
>for Windows 3.0 since no one lets OS/2 advocates claim OS/2 1.x apps.
>The apps really started to roll out in 1992.  Word Perfect, Lotus,
>Ami Pro, etc.  All came to their prime in 1992 -- 2 years after Windows
>3.0 was released.  There is still no real datebase for Windows (access
>maybe which was just released).  

From a post I made some months ago detailing the history of the
MS-IBM split.
	[Byte; October 1990; all]
	This issue is filled with ads for Windows products.  I
	had gotten the impression from c.o.o.a that Windows did
	not have a big app base at first, but this is clearly
	not the case, a quick skim revealed at least a dozen
	so I'm sure a thorough search would find at least two dozen.
	Considering that ads probably have a two months lead time
	to get in Byte, this is an impressive number.

Windows 3.0 shipped in June of 1990.  Bytes following this one have ever
increasing numbers of Windows apps, so I cannot agree with you that Windows
3.0 apps did not exist from the start.  In fact, within 6 months of its
release I would even call the app selection good.

>
>>>:  o IBM has never had a successful PC software product
>> 
>> 
>> What? OS/2 is probably the biggest bust of all time in the computer industry,
>> or at least the OS industry. Remember that CP/M is only dead today. OS/2 never
>> got anywhere from the very beginning.)
>> IBM will never make a net profit on OS/2, unless it somehow replaces DOS.
>> (100 million users? I really doubt it).
>
>	That is quite an exageration.  Office Vision certainly comes
>to mind as one of the biggest busts.  How can you claim an OS that
>ships 2 million in 9 months a bust?  That is simply ridiculous.  I am
>not speaking as some idle advocate, our computer systems ship out with
>OS/2 now primarily because it is a LOT easier to use.  When 2.1 comes out
>we will be putting OS/2 on virtually all our systems (only a third go out
>with OS/2 now).  I won't argue the ease of use debate, facts speak for
>themselves and unless any of you deal with a computer company's tech
>support stats then don't even bother to speak about it.  We get less
>calls about OS/2 than we do about Windows and we push OS/2 to novice users
>(granted, we install it for them).

I'll agree with you on OS/2 not being a bust, Windows 3.0 shipped over
3 million copies it's first year.  If OS/2 sales continue to be flat,
then it should sell about 2.75  million copies in its first year.
Though in truth the industry has changed considerably since 1990 (the
user base is larger and Windows had no real PC-based competition), so I
think OS/2 would need to sell 4-5 million to be in the same category of
success as what Windows 3.0 was.  Nonetheless it clearly rates as very
good in terms of sales.  Unfortunately it must acquire an app base
before that success can be considered long term.  Microsoft had done
their advance work well and had the ISV's lined up to deliver the apps
for Windows 3.0.  IBM seems not to have done any advance work for OS/2
2.0, and now with near perfect Windows 3.1 (if not better than 3.1)
support on the horizon, I'm not really convinced it will ever get an
app base.  (A lot will depend on whether or not it really takes 12-18
months for Microsoft to release Chicago.)

>
>
>> 
>>>tried, they quickly realized where their talent lies.  Has MS ever had a  
>>>successful multi-tasking operating system (Xenix?, OS/2 1.x?)?  MVS and AIX are  
>>>:  o IBM is also committed to another operating system, based on "Pink",
>>>:    that seems to fill the same role as OS/2
>> 
>>>You need to read some of IBM's announcements.
>> 
>> The original comment is echoed by many others in the industry. No one cares
>> what IBM is claiming.
>> 
>>>CP/M was around for quite a while after DOS was introduced.  In fact you can  
>>>still find it. Windows isn't dead or even dying, but OS/2 is real competition.
>> 
>> OS/2 is a non-issue as far as most people are concerned. You know that.
>> 
>>>I'll take a piece of the OS/2 niche!
>> 
>> The point is that not many people will.
>
>	Again, I was a niche user when I first went to Windows 3.0.  
>I was really a niche user when I used Windows 2.11 for quite a few things.
>Yet, we all agree that Windows is a mainstream environment now.  What
>is there to stop OS/2 from eventually replace Windows?  NT?  Not likely.
>Windows 4.0 (in my opinion) is going to have to be BETTER than OS/2 if
>Windows/DOs is going to continue to be the primary GUI environment.

What makes you think OS/2 can compete with Windows 3.1, let alone
Windows 3.1/Windows for Workgroups/Windows NT/Chicago (Windows 4.0)?
The app base and public perception are clearly with the Windows camp.
You've got IBM marketing competing with Microsoft !!!___MARKETING___!!!!
Microsoft products are quite popular and not available under OS/2.

I can see a possible argument that OS/2 might acquire and hold a significant
market share, but what possible reason do you have to believe that OS/2
will become dominant?

You see I think you miss an important point.  When IBM and Microsoft
split, Microsoft was stuck without the middle piece of their OS plan
(that was going to be OS/2 2.0).  Likewise IBM was left without a
high-end portable OS (that was going to be OS/2 3.0 -- now know as
Windows NT).  Given the success that Microsoft has had in getting ISVs
to commit to NT, IBM is incredibly lucky that Microsoft does not have that
middle piece or OS/2 2.0 would have been blown away.
As it stands, Chicago gets closer everyday, OS/2's desktop app base however
remains small, and there are few signs of significant growth in the near term.
If the OS doesn't have native apps, then the users aren't locked in.
Microsoft has a huge piece of the low-end and shows every sign of walking
away with a big piece of the high-end, thus I don't see Microsoft
leaving the OS realm anytime soon. Further the set of users that fall
in the hole between 3.1 and NT is really not all that big.

The question is can IBM lock-in the middle before Microsoft takes it
for themselves. Even if IBM does accomplish this, they are far from dominance.

In the end I have to agree with the original poster that OS/2 2.0 is likely
to end up a niche OS.

>Brad Wardell

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                  Windows, WfW, Windows NT and some OS/2 2.0
University of Utah                 information available via anonymous ftp to
Center for Software Science        easy.cs.utah.edu. Also all my Tidbits posts.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373     Windows NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy