From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Hard future for OS/2 2.0 ....
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:59:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.020420.20953@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>In article <716296545snx@feki.toppoint.de>,
>marten@feki.toppoint.de (Marten Feldtmann) writes:
>>
>> -- OS/2 2.0  not clear, what the long-term strategy of IBM is ..
>
>It's just as clear as anybosy elses strategy is!  And, because we
>know that IBM doesn't just throw around ideas and FUD, we can
>believe what they say a little more.  Come on, they stuck with the
>original incarnations of OS/1 1.x didn't they?

This is about the funniest thing I've EVER heard about IBM.  Anyone from the
early seventies around hear?  Do you remember the fear and uncertainty that
"It's a Big Mutha" tried to spread regarding the microcomputer?  Or the
FUD they tried to spread about clone support in the eighties?  P-uh-lease
don't tell me that IBM doesn't "throw around ideas and FUD."

Back in the seventies, second and third party vendors would snidely point
out that IBM tended to blaze a path, point the way--and then vanish while the
masses plunged over the cliff hidden around the corner.  Look at what
they *tried* to do with Microchannel--it wasn't until they noticed that the
public wasn't buying it that they decided to say "oh, well, we'll support
ISA again."

Sure, this was all in the "old days" when IBM had a mainframe mentality. And
now they are reorganizing... but NOBODY is certain what this will mean.

>>
>> -- OS/2 2.0  not clear, if OS/2 is suitable for server stations
>
>Sorry, can't comment on that one.  Except that I've seen OS/2 on
>some of the university computers which were linked up to other
>computers, presumably sharing programs... (is this a server?)

OS/2 is not... unless you want to spend money: there are no cheap server
solutions for OS/2--yet.  I've hear that Artisoft will develop an OS/2
version of Lantastic...

>>
>>
>>  They say, that Windows 3.1 has won the battle against OS/2 2.0 in the
>>market of the desktop user (= end user). For other things like network
>>or server purposes they are all waiting for Windows NT or are still
>>looking for a suitable UNIX-version ....
>>
>>  Some are predicting, that 1994 the market of server-OS is shared by
>>Netware, NT and UNIX and no one will see OS/2 there.
>
>Yep, *some* are predicting this. *Some* were predicting that the
>Timex Sinclair would make a big dip in the market, too.

Funny though--most of the bulk magazines call NT the "unix" Killer (even though
it hasn't been officially released yet!).  Sounds like Microsoft is calling
in some of its markers--but nonetheless, NT seems to have just as much billing
as OS/2 2.0--even though it's Not There.

And as Windows 3.1 proves--it's not the content that sells, it's the packaging.

>>
>> If you are a  customer today it seems to be clear: Windows 3.1 is
>>working, has multimedia in it, has lot's of beautiful application
>>(Lotus, AmiPro, Excel, Word, Freelance ............) and it's cheaper
>>than OS/2 2.0.
>
>OS/2 doesn't have multi-media in the base package, can't argue that.
>It runs most (99%) of the DOS apps that use multi media, though, and
>run's the windows apps which came with my soundblaster.  All I'm
>missing is the cheesy little horns when I start my computer.  I can
>live with it.
>  Also, Lotus is porting all of there programs to OS/2 (including
>123, Amipro, and Frelance).  Older versions of Word for PM and Excel
>can also be bought.  These are native OS/2 apps (though for 1.x).
>Luckily OS/2 runs *ALL* programs which were written for 1.x!

The CSD will fix the Windows multimedia problem.  I feel that when the CSD
becomes available (whenever "Fall" means), and the video makers get on the
ball--a lot of my heartache about OS/2 will go away.  But it may be prudent
to see what NT does.  After all, work is still being done with Windows 3.1.


Just my opinions...
-> joe <-

From: slack@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (David Slack)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:38:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID