From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: What and how I'd like to see c.o.o.a advocate.
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:59:18 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug21.001913.9550@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>WHERE MICROSOFT WINS
>Microsoft has the low-end market sewn up... why try to fight it?

There's a wonderful attitude.  With that in mind, we should be still
using Apple ]['s running VisiCalc.  They had the market sewn up, too.
Until the PC and Lotus 1-2-3 came along.

>Any 386SX machine with small memory, small disk runs Windows just fine,
>but OS/2's better features make it too fat to run there.

Most Windows apps I've used (like Word, Excel, Harvard Graphics, etc.)
need a lot more than any 386sx machine with small memory and small
disk.  Once you expand the computer to handle the software (8MB of
memory and a big disk), you've got a decent OS/2 platform.  Your
platform is only adequate for running older application or the
supplied applets.

>NT is clearly designed at the low-end workstation level.  Basically
>any 386-33Mhz with 12 or 16 megs of memory and higher is prime NT territory,
>especially if that machine is on a network acting as a server.
>OS/2 is missing a huge number of features in the area of networking.

No.  You add the LAN server package to get all of those features.

>It also does not have security or symmetric multiprocessing.

It has security.  And I know of no PC-compatible machine with hardware
support for symmetric multiprocessing, so it's not an issue now.  When
the hardware becomes available, I don't doubt that IBM will have
updates available for those users who need it.

>WHERE OS/2 WINS
>A closer look at OS/2 shows that it is quite good at the level
>of the middle-range desktop.  People that know enough to purchase
>machines through mail-order probably have a machine, that with
>a little more memory runs OS/2 well.  Corporate "power-users" --
>those that do huge spread sheets while downloading information
>from an online service also have this class of machine.
>Unfortunately IBM seems to have decided to do everything as wrong as
>possible in meeting the needs of such a user.

I don't know.  The corporate power user probably has a network.  There
is security across a LAN.  And lots of it.  IBM has never had a
problem servicing the corporate users.  That's their specialty.

>ATTRACTING USERS
>All high resolution video cards MUST be supported fully.  A user
>that needs OS/2 knows about high resolution, probably has high resolution,
>and will be quite annoyed AT OS/2 if it's not working.  That user
>does not care WHO should write the driver, only that it's there and
>is easily installable.

Yes.  That will happen in time.  I expect them in the fall.  IBM
should distribute what is currently available in shareware with it.
Of course, nothing was available at the time GA went "in the can".
IBM does believe in distributing third-party drivers, though - that's
why there are five disks of printer drivers - the printer
manufacturers got on the ball and wrote the drivers in time.

>While C2 security might not be necessary, the concept of logons should
>be introduced ASAP in OS/2.  There are two reasons... in a corporate
>environment the extra security would be appreciated (even if
>the logon doesn't affect in any way file ownership), and many
>users, especially home users SHARE a machine. Having the use "logon"
>allows multiple desktop configurations, which means I don't have
>to agree with my spouse/child's taste in screen decoration or folder
>setup.

Again.  It's a great idea.  It can be done with applications software,
right now.  If you don't want file ownership, no OS modifications are
necessary.  IBM should sell their HPFS/386 as a separate product and
not only include it with the LAN server.  It has the logins and
security you ask for.  The multiple configurations would take some
work, but wouldn't require too much changes - run WPS as an
application.  When you do a logoff, terminate it.  When you do a
logon, swap the OS2.INI files (and maybe the desktop folder) for a
backup copy (corresponding to the login account) and reload WPS -
bingo!  new desktop.

>Multimedia support should be a part of the base package.  OS/2 is the only
>modern system I can think of that tries to charge for it's multimedia.

I'll agree stongly here.  What I don't know is this:  Are the MM dll
files distributable with MM products?  If so, it's not as much of an
issue.  Remember, that's how MS added MM to Windows 3.0 - they sold
"extensions" as a developer's kit, and products could be shipped with
the run-time parts of the extensions.

>This rules out all hope of having low-end multimedia packages for OS/2.
>Users of the class most suited for OS/2 either want, or will want
>multimedia, but not for $149.

I thought you classified OS/2 users as users of medium-to-high end
systems  They may be willing to pay for the extensions, but you're
right, it's a serious problem.

>As things stand developers won't
>develop the low-end packages, and Microsoft will get around
>to that mid-range version of Windows and OS/2 will die the death
>an unresponsive-IBM deserves.

Because of MultiMedia?  It takes more than sound effects to make a
good OS.  And it takes more than lack of sound effects to break one.

>Stability, speed, ease of use: For a company that prides itself on
>such matters IBM has done a pitiful job with OS/2.  The Work Place Shell is
>slow and buggy -- Drive folders especially. Windows emulation is
>slow -- when you don't have native apps how can you attract users
>if things are slow.  In general OS/2 2.0 has been very sloppy
>in terms of quality.  Too many quirks.  It's also clear that
>no "real" users were sat down in front of WPS and feedback obtained.
>WPS is good, but very rough.

It's a great design, but it was pushed out the door in order to meet
the much-published deadline.  It would have been much worse for IBM if
they slipped the release date.  I'll be very upset if these things
aren't fixed in the update pack, since they claim it will fix these
bugs, and there is no release date other than "fall" for these patches.

>IBM needs to develop a mass-market mind set.

Yes.  Definitely.

>Reasonably priced peer-to-peer networking.  Small networks, even
>at home are fast becoming the norm for an OS/2-class user.

I don't know about the home user.  But small companies definitely
want these features.  Right now, client-server is the only thing
provided.

>IBM Direct could have a bundle of 2 software sets and 2 ethernet
>cards like Novell does with NetWare Lite. 

If nobody sues them for unfair competition, it would be a great idea.

>Improve the clone support.  OS/2 has done fairly well here, but
>needs to go further still.  Advertise the fact!  If PS/2's can't
>compete in their own right, then they should die the death
>they deserve.

That's why IBM has dropped the price on many PS/2 systems.  But yes,
they should push it for the clones more.

>EITHER DROP OS/2 3.0 OR MAKE IT A SEPARATE PRODUCT
>It will be impossible to make a symmetric multiprocessing, network
>server OS that runs well on a current medium-scale machine.  This is not
>currently a strong point of OS/2.  Why not fix and properly market
>OS/2 in the market it is sized for?  If IBM wants to compete
>with NT then do so with AIX... it is currently much better suited to task.

What do you consider medium?  386's?  The multiprocessing and
portability will be based on the Mach MicroKernel (the last I heard).
This already runs on the 386 platform.  Why shouldn't IBM exploit that
end?  AIX will also run on top of Mach at that point.  Why not
continue to sell both products for both platforms (AIX/386 exists).

Also note that OS/2 3.0 is a "future goal".  There is no release date
or anything else about it other than some nice ideas.  It's kind of
hard for a company to drop a product that doesn't even exist.

>As currently designed, OS/2 is much more suited to being a personal
>operating system.  Why not capitalize on that as a feature.

They are.  But you just criticized it for not having networking.  What
do you want them to do?

>FINALLY
>IBM should make a multi-tiered plan that says what's for the low, medium,
>and high-end, and quit confusing everybody about whether and how Taligent,
>OS/2, and AIX fit together.

They have done that for a long time:

PC-DOS for the bottom-end PC's.
OS/2 for the 386 based systems and better Intel platforms
AIX for the workstations (read: RS-6000)
OS/400 for their AS/400 minis
MVS or VM for their ES-9000 mainframes

All can talk to each other very nicely using SNA networking, which all
IBM operating systems can make use of.  Taligent isn't fitting into
anyone's plan for today - it's another future product.

>Also, get some real marketing people... IBM should be embarrassed
>at the poor marketing that has been done for OS/2.

They're used to marketing to Fortune-500 MIS people.  They'll learn.
I wonder how they're doing with the Fortune-500 companies...

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.