Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: <None>
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:41:05 MST
 <1992Oct11.203439.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> <1992Oct12.153909.634@grebyn.com>
Distribution: na,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <1992Oct12.153909.634@grebyn.com>, mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.203439.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>>As an app user, not a programmer, I'm happy to say that most of these
>>contortions are hidden from the user, so no big deal.  I really don't
>>know how Paradox 4.0 for DOS uses protected mode to run in, but I do
>>know that it runs quite fast.  Same thing for writing the original
>>Lotus 1-2-3 in assembly code: it doesn't hinder me from doing my work,
>>although it was undoubtedly a bear for the programmers.
>
> Well, they are a big deal to some extent, even to the user.  If it takes
> a programmer more work to create something, then he or she has to
> charge more for it in the end, right?  Thus a programmer-friendly OS
> would tend to produce cheaper software, all other things being equal.
> Of course, all other things are not equal.  Unix software is expensive,
> even though developers tend to like Unix as a platform, because the
> market is small, and vendors have to have larger margins to make up for
> smaller volumes.  Anyway, what the programmers like does have an effect
> on the end user, is what I'm trying to say.

I doubt very seriously that programmer-friendly OSes (ones with good
programming environments) ever really produce cheaper software.  As I see
it, pricing decisions are all marketing.  This was true back in the
days of Atari 2600 game cartridges, and it's true right up to the $69
beta for Windows NT (compare it to the $2600 OS/2 SDK).

A programmer might like programming with threads under a preemptive OS
like OS/2 better than tricky coding for non-preemptive Win 3.x, but I see
some of the outrageous prices of 32-bit OS/2 apps in SJB's list, and I
wonder if "ease for the programmer => benefits to the user" holds.

The programmers right now are holding their noses and writing cheap
Win apps.  Or they're coding protected mode and XMS support into
their DBMS apps.  Or they're (shudder) writing TSRs.  Or they're
doing a million other time-wasting end runs around DOS/Win limitations
because their market demands it.

>>Now, we were talking about compatibility, right?  Let me see if I can
>>sort out the issues here.  Additions/corrections welcome.
>>
>>1) OS/2s near-perfect DOS and Windows compatibility:
>>
>>Possible Advantages:
>>	Little or no software replacement needed.
>>	Use of virtual machine means program crashes don't kill the OS.
>>
>>Possible Disadvantages:
>>	Adds to base OS's code size/memory requirements.
>>	Always having to play catch-up (eg., flap over Win 3.1 CSD).
>>	Little incentive to build 32-bit OS/2 apps.
>>
> This seems mostly fair to me.  I'm an OS/2 user presently, and I'd like
> to see some native apps, despite the good DOS compatibility, so maybe
> there is some incentive to build the 32-bit apps.  If there's a market,
> there's incentive.

For OS/2's (and your) sake, I hope a market develops soon.  I will note
that my point about "catch-up" should be emphasized; how many future
versions of Windows/DOS will IBM have to emulate in OS/2 before deciding
the effort ain't worth it?

>>2) NT's not-so-perfect DOS and Windows compatibility:
>>
>>Possible Advantages:
>>	Less time devoted to creating and debugging "compatibility code."
>>	Win32s implies easy porting of Windows 16-bit programs.
>>
>>Possible Disadvantages:
>>	Massive/painful uprooting of old DOS software.
>>	Why stop at the top 100 DOS apps?  Why not 500?  1000?
>>
> Keep in mind that people don't like change.  If NT's DOS/Win support is
> weak, that may stop people moving to it more than you think.  Actually,
> I see a difference here between the corporate user and the home user.
> The business is more likely to be willing to invest in new apps, so NT
> will probably do well there despite poor DOS compatibility, while at
> home, people don't want to replace all their software at the drop of a
> hat, so perhaps they will prefer OS/2.

You make a good point there.  Again, Brian's prediction of massive
software support for NT had better come true, otherwise the initial
reaction from the software world will be almost as indifferent as it
was for OS/2 1.x.
 
>>On the other hand, I'm not really sold on buying an advanced OS just
>>for getting a super-duper DOS/Windows multitasker.
> 
> I bought OS/2 mainly as a fancy DOS multitasker.  I only hace one
> Windows app, and one OS/2 app (and it's a 1.x), but I am still very
> happy with OS/2.  I'd like to see native apps, but the old ones run so
> well that I'm happy enough while I wait for them.  Meanwhile OS/2 gives
> me a better way to use my old software. And all for $49.  Let me assure
> you, I'm not paying any $495 for NT.

Good on you. (practicing my kiwi-speak....)  My concern in upgrading to
OS/2 is threefold: 1) I don't have the "correct" video card (a Trident)
to run Win 3.x apps in seamless windows; 2) I have more and more Win 3.1-
specific apps that note "cannot be used under WINOS2"; 3) the much-needed
Stacker OS/2 hasn't shown up yet.

All this stuff was scheduled to show up RSN in a CSD or an upgrade package.
But in 6 months, it hasn't.  If there isn't a thriving OS/2 market in
replacement drivers and utilities, I don't see how the OS/2 market in
bread-and-butter apps can be described as anything but stagnant.  That's
kind of a turn-off to me.

If the CSD comes out and Stacker OS/2 also, I will try out OS/2.  You may
hold me to this....  :-)
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."

"[George Bush is] the most ruthless white man in the history of the planet."
	-- Richard Ben Cramer, author of _What It Takes_
"The President scores much better than Bill Clinton."
	-- Dan, comparing Bush's record of marital infidelity to Clinton's