From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 **WILL** fail
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 23:09:34 GMT

In article <8167@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes:
>First let me begin by confusing the hell out of the issue and saying
>that I LOVE os/2. I use os/2. Within a day of seeing the os/2 $50
>offer I bought it (before that I didn't know WHERE to buy it!) and
>after that I spent $150 to buy 4 more megs of ram to really USE
>os/2.
...
>Why OS/2 WILL fail.
>The number of people being forced to use a computer and the number
>of people choosing to use a computer increase everyday. But one of
>the biggest blocks in the way of succesful computer development and
>sales was how difficult it was to use a computer for someone who
>isn't a computer expert. With the advent of sufficent cycles to have
>gui's systems like the mac came out and were hits. They weren't hits
>because their software was better or because they were more
>powerful, they were hits because the average joe could USE them.
>Many people and companies were willing to shell out TWICE what they
>would pay for a MORE POWERFUL PC in order to get a system their
>people could actually (gasp) use. This is where os/2 comes in. OS/2
>is a perfect example of PC power without rembering who the real
>market is.

I, for one, have to disagree here.  (Sorry:) OS/2 has evolved quite a bit in
terms of interface, even since the beta stage.  I use a Mac at work, and I
find the Mac to have a nicer interface in some places, but OS/2's is nicer
in others.  Overall, I'd say I like the *interfaces* equally.

> OS/2 is POWERFUL, REAL powerful. But its also a pain in
>the ass. It reminds me of the old japanese vcrs which had 50
>(literally, I counted several) buttons on the remotes and more knobs
>than I had the time to count on the vcr body itself. OS/2 is
>very much like that.

Yeah, you're damn right there.  Fortunately, you don't always have to fiddle
with the knobs just to get your programs to run.  In fact, I believe Windows
is similar in the same way (remember .pif?).  In fact, any dos multitasker
has knobs to twiddle with (and a lot of them not as straightforward as OS/2's
).  I like the fact that I can get *results* by twiddling with those knobs.
OS/2 has the capability to carry a 1700 cps dl in the background while I
raytrace in another session and install Borland C++ off floppies at the same
time. Twiddle all you will with other multitasker's knobs, you'll be hard
pressed to find one that can do that.

> In an effort to give the user total control
>(which computer professionals such as myself ADORE, I just LOVE
>tweaking priority so I can download and still get work done) they
>have alienated the average user. I don't know ANYONE who can't just
>jump into a MAC or Windows program without problem, but sit them in
>front of os/2 and they start drooling in confusion.

Whoah, wait a minute there, pardner.  Give someone a Windows app and a PM
app and they probably won't know the difference.  Give someone the WPS and
the Windows interface (with no prior experience with either) and *I* believe
they'll find the WPS a lot more intuitive.  The Windows, WPS, and Mac
interfaces are all based on CUA, which is research to help define ease of use
standards.  Windows is '80s CUA compliant (I forget which year exactly).
The WPS is '91 CUA  compliant.  So not only is it my opinion, but it is in
fact based on actual research (which NT would do well to heed, but alas).
The WPS still comes in behind the Mac, in terms of no-brainer ease of use, but
not by a whole lot.  What you seem to be finding fault with is the "twiddle
factor".  (Correct me if I'm wrong)


> From truly
>little things like having an icon move with the right mouse button
>(yes, I know, you can change that, I did)

Too used to windows.  The novice user does *not* find this to  be a problem,
since they don't have this preconditioning.

> to trying to figure out
>how in the name of hell to get some damned dos program working

Had the same problems with Windows, or any dos multitasker.

> to
>remembering how the hell you change from full screen to window (yes,
>I know alt-home, you aren't listening =) and so on and so forth.

I'm listening.  Have the same problems with Windows, or any dos multitasker.

>OS/2 gives the user more choices than a user knows how to deal with.
>Theres a REASON why SO MANY PEOPLE are willing to buy a mac even
>though it will cost them everything they own. Because they don't
>have to WORRY about anything. They don't need to worry about
>different screen modes, hard drive types, mother board standards,
>software compatability and so on and so forth.

Judging from the market share, not *that* many people are willing to buy a
mac over a PC.  You'd better check your figures again.

There's also a reason why I won't buy a Mac.  Because it doesn't offer me
the speed, the variety of software, the pre-emptive multitasking, the price,
or the power to choose my interface that a PC does.  I, for one, like to be
able to use a command line, and can't stand Mac games simply because they
are not full-screen in the manner of Dos games.  There are times when the
interface must abdicate to a program.

> OS/2 has not helped,
>from the software point of view, in this area at all. It just
>complicated issues. OS/2 can't survive in it's current form. Its just
>too damn hard for your average computer semi-literate to deal with!
>Any idiot can install and get windows running,

Ha! You must be kidding!  Give any computer semi-literate a copy of Windows
and say "Go to it!".  They'll never even figure out how to create an icon.
(I've done it)  OTOH, you give two computer illiterates the tutorial to
Windows and the tutorial to OS/2, and they'll probably both know how to use
the systems. 

> but getting os/2
>running takes a computer jock.OS/2 is a WONDERFUL system if your a
>computer jock, but if your say a writter who has a book they need to
>get out, its nothing more than another road block. OS/2 will either
>understand that the unwashed masses of computer ignorants are the
>true market or they will fail. Personally I expect os/2 users to
>become like NEXT users. There will always be some, but they will be
>small and off in the woods some place.

It takes a computer jock to set it up the way *I* like it:).
Seriously, if this was the case, Windows would have NEVER made it.
There's just as much tuning and .ini file editing discussion in the
Windows conferences (at least on ILink) as there is for OS/2.  It's
not the fact that OS/2 or Windows or DV has a crappy implementation,
it's that they have to deal with cranky dos apps.  Take a Mac app,
a Windows app, or a PM app, run them under their native OS's, and they're
all the same (well, not quite.  OS/2 does have multithreading).  They're
just as easy to install on all three systems.  The Mac just doesn't have
to deal with apps written for other systems, so it gets a good grade in
the overall ease-of-use department.  It also suffers because Dos apps are
by far the most prevalent of all apps.

>Oh and btw, is there ANYONE out there who can do file management
>faster through the gui than they can through the command line? Why
>is it that file management on the mac is really easy from a gui but
>the os/2 gui is so slow in this area? I'm running off a 486/33mhz
>with 210 drive (and things are slow even on the hpfs partition in
>gui (wps)), 8 megs of ram, 1 meg vga card running in 800x600 mode.

The OS/2 file management is slower than the Mac's.  Dunno why.  I prefer
command line, myself.

JMHO,
Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.advocacy