From: nicolai@sssab.se (Nicolai Wadstrom)
Subject: Re: Can someone at IBM please explain why developers should develop for OS/2?
Posting-Front-End: Winix Conference v 92.05.15  1.20 (running under MS-Windows)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:59:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.031031.8737@hellgate.utah.edu>, brian%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:


>
>I am not sure that in my earlier post I made my intention clear, also
>at the time I was quite upset, which I'm sure did not help
>the clarity of the message.
>
>If someone would post this message on the IBM internal board too,
>I'd appreciate it.
>
>As always, the views presented here are mine, and don't necessarily
>reflect the views of the University of Utah or the spin-off
>company associated with the research group that employs me.
>
>Dear IBM:
>
>I am an applications developer that develops applications that
>are marketed and supported through a small company.
>As I'm sure is true with most developers, I've been closely watching
>the battle between OS/2, Windows & Windows NT, Unix, and other operating
>systems.  I have a problem -- I have limited resources -- the question
>that immediately comes up is what platforms do I develop for?
>
>As my application works best in a 32-bit environment, OS/2 2.0's
>arrival was quite welcome, and I immediately tooks steps to
>bring my application there.  Much change in IBM's attitude toward
>the end-user market was occurring, and much more change was promised.
>Unfortunately (as I explained in detail in an earlier message) the
>promised change is not occuring in as timely fashion as I would
>like.
>
>Enter into the picture, Microsoft.  I had not paid NT much attention
>as I believed it largely non-existant and thought it would be
>quite some time before it was out.  But, Microsoft kept saying
>that it was real and that in July they would have a developers
>conference.  They sent me many letters, and posted announcements on
>the Internet and CompuServe, telling me of this grand conference and
>said that I would be given a copy of NT if I attended.
>(IBM has never sent me any mail, and often does not announce
>things on CompuServe or the Internet.)
>
>So what do I find at the conference?  Well I find an operating system
>that is about as stable as OS/2 2.0 LA.  I find Microsoft bending
>over backwards to help me create or port applications to NT.
>Microsoft has been somewhat "evil" in the past with respect to
>their treatment of developers; but at this conference, they
>even _invited_ specifically Borland, and let the Turbo Jazz Band play.
>While I have no doubt that the behavior of Microsoft is "better"
>than it will be if (actually more likely when) NT succeeds, it
>is clear that Microsoft has learned that the secret of success is
>to getting lots of applications on their platform.  And that
>being nice to developers, big and small, is a very good way
>to make this happen.
>
>What does IBM give me?  Well their treatment of me as a customer, makes
>me wonder how I'll get any customers for my OS/2 product -- as
>customers (unless of course they have an SE) seem to
>be treated rather poorly.  As a developer they charge me outrageous
>prices for poor tools.  They don't answer my questions on CompuServe.
>I'm not saying by any means that it is all bad, but it's seem quite
>clear to me that IBM does not really care about OS/2.
>
>I see lots of IBM employees "trying hard" with respect to OS/2,
>but clearly this will not be enough to fend off NT.
>I really would like for a change to see something done completely
>and quickly in OS/2.
>For example, the DOS environment under OS/2 is clearly excellent --
>probably far better that what Microsoft will put into NT.
>On the other hand it is hard for ordinary users to configure, and
>the configuration facilities there are largely undocumented.
>I have never seen an IBM ad tout this feature.
>
>If OS/2 is to have a significant market share, it will have to be BETTER than
>NT.  Considering the state of things like WorkPlace Shell -- a brilliant
>shell but it's buggy, slow, and poorly documented -- I have grave doubts that
>OS/2 will be better at anything.
>
>What I want from IBM is simple:  I want them to send me a clear signal
>that they can compete with Microsoft.  I want them to actively
>recruit ISV's and to fix the bugs of OS/2 2.0.  Most importantly I want
>to see open, honest communication of IBM's strategy with respect
>to OS/2.  I want to see a plan, and that plan implemented in
>a non-sloppy manner.  In short, I want IBM to give me a reason
>to develop for OS/2 2.0.  As things stand currently, I'm afraid
>I've wasted my time learning about OS/2.  I have a product for 2.0 in
>beta now -- once NT comes out -- will I have any customers?
>
>I have gotten a number of responses to my last message privately.
>I hope that those people and those others that considered responding,
>will do so now, publically  If you don't then IBM will think I'm one lone nut
>and perhaps won't get the message.


I agree totaly. IBM has shown a much better attitude, but they will have
do better if they want OS/2 to succed, I bought it, and use it at home,
it works fine, and I really like the Workplace Shell (the most powerful
user interface I ever used), and the powerful features a 32-bit address 
space, powerful API etc. (Without doubt a better and more powerful 
envoirment than Windows).
But at work I write C++ code with Borland C++ under Windows, and nobody
here (not even I) can see any good reason for developing anything for OS/2
as things are now.
Microsoft invited us to the NT deveopers conference (I wasn't there myself)
and we received a copy of the NT beta, with compiler & SDK!
We haven't ever heard anything from IBM...




/ nicolai@sssab.se
-- 
Nicolai Wadstrom                          Phone: +46-13-111660
3S AB (Scandinavian System Support AB)    Fax:   +46-13-115193
Agatan 4, Box 535, 581 06 Linkoping       BBS: