From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Hercules is obsolete--Upgrade!
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 16:59:22 GMT

In article <79228@ut-emx.uucp> drxmann@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dustin R. Christmann) writes:
>
>>But it may be marketing genius to support older technology at first.  Look at
>>Windows 3.0 which ran on an 8088, for chrissake... and I knew VERY few people
>>who ever tried to run it on an XT--let alone use it on an XT.  But it gave
>>people a WARM and FUZZY that they could upgrade in increments.
>
>But even Microsoft "recommends" a 386SX for Windows 3.1, which now requires a
>286.  The boat is beginning to pull out of the harbor for XT users, with MS-DOS
>5.0 (and a few text-mode apps) being the only Microsoft apps that run on XT's,
>now that Windows Real Mode is history.

Ah, but this is my point.  Windows 3.0 "got their feet wet" by allowing them
to TRY out Windows on those clunky 8088's.  In an area where there was a mix
of VGA, monochrome, SVGA, 8088, 80286, 8086, 80386, 80486, etc... and knowing
that Windows 3.0 would run on ALL of those platforms (any way you mixed 'em)
convinced a lot of companies to TRY Windows.

By the time the  Windows 3.1 "upgrade" (I use this word sarcastically) came 
along, they were so used to Windows that it was a small matter to replace the
(now obsolete) 8088's with 80386sx's (don't laugh, cost is a major issue
in these economic times).  Yes, they kept the monochrome monitors.

Again, the "marketing geniuses" figgered (correctly, IMHO) that people
will not want to uproot their hardware to switch to a new operating system--
especially if that operating system doesn't have the same widespread app
support that the PREVIOUS operating system had.  Tease those suckers in...
and THEN whomp 'em when they've become addicted.

>
>>OS/2 simply just doesn't do that for my clients.  It's come to: "Look, in order
>>to upgrade to it, ya gotta replace your AT's, your network operating system,
>>your monochrome monitors... we have to rethink your OLE's..."
>
>Well, no matter who your customers choose, be it MS or IBM,  you're going to
>be looking at many of the same problems and the same costs eventually.

Yes, but I think my clients would be more willing to try OS/2 if they could
do it with the current hardware--and then (when they decide they like it)
upgrade the "obsolete" parts.

>
>>It isn't an upgrade.  It's a NEW investment... and many customers are seeing
>>it as an iffy investment (with NT looming over the hill, FUD does work
>>y'know).  I personally think it would have been worth a few man-months
>>to write non-IBM video drivers... especially something to soothe those
>>slow upgraders--like HGC.  But this is just an opinion.
>
>But let me pose the question to you this way: Would your clients be happy with
>looking at OS/2 in HGC?  Or Windows 3.1?  Or Windows NT?  Or would they come
>back to you after a while and say, "God, this really looks awful."

Actually, I think it would be to the best interest of IBM, if my clients
GOT to the point where they could say "God, this really looks awful."  As it
is, they simply say "IT'S GOING TO COST WHAT?!" and IBM loses a sale.

Put another way, switching OS's swings both ways, too.  If you can get a
client to COMMIT to try OS/2 2.0 (because, all their hardware currently will
support it)--then once the switch is made, and you prove that they can still
keep production going, they'll be adverse to switching back.   It's getting
them to commit in the first place that's hard--especially if they've got
a fifty or so HGC monitors that still has a year or two in the depreciation
schedule.

>
>Obviously, OS/2 is not for everyone, contrary to what some OS/2 zealots would
>have you believe.  If a site has a large number of monochrome 286s, I wouldn't
>even consider OS/2.  But if a site had or was preparing to buy a lot of 386s
>or 486s,  I would look and see if OS/2 were an option.  It all comes down to
>whether mere upgrades or entire overhauls are needed.

Very true.  But consider that most sites that are already automated aren't
looking to repurchase all their equipment.  They want something that works
with what they've got.

Somebody in software has already seen this:  It's hard to sell Windoze 3.0
as a new operating system--sell it as an upgrade to their current DOS.
It's hard for them to purchase WinWord--sell them an "upgrade" to their
Word for DOS...

It seems to me, that people who program new OS's (e.g., IBM) aren't taking 
into consideration that most businesses (who need it) already have 
computers.  Sure, it may be obsolete--but by supporting it, they push that
potential client over the hump--and once done, it's only a matter of
keeping him there (in many cases, going back would cost as much money as
simply buying a new video card/monitor!).

>This post is bound to get me kicked out of the Fraternal Order of Microsoft-
>bashing OS/2 Bigots...  :-)

I think I'm already considered a Microsoft right-wing, commie, advocate.
Just one of those labels we have to wear when we try to be objective. :)