From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: Hard future for OS/2 2.0 ....
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 02:04:20 GMT

In article <716296545snx@feki.toppoint.de>,
marten@feki.toppoint.de (Marten Feldtmann) writes:
>The time is counting to zero for OS/2 2.0.
>
>Here in Germany a big computer newspaper (ComputerWoche) is VERY
>sceptical about the success of OS/2 2.0. During the last weeks the
>comments on this OS are getting worse.
>

In PC Sources (June, 1992), there is a small article which quotes
some market analysts as saying that OS/2 has a very bright future,
and states that it will be on over 2 million machines by the year's
end.  I guess it all depends on who you listen to.  I think we've
pretty much established that if IBM says 1 million shrink-wrapped
copies have been sold, many more installations exist (due to
multiple licensing).  I'm going to go into that right now.

>Here are some points, the writers mentioned:
>
> -- OS/2 2.0  is too difficult for the end user

Well, I'm an end-user (depending upon your definition...).  I use
the computer for basic things such as word processing, spreadsheets,
and a little database management.  I've never taken a computer
class, and have very little experience with programming (I try to
learn a little on my own.  My longest program is about 50 lines, and
is actually useless).  I also know many people who are like me, and
also like OS/2.  What they want to know is whether it will run games
the same as DOS.  That's all!

>
> -- OS/2 2.0  needs too much hardware

I will admit that *right now* it requires a nice amount of hardware.
When the CSD comes out though, it will (supposedly!) fit well into 4
meg, with some room left over for reasonable performance.  It
actually doesn't require much more hardware than a machine which has
been set up to run windows *with reasonable performance*.
>
> -- OS/2 2.0  where are the appilications?

Can't argue with this.  I'm pretty patient, and as seen before, I
don't require too many apps.  Lotus has assured me that Ami Pro and
123 are being worked on, and if I really wanted to, I could get
16-bit 123 now, and it would work fine.  I wouldn't mind them now,
though.
>
> -- OS/2 2.0  there's no need for multitasking

Just because there's no *need* for multi-tasking doesn't mean it's
not nice to have.  Granted, DOS doesn't multi-task, and it has the
biggest installed base in the world, but people have been looking
for alternatives.  Besides, some people need multitasking (the real
thing, not time-slicing!).
>
> -- OS/2 2.0  is too expensive (here in Germany)

I'm sorry to hear this.  Maybe your next computer could come with
OS/2 preinstalled, then Windows would be too expensive...
>
> -- OS/2 2.0  not clear, what the long-term strategy of IBM is ..

It's just as clear as anybosy elses strategy is!  And, because we
know that IBM doesn't just throw around ideas and FUD, we can
believe what they say a little more.  Come on, they stuck with the
original incarnations of OS/1 1.x didn't they?
>
> -- OS/2 2.0  not clear, if OS/2 is suitable for server stations

Sorry, can't comment on that one.  Except that I've seen OS/2 on
some of the university computers which were linked up to other
computers, presumably sharing programs... (is this a server?)
>
>
>  They say, that Windows 3.1 has won the battle against OS/2 2.0 in the
>market of the desktop user (= end user). For other things like network
>or server purposes they are all waiting for Windows NT or are still
>looking for a suitable UNIX-version ....
>
>  Some are predicting, that 1994 the market of server-OS is shared by
>Netware, NT and UNIX and no one will see OS/2 there.

Yep, *some* are predicting this. *Some* were predicting that the
Timex Sinclair would make a big dip in the market, too.
>
> If you are a  customer today it seems to be clear: Windows 3.1 is
>working, has multimedia in it, has lot's of beautiful application
>(Lotus, AmiPro, Excel, Word, Freelance ............) and it's cheaper
>than OS/2 2.0.

OS/2 doesn't have multi-media in the base package, can't argue that.
It runs most (99%) of the DOS apps that use multi media, though, and
run's the windows apps which came with my soundblaster.  All I'm
missing is the cheesy little horns when I start my computer.  I can
live with it.
  Also, Lotus is porting all of there programs to OS/2 (including
123, Amipro, and Frelance).  Older versions of Word for PM and Excel
can also be bought.  These are native OS/2 apps (though for 1.x).
Luckily OS/2 runs *ALL* programs which were written for 1.x!
>
> The prices for dealers here in Germany are quite interesting:
>
>   Windows 3.1 for about $50 (without DOS), OS/2 2.0 for about $130

Curious, how much for both DOS and Windows?  It's hard to run a
program without the Operating System, isn't it?
>
> The customer price is very strange: OS/2 2.0 price is still official
>placed at 440.- DM (or $300) from IBM. Other dealers (mail) offer
>this OS for about 300.- DM (or $200).

It sounds to me like the person who wrote this article needs to do
a little more looking at a product before passing judgement on it.
I guess that's what people in magazines do, though.  BTW, how many
ads were there in this mag for MS products?  There have been
accusations by people that their marketing money has a lot to do
what people think of their competitors...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy