From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:54:44 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug13.223435.18538@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
...
>(that is a joke folks, sort of)  And in 640x480, it doesn't matter what card

@$@#%!!! 640x480 -- I'm sick of it!

>you use.  Yes I would like to use higher resolutions too, but it isn't going
>to kill me to wait a month until higher resolutions are availlable.
(see another of my posts about the odds of that occuring within a month)

>>
>>Oh, another thing that kills me is people knocking Windows 3.X
>>for "shipping" 12-17 million, with only maybe 4-8 million in actual
>>use.  How many of the (finally confirmed numbers from IBM!) 1,000,000
>>that's been shipped of OS/2 2.0, are actually in use?
>
...
>*sold* 1 million (or however many it is right now, haven't heard any new
>figures in a while) shrinkwrapped copies.  Not counting those distributed by
>other methods.  This makes it a much more even comparison because shipped and
>sold are not the same thing.

Wrong!  The 1 million number comes from the ZiffNet conference with
the various IBM bigwigs, and they made it very clear that it was
1,000,000 _shipped_.  Further, I've been in touch with some IBMers within
the last few days (one it particular that knows for certain), and 
the 1,000,000 lacks only the numbers from the initial electronic GA
distribution, and that number is not thought to be that large
(i.e. definitely less than 10%).

>This is balony for the reason I explained above.  Also look at the list of
>developers for OS/2 availlable on hobbes.   These are developers who have
>*committed* to develop for OS/2, not just ones who might do it.  (and that
>would make the list even bigger)  There are a *lot* of developers making
>products for OS/2.  If you don't have this list, I will be happy to mail it to
>you.  The developer have already been attracted.
I too am a "committed" developer, in the sense I've made an app for
OS/2 2.0 that will indeed come out... that doesn't imply that I will
ever make another one, and if it were not for the fact I'm already in
beta, I'd probably not put this one out.

Name 10 apps that WILL be on OS/2 2.0 and not be on NT?

>
>>OS/2 2.0 users, should get used to paying higher prices for lesser apps.
>>
>What is this supposed to mean?  I don't pay any more than anyone on any other
>system for my apps, and when OS/2 apps do start coming is large number I am
>sure they will be of at least the same quality as their Windows (or any other
>system for that matter) counterparts.  Even the ones that have been released
>are not any more expensive.  This statement has little basis in fact
>or reason.

Pick up a copy of Programmer's Paradise catalog and check before you say
something this stupid.  In truth, the only product I'm aware of that doesn't
cost more for OS/2 is WordPerfect, and that's not out yet.
In general OS/2 products cost 10 to 50 percent more.
Example, the Brief editor as shown in Programmer's Connection catalog:
	DOS: $129
	OS/2: $169

MKS toolkit has a similar policy.
I believe that Object Vision's cost is $20 more, but I've forgotten
the precise difference.

If in fact you know of a place where these things can be obtained
for the same price as DOS/Windows apps, by all means tell me where!

Brian