From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 09:24:39 GMT

In <1992Nov22.130940.21961@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>	Windows is a joke to install.  run setup, swap disks.  No 
>	matter who you are or what your system is, I doubt you'll
>	fail to install--_properly_--on the first attempt.

Gee, never worked in customer support, have you?  I'll grant that anyone
with half a brain could probably install it.  But there's a lot of peole
out there buying computers who seem to lack any central nervous system. 
:-)

>	It is _not_ the least bit easy to learn to use the WPS.  If
>	I had to order the Program Manager, Mac, NeXTStep and the WPS
>	in order of "someone can just sit down and use it" the WPS
>	would come in tenth, right after the DOS command line.  Once
>	you _learn_, of course, it is very nice [read: consistant, 
>	which I consider _the_ most critical value]--but it's not 
>	any less difficult to learn than a command line is, which
>	is a serious knock against it.

I didn't have this impression at all.  OC, it's been several years since
I used a Mac, and the only version of Windows I ever used before I got
OS/2 2.0 was Win 2.0, which I only used to play one game.  But I
basically encountered the WPS and the Windows 2.0 environment at the
same time.  The WPS seemed very straightforward--lots of icons, and you
click on them, or drag them around.  Reminded me of a Mac.  The Windows
shell, on the other hand, I found very confusing.  Things wouldn't move
where I wanted them too, I couldn't figure out how the different pieces
related to each other, or how the whole thing fit together.

Maybe it's just me, but I found the WPS to be a whole lot easier to
learn, at least as far as the basics go.

>	Further, the documentation--even if someone bought the 
>	OS/2+Que "Using OS/2 2.0" package--sucks.

Ok, well there's some things we agree on.  :-)

>	still be making a lot of mistakes.  This is especially
>	a problem because OS/2 must [should] be _shutdown_
>	and these users are used to--if they get confused or
>	are finished--rebooting directly or turning the system
>	off, which causes problems.

I have to confess that I've done this a few times myself, even though I
know better.  Also, I've had co-workers turn off my machine (before I
explained to them all).  I've also crashed a few times (I had some bad
memory chips, and I still have a flakey BIOS).  So far, none of these
have caused any problems--OS/2 runs its chkdsk at bootup, and then
continues merrily on its way.

I've crashed/powercycled Unixes and OS/2, and I'll tell you, I'd much
rather abruptly powercycle a machine running OS/2 any day.  :-)

>	I have no technical problems with OS/2 at all, aside from the
>	Win-OS2 support [which, even to someone who's got that "it 
>	may be clumsy but it will let me run windows programs under
>	OS/2 which is an amazing feat" thought in their mind, bites] 

Win-OS2 running by itself in a full screen session seems to be better
than Windows 3.0 running alone, and almost as good as Windows 3.1.  It's
only the seamless windows that I've seen or heard of any performance
problems with.  Windows itself, OC, doesn't have any seamless mode.  :-)

IOW, all the things that Windows can do, WinOS2 can do just about as
well.  It's only the things that Windows *can't* do (run intermixed with
PM apps and WPS folders) that WinOS2 has problems with.

>	Is IBM really serious about os/2? (IMHO, they're suprised
>	about it's success.

Yup, I think that this is quite true.  I suspect that it's succeeding
beyond their wildest dreams.  After all, it certainly isn't selling as
well as it is because of IBM's advertising blitz!  :-)

In fact, I really suspect that IBM only delivered 2.0 because they'd
promised it to some customers, and they were, shall we say, less willing
to just dump a project that people may be depending on than Microsoft
seems to be.  But I'll bet that they were planning, and maybe even
hoping, that this would be the last gasp of OS/2, and that they'd be
able to get back to what they know best: building and selling hardware.

Remember, right after 2.0 came out, it seemed like all of IBM suddenly
went on extended vacation (really--it was some sort of new use-it-or-
lose-it policy that came through).  Not the typical action of a company
that expects to have a sudden huge number of orders to fill and phones
to answer....  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | "Don't you boys know NICE songs?"
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers |                 -- Mrs. Borg
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy