From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 PR
Date: 16 Sep 92 01:51:04 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep13.024201.2214@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (B
rian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.013705.26779@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.ed
u writes:
>>In article <1992Sep12.103805.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.
arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>>>I hardly see how this poor PR augurs well for OS/2 as it reaches the ripe
>>>old age of 5 months.  The public hardly knows OS/2.
>>
>>Something is happening, though.  If you look at the sales figures, you
>>find that OS/2 2.0 volume is actually getting darn close to Windows
>>3.1 volume, and the latter comes as a freebie with a whole lot of
>>systems out there.
>
>Do you have any real support for the claim that OS/2 2.0 sales volume
>is approaching Windows 3.1?  I'd believe, but the last time I did that
>with OS/2 sales figures... these turned out to be incorrect.
>All I've seen is that Reiswig et. al. in a Ziffnet conference said
>that OS/2 2.0 had _shipped_ 1,000,000 copies to that point.
>Further inquiries to people at IBM revealed that the 1,000,000 was
>indeed the complete total _period_ (except for a few electronic shipments
>in the first few days, and that number was "insubstantial", their word
>not mine) and that the number was 1,000,000 _shipped_ not sold.
>Do you have firm information now?  Or is this more rumors from Boca?
>If it is true why hasn't IBM announced this?

How about it making it on to the top 15 sellers at retail list?  Granted,
Windows is still at the top, but it has been there for a while.  OS/2's base
has been growing much faster.  (The fact that it started from near zero has
something to do with this)  That doesn't count the numbers sold through the
1-800 number because that is direct mail.  That does appear to support the
claim that OS/2 is *approaching* Windows in sales volume.  It's not as if it
is going to overtake Windows in the near future though of course.  (In total
sales mostly)

>
>>
>>I don't know what this all means, but, within these few months,
>>vendors are falling all over themselves to support OS/2.
>
>Again... where's the evidence for this?  All I see is 1.X versions
>there... I've seen no new announcements of note in PC Week, or InfoWorld,
>or ComputerWorld, or Computer Shopper... where's this coming from?  Several
>people have said this in the group, but I've seen no evidence outside this
>group.  I can't believe all those rags are anti-OS/2 (as a matter of fact
>ComputerWorld is reasonably pro-OS/2).

Companies have been offically and unofficially been anouncing product support
for some time now.  Many companies who were origionally lukewarm on OS/2 have
warmed up considerably.  I will admit that I have having some difficulty
thinking of an example, (though I know there are some) but the reason is that
the companies in question are mostly smaller to midsized companies whose names
I can't recall.  Most of the biggies have declared support ages ago.

>
>>Timothy F. Sipples      | The OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST is avail. from
>>sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/faq.
>>Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | Or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP").
>>of Chicago, 60637       | Family Values Means a Job
>
>
>Brian
>--
>C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
>University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
>Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
>
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5191 comp.os.os2.apps:6014