From: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: nt goes "late beta" i
Date: 23 Aug 92 13:14:18 EST
Reply-To: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)  writes

BS>1) Microsoft has bet the company on NT succeeding, it's clear that doesn't
BS>hold true for IBM as a whole.

It seems that Microsoft has taken many of their resources off other
projects to get NT complete ASAP. It is far from clear that this can
do any good. Adding another body to a programming team may actually
slow things dowm.

MS has never released anything on time. I would be very surprised if
the NT sessions, and announcements are an attempt to by time by
slowing the shift to OS/2.

BS>2) I already see plenty of developers headed for NT, I don't and didn't see
BS>that for OS/2 2.0.

Lotus, WordPerfect and Coral are fully committed.

The key to the success of OS/2, however, is whether it is used for
in-house development. OS/2 is winning this war (see regular reports
in PC Week- ALL the big banks in Canada are going to OS/2).

NT, in this case, is "Not There".

There is also the client work station and home user. NT will not fit
into either.

It is difficult to identify where, as few as 1 million units of NT
will be run.

BS>3) IBM has dumped a ton of money into OS/2 1.X and 2.0, and they unfortuately
BS>insist on viewing that as a single expense.  They seem very reluctant
BS>to do the things necessary for success, like make MM a part of the OS/2
BS>base package.  Because OS/2 2.0 (later) comes with Windows 3.1 MM extensions
BS>and users have to pay $149 for OS/2 MM extentions... who in their right

Isn't the Windows MME an optional addition, at extra cost? Even if
included, they suffer from a lack of multi-processing. The OS/2 MME
are far superior.

BS>mind would develop for the OS/2 ones?  Likewise, IBM overcharges for
BS>development literature, their C compiler (even at $295 it's overpriced), etc.

$295 is overpriced????? No way. I suspect you have not used it.

BS>Talking to people internally at IBM it always came down in the end to
BS>the need for OS/2 (as a whole) to make money.

As opposed to losing money?

From my chats with IBM people, I gather that a break even on OS/2
will be acceptable. The big profits will come from their MME
products, Extended Services, and CICS. All this will keep their True
Blue shops, True Blue.

BS>4) Microsoft embarrased itself over abandoning OS/2 after numerous statements
BS>to the contrary.  They can't afford to do that again.  On the other hand
BS>from a bottom-line standpoint IBM might well be better off if OS/2
BS>doesn't succeed, because they can gracefully let things ride as is and still
BS>have kept their promise.  IBM has plenty of other systems to make money
BS>from.

Not really. The mainframe market is static, and cannot be expected
to show any growth. Hardware margins have declined, and will never
regain their past levels.

The key for the future is controlling the system software and the
virtical applications.

BS>5) Microsoft has not been stupid enough to announce firm dates for shipment
BS>and can thus not have (much) pride on the line, if things aren't ready in
BS>December -- and can give it the extra month or three that it needs.

It doesn't matter. NO ONE believes Microsoft's dates, anyway.

BS>6) In terms of a large project in recent history... Microsoft has a better
BS>track record than IBM.  IBM is mainly living on the laurels of past success.
BS>Consider Excel 4.0 -- know of any similar IBM successes in recent times?

CICS for OS/2.

BS>that project happen.  If I recall correctly, IBM recently forced the
BS>equivalent of Dave Cutler on the OS/2 2.0 project to quit, though
BS>IBM's structure is somewhat muddier.

Microsoft has lost Gordon Letwin. The claim is that he retired, but
I suspect that there was some disagreements between Cutler and
Letwin. Gordon disappeared all to quickly.

As for Culter's equivalent on OS/2, I don't know who that may be.
Michael Kogan has been described as the "lead architect" of OS/2,
and I haven't heard of him leaving IBM.

There have been many from the development team that have left,
however. It seems there is a BIG demand for consultants with OS/2

(Continued in the next message)

 * DeLuxe2/386 1.25 #3969 * Conformity obstructs progress.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy