From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Easy programming a must ??
Keywords: os/2 , programming marketing
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:58:48 GMT

In <1993Jan25.124252.14512@dde.dk> tpo@dde.dk (Thomas peter Sonne Olesen) writes:

>I think (as it has been said i this group before) that OS/2 is a wonderfull
>OS for programmers and over computer entusiasts. But the major group of
>PC users havn't learned computer science, and will use 90% of thier time
>using standard programs, and maybe 10% messing around with som small programs
>they have tried to make them self.

True, and this is why I haven't recommended OS/2 to either my mother or
my brother yet.  I don't think that OS/2 is really going to be ready for
mainstream prime-time for about another year.  OTOH, neither my mother
(who doesn't program, but who types over 120 wpm) nor my brother (who
does program) have any interest in Windows either.  I'm going to set my
brother up with DESQview (a *real* multitasker!), and my mom rarely uses
anything except her word processor, so she probably doesn't need any
multi-tasking at all at present.  She's seen Windoze, and used it, and
hates it because it's so mind-crogglingly slow.  Here, OS/2 has a clear
long-term advantage, since you can use the faster text-mode apps without
any real performance penalties on the overall system.

>Another reason why I think it is important with an easy programming tool
>is the first time programmers. A lot of young people that start to make
>programms stay with the OS where they developed their first program for
>meny years. A today that means DOS.

Actually, I don't think that this is true.  What I think is true is that
most young programmers who start with DOS tend to stick with it.  But
almost all of the young programmers who started pre-DOS ended up
switching to DOS.  I started on an Apple II, as did my brother, many 
friends started on the C-64, Atari 800, or CP/M.  I used to know the
Apple ROMs like the back of my hand.  Now I can barely remember anything
about the beast.  The reason that programmers today, who start with DOS,
tend to end up sticking with it is that DOS is the dominant OS, and has
been for about a decade.  If something comes along and replaces DOS, I
have no doubt that DOS programmers will switch, just as the Apple II and
CP/M programmers did when DOS came out.

>The problem with the young folks is allso the main reason why the minimum
>hardware requirments for OS/2 is still a barrier.

>Or what do you think ?

I dismiss the "problem with the young folks", but I think that the
hardware requirements are still somewhat of a barrier.  But I don't
expect it to be a barrier for much longer.  I expect that a lot of
people will tire of the 640k limit when the majority of machines come
with at *least* 4 meg, and that we'll see people switching in droves to
Win32/NT, OS/2, and the various Unices, and that things will be much
different than they have been for the last decade.  Probably more like
they were before the release of the original PC, with several popular
systems around.
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | "Imaginary guitar notes [...] exist only
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers |  in the imagination of the imaginer" --FZ