From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Windows NT will fail -----
Date: 14 Dec 92 03:36:54 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec11.231729.507@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) w
rites:
>In article <1992Dec11.191116.90161@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (S
TACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>>       Right-o.  And this is the main reason OS/2 is doing so
>>>       poorly in the general user market.
>>>
>>informaly asked how OS/2 had been selling recently.  Invariably they said it
>>was selling pretty well.  Not a barn burner by any means, but it was selling
>
>
>       Is this supposed to mean something?
>
>       "How's it selling?" (Customer asking random worker)
>       "Pretty well" (Random worker with no idea what he is talking about)
>
>       I bet you'd get the same response if you asked abouyt any
>       product--or even a product you'd made up.

Why do you think I said "informally"?  It doesn't mean anything other than
what I said.  Besides I am good friends with two of the sales types with
whom I spoke.  They are not the sort to bullshit me.  In addition, most sales
types may not know much but they do know what products they carry.  They
aren't that stupid.  Look at what I said and don't take it any farther.
You're bitching about people taking what you say too literally, so heed you're
own advice and chill.

>
>
>>That is possibly the screwiest logic I have heard in a while.  Once a person
>>already has a system that runs most availlable apps, why should they wait for
>
>
>       Right.  That system, in the case we were arguing, for most
>       people is DOS/Windows.

I do follow the threads here, (except for the stupid one about whether Windows
is an OS) and I know what was said before hand.  Also, why did you delete most
of what I wrote?  Stop taking things out of context and read the *whole* thing
and maybe it will make more sense.
>
>
>>a system that is still a promise?  People who are running OS/2 are lookinr
>>OS/2 apps.  Not a lot are out yet, so they are told to wait for them.  They
>
>
>       Exactly.  You just cancelled your own point.
>
You don't read very carefully do you?  Here is what I said, READ IT VERY
SLOWLY.
    The person I was responding to made the claim that OS/2 types should just
wait for NT to come out because he believes that there would be lots of NT
apps and none for OS/2.  Despite the fact that this is quite false, here is
how I responded, with the parts that I assumed that you would be able to fill
in for yourself filled in:

Why should people, once they have a system that is as powerful as OS/2, which
already runs most of the availlable apps, chuck this system for a system which
may not runs as many of the current apps.  A system that despite all the hype
is still a promise and will remain so for at least another 4-6 months.  They
obviously like the system, and since they lose nothing by going to it, when
they are told that they will have to wait a little while for their apps, they
don't lose anything in the mean time.  Waiting for NT just isn't an option yet.

>
>>aren't interested in waiting for NT.  NT is simply not it the picture at this
>>point.
>
>
>       I can't even count the number of times I've said this myself.

Really?  Then why are you arguing with what I said?
>
>
>>they are skipping version 3 and going strait to version 4 for OS/2.  Their
>
>
>       Yeah right.  Just like WP is "skipping 5.1 to go for 6.0"..
>
Pray tell, what is the next version that is to come out for DOS and Windows
and OS/2 and Unix and...?  What's that?  6.0 you say?  Well glory be, it does
look like they are doing that doesn't it?
If you are going to take the trouble to tell me I am wrong on something, at
least have the decency to show some evidence first?  I have the company's
official statement's backing me up.  What have you got?

>       Get over it.  Corel is feeding you a string af yarn to amuse
>       you and keep you busy (i.e. selling 2.5 to the suckers who
>       don't even consider the software's upgrade future nor the
>       fact that the program they are buying is almost a year out of
>       date...)

First thing.  Old doesn't mean bad.  I've got plenty of old hardware and
software that works just fine.  ProComm Plus didn't have a real update for
years but it still sold like crazy and still does.  In addition, the biggest
difference between 2.5 and 3.0 was the extra smaller products that Corel
bundled with the base package.  Sure there were some enhancement, but mostly
they were fairly minor, or fixes to things that needed enhancement.  The
version for OS/2 works just fine, regardless of how it was constructed, and
the base drawing program is a true OS/2 program.  Corel is a company that is
being smart.  They knew it would take time to get a full blown new product to
the marketplace but they didn't want to loose market share to some other
potential competitor, and releasing a product fast, even a faulty one, is a
good way to do this.  Getting to a market first has some very big advantages.
(just ask MicroSoft)

>
>
>>stated reason for doing so is that they wish to avoid the further delays that
>>would be caused by releasing another version in between.  This does NOT mean
>>that they have no future plans on the OS/2 platform.
>
>
>       If you believe that, I've got some swam-- beach front property
>       to sell you.  This is, roughly, parrallel to Motorola with their
>       "The 68060 will be so good we're going to skip the '050!" nonsense.

No that is Motorola playing catchup with Intel.  There is a difference.  You
need to start looking at each situation individually.  Corel has no ulterior
motives here.  They aren't asking themselves, "How can we screw OS/2 customers
this month?".  Corel is a company that seems to be move when their competitors
start getting to close.  I can garuntee that if MicroGrafx were to release a
kick-ass version of their drawing program, that we would see the new version
of CorelDRAW! within 2 months.  They seem to sit still when no-one is
threatening their leadership in that particular market.  Some other companies
do this to, while some just seem self motivated.
>
>       If MS played this game ("We're going to SKIP Windows 4.0 and go
>       right to 5.0!") you'd be making a big stink---heck, you guys already
>       did with the spew over Win NT being called "3.1"..

I think you need to look at the difference between a marketing gimmick and a
sales strategy.  Calling the first version of NT, 3.1 has little basis in a
real sales strategy.  It is a weak attempt to fool the unthinking into
believing that their "family of products" is more closely related than it
really is.  But if MS would just jump strait to 5.0 from Windows 3.1 I doubt
you would hear much other than a few puzzled people asking "why"?  Corel is
simply keeping their version numbers consistant across the Intel platform.
Same with Corel.  There is nothing wrong with this and in fact it does help a
bit.  Doing the same thing with operating systems is just a gimick.

>
>
>>operating speeds between Windows under DOS and under OS/2.  (Windows 3.0 that
>>is)  Somethings are a little faster, some are a little slower, but all in all,
>
>
>       That's the point.  Win3.0 was junk, pure and simple.  If I
>       refused (read: turned my nose up at it because it stunk)
>       to use it then, why should I suddenly be impressed with
>       OS/2's ability to emulate a piece of garbage?

So why are you so suddenly impressed with 3.1?  It isn't a hell of a lot
better.  Also stop deleted so much.  Other people may wonder what you were
responding to.
>
>
>>of "speed" between WinOS2 and Windows are people just being trite about the
>>whole thing.  Unless there is something wrong with how the system is
>
>
>       Nonsense.  Win31 is *much* faster than WINOS2 on the same machine.
>       If you factor in a decent video driver, you get into speed differences
>       that are *obscene*.
>
No, sorry, but I'm afraid the difference isn't really all that great on a
properly working system.  Look, I've used windows on so many different
machines I could spit.  Everything from a 286 to a 486/50.  I know very well
how fast Windows operates.  I've also seen OS/2 on virtually every system that
it will run on.  (lot's of people here use it)  From a 386sx/20 to a 486/50
with all different ammounts of RAM.  I do know the ins and outs of both
systems very well.  My conclusion?  The speed difference is reasonably
insignificant in the vast majority of cases as long as everything is working
properly.  Sometimes it is actually a little faster under OS/2, on a few odd
machines, and usually when there is a heavy load of several applications.
More often Win3.1 is *slightly* faster under more normal circumstances.  In
any case, the difference is almost never very pronounced.
Furthermore I have run the most current OS/2 beta on two different machines.
With the Win3.1 support there the speed difference dissapears entirely.  When
the new version comes out, I expect these speed differences to dissapear.
Why?  Well that is the reason I keep saying "on properly working hardware".
The only times I see someone really bitch about the speed of WinOS2 is when
their computer isn't cooperating with OS/2.  WinOS2 works just fine under
ordinary circumstances and has one huge advantage over Win3.1 in the stability
of the system underneath.  Crashes that used to lock systems with 3.1 just
don't under OS/2.  Does this mean that WinOS2 is perfect/great?  Of course
not, it still needs lots of improvement.  But to claim that WinOS2 sucks
simply doesn't quite add up to the experiences of far more people than one's
self.

>
>>interacting with your computer, the difference in overall speed is for all
>>real life purposes, negligable.
>
>
>       In real life, nobody who uses Windows for work is using
>       3.0.

We use both 3.0 and 3.1 at work because we have other things that are
priorities.  I can assure you that we are quite real.  This job of mine is in
plasma research.  (in addition to my other job as a consultant)  Not everyone
needs the latest and greatest thing.


>
>
>>In most cases security is rather pointless unless it is a multiuser system.  I
>>certainly don't need to be logging on to my own PC.  Besides there are
>
>
>       I find it very appealing.  As it stands, I use DRDOS and dual
>       booting to keep people out of my system.  (Giving me,
>       effectively, a hard to get by password-on-boot for OS/2, too,
>       as long as I remember to set the system up to boot DOS before
>       I turn it off.)

That is extrodinarily easy to crack.  DRDOS's security is quite inadequate for
anyone with any brains.  Even BIOS level protection, (such as on my machine)
is easy to get by if you have a screwdriver.  Just unplug the battery to the
bios and viola, it resets.  In any case, I repeat, most people have little
need for or desire for security on their own personal machine.  It usually is
more hassle than it is worth.
>
>
>>most rif-raff off the machine)  Also tell me honestly, do you *really need*
>>Unicode.  Granted OS/2 should have it, (and probably will someday) but I don't
>
>
>       Yes.  Without a doubt.  Of course,I have special needs
>       thanks to my major (foreign language--Japanese and some
>       Chinese) that make Unicode a necessity (well, not exactly,
>       but it will/would make life *much* easier for all of us).
>
Well then it would be useful to you.  But then you *are* the exception and not
the rule.

>       Add in a little linguistics (phonology) and Unicode becomes
>       even more useful (no more of the font shuffle to get to the
>       IPA..).
>
>       I can honestly say that the next OS I buy WILL support Unicode
>       or (at least) 16 bit character sets (I say this because I'm not
>       sure if the 16bit scheme apple implemented in 7.1 is Unicode
>       cleverly renamed [They're calling it WorldScript?] or
>       somethinr proprietary..)
>
>       Retrofitting does not work well.  Look at DOS-->32MB partitions,
>       EMS, memory managers, etc. etc.--none of this worked right
>       (and even now, doesn't work perfectly) for YEARS after people
>       started trying to add them in.

DOS was a poorly designed cludge from the start.  It is an insult to OS/2 to
even lump it in the same boat.  There are huge differences in the way the two
were coded.  Adding Unicode to OS/2, as long as IBM doesn't try to rush things
should not be very difficult do to the high degree on modularization in modern
programming.  It certainly wouldn't be nearly as clumsy as DOS.

>
>
>>how many people are unaware that Unicode exists.  Also, I challenge you to
>
>
>       People shouldn't *have* to be "aware of Unicode".  By this
>       time it should already have been implemented.  IBM should have
>       known, especially since it would have made producing an OS/2
>       equivelent of DOS/v a lot easier.

Perhaps not.  But then in my other job as a consultant I regularly get
questions like, "How do I start wordperfect?"  You think these people are
going to be aware that it is possible to use japanese characters?  Don't
underestimated IBM's talent at putting something in later.  They have done a
hell of a job with DOS/Win under OS/2.
>
>       (Has anyone succeeded in making an image of DOS/v?)
>
I have heard about it, but I have yet to see a copy anywhere in the States.

>>walk into a store and buy a single NT application.  I have seen OS/2 apps in
>
>
>       Are you being serious or witty?  Even someone as stupid as
>       me can tell that there wont be any NT apps in the stores
>       because NT doesn't exist yet.

Some of both.   I have never claimed, *ever* that NT would never have any
apps.  Heck, I'm pretty mellow on NT as OS/2 fans go, I like the base system
in a lot of ways.  It's just got some problems that make it not a very good
option for me.
>
>
>>stores.  Granted, very few, but they are availlable.  The same cannot be said
>>about NT.  Right now there simply isn't a choice.
>
>
>       I frequent computer stores a lot, often just to look around
>       and see what's new for various things (Amiga, Mac, PC) and
>       see what people are buying, and I can tell you that I have
>       only seen an OS/2 application in a store (retail or superstore)
>       ONCE, and that was Word for PM 1.1 (or 1.0?)..
>
Yeah, I was actually shocked myself when I saw a few apps around town.  (not
complaining mind you)  Too bad they were small no-name apps.  ('course the
biggies are still just around the corner)

>
>
>--
> Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?
> Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?
> ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
> ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
>


-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||