From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:34:35 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Aug12.125401.18428@hellgate.utah.edu>, brian%jensen.cs.utah.edu@
cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>From: Brian Sturgill <brian@cs.utah.edu>
>--------
>
>  > From:  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
>  > In-reply-to: Your message of "12 Aug 92 16:04:26 MST."
>  >          <1992Aug12.160426.27444@njitgw.njit.edu>
>

>  >
>  > Note that only the Trident boards have seamless Windows drivers at the
>  > higher resolutions.
>If it don't have seemless windows support, then it just doesn't cut it.
>The lack of this feature is one of the major reasons my wife just switched
>from OS/2 2.0 to Windows 3.1 (that and speed difference, and one of her
>important apps needs 3.1 to do OLE (don't know why, but the feature didn't
>work under OS/2)).
>
>In another thread people keep bragging about the fact they don't use Windows
>apps... to me this in inconceivable... why restrict yourself to
>Describe, Object Vision and free/shareware.  I find it hard to believe
>that anyone can't find at least one Microsoft app they really like
>(I very much like Word and Visual Basic).

Umm, in case you are forgetting, OS/2 runs *commercial* DOS apps.  There are
far more of these than there are Windows apps.  Many of them are quite good.
We are hardly limited to freeware and a few OS/2 apps.  In addition, many of
us find MS apps just fine, but happen to use something else because we think
it is better or just plain like it more.  Kindly remember *all* the software a
platform runs.
>
>Back to the point here... I am (hmm... I probably should start saying
>was) a big fan of OS/2, but IBM has let its whole user community down
>by not having issues such as super VGA solved by now.  OS/2 2.0 has
>been out for over 4 months now, and the best IBM seems to be offering
>is that 2 months from now, we'll finally be getting the fixes that
>ought have been there from the start.  I can only hope for OS/2's sake
>that plentiful superVGA driver support is there by then... Windows
>NT's pre-beta comes with as good a selection than that CURRENTLY available
>for OS/2 2.0.

Well, it shouldn't  be 2 months, more like less than one if they hold to
the rumored date.  Also, super-vga is fairly trivial in the scheme of things.
Yes, it is nice, but in the vast majority of cases, using 640x480 isn't going
to impede your work.  Yes you might have to move some windows around from time
to time, but if this is unbearable to you, I suggest you take some valium.
(that is a joke folks, sort of)  And in 640x480, it doesn't matter what card
you use.  Yes I would like to use higher resolutions too, but it isn't going
to kill me to wait a month until higher resolutions are availlable.
>
>Oh, another thing that kills me is people knocking Windows 3.X
>for "shipping" 12-17 million, with only maybe 4-8 million in actual
>use.  How many of the (finally confirmed numbers from IBM!) 1,000,000
>that's been shipped of OS/2 2.0, are actually in use?

There is a difference here which has been beat to death.  Obviously you didn't
read the fine print.  MS has *shipped* X million copies of Windows 3.1.  (I
haven't heard any trustworthy numbers lately, X= a lot in this case)  How many
they have sold, is far less, and I would be willing to bet that if you take
away the copies shipped with systems and the people who bought it to fix the
bugs in 3.0, you probably have fewer new users of 3.1 than OS/2.  IBM has
*sold* 1 million (or however many it is right now, haven't heard any new
figures in a while) shrinkwrapped copies.  Not counting those distributed by
other methods.  This makes it a much more even comparison because shipped and
sold are not the same thing.

>At home and at work I have a total of 4 copies of OS/2 2.0.
>Only 2 of these copies are in use.

One might ask why you bought 4 then?  (Smiles here too)

>  My guess is that this is far from
>untypical.  Further as things stand... if NT is half as good as promised
>NONE of these may be in use when NT's first beta ships.
>Of the 40 or so copies of OS/2 2.0 I have personal knowledge of, probably
>only 34 are in use, and after NT ship, probably less than 20 will be in
>use.  My guess is that OS/2 2.0 will at the time NT ships (lets say
>February 93) have only about 1,000,000 users.

By your own numbers this doesn't bear out.  Look, lets assume that OS/2
continues its current growth rate.  (I know is will change some, but bear
with me)  OS/2 sold 700,000 in the first 3 months after its release.  (and I
am only counting shrinkwrapped copies here)  Assuming that NT  releases when
you say, that will be about 10 months later.  Multiply that out and you get
about 2,330,000.  Now of the 40 copies, you know of 34 are in use.  That's 85%
and 85% of 2,330,000 is about 1,980,000 or about 2 million.  Even if NT cuts
that number to 1/2, (and there is no garuntee that it will) that still is
about 1,160,000.  That is a huge head start.  And OS/2 will gain even more
users during the time that NT starts gaining its users.  I don't think it is
in all that much trouble as you seem to.

>If that first release is as
>good as it seems likely to be, that 1,000,000 could become 600,000 in just
>a couple of months.  This is not a sufficiently large enough group
>to attract a good crowd of ISVs of horizontal apps.

This is balony for the reason I explained above.  Also look at the list of
developers for OS/2 availlable on hobbes.   These are developers who have
*committed* to develop for OS/2, not just ones who might do it.  (and that
would make the list even bigger)  There are a *lot* of developers making
products for OS/2.  If you don't have this list, I will be happy to mail it to
you.  The developer have already been attracted.

>OS/2 2.0 users, should get used to paying higher prices for lesser apps.
>
What is this supposed to mean?  I don't pay any more than anyone on any other
system for my apps, and when OS/2 apps do start coming is large number I am
sure they will be of at least the same quality as their Windows (or any other
system for that matter) counterparts.  Even the ones that have been released
are not any more expensive.  This statement has little basis in fact
or reason.

>Oh... one other thing... Borland has now said that the compiler for
>OS/2 will not be available till year's end.  It's about to enter
>beta.  Borland said at the NT developers conference that they will
>have the NT version out within 2 months of NT's release.
>
>Brian
>

That is not horribly supprissing.  For OS/2 they had to do use a new API and
this takes much more time for a compiler than for many other products.  NT has
something of an advantage here because Borland already has a Windows compiler.
Also, they said they would ship it before year's end and that isn't all that far
away.  (I realize this is an is the glass half empty or half full question, but
it doesn't hurt to be optimistic)  Besides, there already are other compilers
availlable, their quality isn't always the best, but they do work, and thus it
isn't as if apps can't be developed before then.

                                                    Stacy John Behrens
                                                    *===)-------------

                                                    
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy