From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 **WILL** fail
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 06:18:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy 

In article <8167@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes:
>First let me begin by confusing the hell out of the issue and saying
>that I LOVE os/2. I use os/2. Within a day of seeing the os/2 $50
>offer I bought it (before that I didn't know WHERE to buy it!) and
>after that I spent $150 to buy 4 more megs of ram to really USE
>os/2. I now develop foxpro and borland c applications, along with
>modeming, word processing, and everything else under os/2. And with
>my recent aquisition of wowii the only reason I had left for using
>dos, to play with my sound blaster, is gone as well. With that said,
>I will address my point:Why os/2 WILL fail. 
>
>The number of people being forced to use a computer and the number
>of people choosing to use a computer increase everyday. But one of
>the biggest blocks in the way of succesful computer development and
>sales was how difficult it was to use a computer for someone who
>isn't a computer expert. With the advent of sufficent cycles to have
>gui's systems like the mac came out and were hits. They weren't hits
>because their software was better or because they were more
>powerful, they were hits because the average joe could USE them.
>Many people and companies were willing to shell out TWICE what they
>would pay for a MORE POWERFUL PC in order to get a system their
>people could actually (gasp) use. This is where os/2 comes in. OS/2
>is a perfect example of PC power without rembering who the real
>market is. OS/2 is POWERFUL, REAL powerful. But its also a pain in
>the ass. It reminds me of the old japanese vcrs which had 50
>(literally, I counted several) buttons on the remotes and more knobs
>than I had the time to count on the vcr body itself. OS/2 is
>very much like that. In an effort to give the user total control
>(which computer professionals such as myself ADORE, I just LOVE
>tweaking priority so I can download and still get work done) they
>have alienated the average user. I don't know ANYONE who can't just
>jump into a MAC or Windows program without problem, but sit them in
>front of os/2 and they start drooling in confusion. From truly
>little things like having an icon move with the right mouse button
>(yes, I know, you can change that, I did) to trying to figure out
>how in the name of hell to get some damned dos program working to
>remembering how the hell you change from full screen to window (yes,
>I know alt-home, you aren't listening =) and so on and so forth.
>OS/2 gives the user more choices than a user knows how to deal with.
>Theres a REASON why SO MANY PEOPLE are willing to buy a mac even
>though it will cost them everything they own. Because they don't
>have to WORRY about anything. They don't need to worry about
>different screen modes, hard drive types, mother board standards,
>software compatability and so on and so forth. OS/2 has not helped,
>from the software point of view, in this area at all. It just
>complicated issues. OS/2 can't survive in it's current form. Its just
>too damn hard for your average computer semi-literate to deal with!
>Any idiot can install and get windows running, but getting os/2
>running takes a computer jock.OS/2 is a WONDERFUL system if your a
>computer jock, but if your say a writter who has a book they need to
>get out, its nothing more than another road block. OS/2 will either
>understand that the unwashed masses of computer ignorants are the
>true market or they will fail. Personally I expect os/2 users to
>become like NEXT users. There will always be some, but they will be
>small and off in the woods some place.
>
>Oh and btw, is there ANYONE out there who can do file management
>faster through the gui than they can through the command line? Why
>is it that file management on the mac is really easy from a gui but
>the os/2 gui is so slow in this area? I'm running off a 486/33mhz
>with 210 drive (and things are slow even on the hpfs partition in
>gui (wps)), 8 megs of ram, 1 meg vga card running in 800x600 mode.
>
>			Just one guy's opinion,
>					The Jester
>-- 
>			The Jester
>"Its what you DON'T know that counts"-Anonymous
>"Patience is a virtue I haven't quite developed but I'v learned
>how to imitate."-The Jester

Please follow up to advocacy which is where this baby belongs. 

I disagree with the premise for your argument. OS/2 is extremelly easy to 
use for the average user straight out of the box. The vast majority of
DOS and windows apps do not NEED tweaking to work. They are helped by tweaking
but it is not neccesary. 

OS/2 only starts to get complex if you look under the hood it is far less 
difficult to twaek than windows ( I HATE .ini files etc ). 

The interface is different but not that different. The latest windows apps 
use mouse button two for pop up menus BTW.  

I honestly believe and have cliens whi agree that OS/2 is a lot less painful 
than windows was / is to learn and use.

Martin Smith
msmith@netcom.com