From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of users etc.
Date: 14 Aug 92 02:19:20 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Aug13.184944.19373@umbc3.umbc.edu>, cs611a10@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs6
11a10) writes:
>
>>Also interesting is the same for Windows 3.1. In this case (an maybe in
>>the OS/2 case) subtractions for "shelfware" might be needed.
>>
>   By shelfware I assume you mean programs bought, but not in use, right???
>Lots of people believe that a hefty amount of MicroSloth Windows aren't
>being used.  Before calling me a bigot, I agree that there must be people
>out there who bought OS/2 and aren't using it (can we help it if they
>have no taste in operating systems),  but using a little common sense
>I (note: me personally) believe that a greater percentage of people
>are NOT using Windows, than are people not using OS/2 for one reason:
>
>     The ease in which Windows can be bought, compared to what has to be
>done to buy OS/2.  Windows packages are sold EVERYWHERE!! Anybody been
>to a computer store that doesn't have Windows out on display CHEAP
>($49 or so now???).  Any common user can say that looks neat, I'll think
>I will try it.  Its like going to EggHead and buying Wing Commander because
>the box look pretty.  If they like Windows, they will use it. If they don't,
>then it goes on the self.

Well first off, what does ease of buying have to do with a product becoming
shelfware?  (I'm really getting sick of these x-ware phrases)  Secondly, every
computer store I've been in recently has OS/2 availlable.  Not always
displayed as prominently as possible, but it is there.
>
>    OS/2, on the other hand, is much more difficult to buy.
>When I bought it the ONLY place it could be found is directly from IBM.
>If people have to go through this trouble, and wait 2-4 weeks for it to
>arrive, they probably have thought about this a lot, and have concluded this
>is what I need!! (whether it is or not is not the question).  Anybody who
>has doubts would probably not have ordered it in the first place.

Not true.  It can be bought in most stores by now.
>
>    Here's definite proof that at least SOME Windows packages are instant
>selfware.  Everybody and their cousin is GIVING away Windows with their
>packages.  I forked over the money for 3.1, but when I bought a Soundblaster
>Pro, I got a FREE Windows 3.1 System.  What am I going to do, install TWO
>versions of Windows on my machine???  Mouse Systems (mice???) comes with
>Windows, Scanners come with Windows, all new machines come with Windows,
>CD drives and some Video cards come eith windows.  SOME of these are bound
>to go to users already running windows. I also think that users would
>be less likely to use a system that they got as an extra bonus, instead of
>something they went out and spent some effort to get.  Its kind of like mailing
>out NRA bumper stickers. How many people are going to put them on their car
>(opps, I mean TRUCK with a gun rack in the rear window).  Not many (I wouldnt).
>On the otherhand, people who PAY the NRA to get these stickers are more likely
>(opps, I mean WILL) to stick them onto their trucks simply because they have
>a desire to do so.

This is quite true.  Windows seems to be shipped with everything these days.
In fact in some cases, it is hard to get certain products without it anymore.
This is more than a minor annoyance to some people.
>
>   Here's a question: IBM is counting the number of OS/2 2.0 being sold,
>right?? Is MicroSoft counting the number of 3.0 sold, 3.1 sold, or all 3.x
>packages sold???? If it is counting ALL 3.x sold, they are out of line, since
>3.1 is basically an upgrade.  How many people have Windows 3.0 AND 3.1
>installed on their machines???  Its true 0S/2 2.0 is an upgrade from 1.x,
>but IBM isn't including 1.3 sales in the number of OS/2 sold (right????).
>Is Microsoft including win-os2 in their sales of Windows??? If they are
>OS/2 will never sell more than Windows!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>  DEEP THOUGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>    I figured out how to COUNT ALL Microsoft 3.x users.  Anybody ACTUALLY
>USING  Windows 3.0 would have upgraded to 3.1 by now to fix  (kind of)
>all the faults of 3.0.  Simply count up the number of 3.1 units sold and
>we know how many (at least a good upper bound: SOME people will still look at
>3.1 and say this still sucks) ACTUAL users of Windows there are.
>

Good thought, but what about the 3.1 packages that are shipped with systems
etc.?  Probably not all of those are in use either.  Most of this stuff has
been hammered, er.. discussed already so I am not going to start.


>  DTB
>
                                                Stacy John Behrens
                                                *===)-------------

                                                
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy