From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 07:38:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.054854.16201@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.043118.12809@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.034402.14805@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>
>>>I think in the end you will have to agree with me that ISV support
>>>for OS/2 is weak. 
>>>
>>
>>Brian, you seem to indulge yourself too much in this point, but don't
>>you think it is too early to predict?  OS/2 2.0 is out for six or seven
>>months now.  Compared to Windows 3.x, it is a way too short a time.  Besides,
>>even though the list may not be too impressive, don't you also think all the
>>major application developers like Borland, Lotus, WordPerfect, Computer
>>Associates, SAS, and others who said they are developing os/2 2.0 versions
>>of their apps are more than adequate for the moment?  With os/2's success,
>
>Remember that the list contained not existing apps, but rather
>_existing_ and _planned_ apps.
>If you consider that list is likely a best case scenario for the OS/2 2.0
>apps in the next 2 years, then no I don't think they're even close to
>adequate.  Borland only put two of their apps on OS/2, and have said
>both are development tools, and one of the (C++) was financially encouraged
>by IBM (the details are secret).
>
>Lotus and WordPerfect pride themselves on being on all platforms.
>SAS is on multiple platforms, and their strong association with the IBM
>world make them naturals to be on OS/2.
>
>Computer Associates on have that works package there, and this is
>not surprising as they have no competition, and they're probably tired
>of losing to MS Works.
>
>In short, the list of vendors there is not surprising, and I see little
>indication that this will grow any time soon.  Worse for OS/2 1Q93
>will bring a ton of competing OS's... NT, UnixWare, Solaris 2.0 386,
>NextStep 486, etc.
>Novell, originally a big OS/2 backer, has decidedly backed off, pushing
>it's own (Univel's) UnixWare.
>Borland has said they'll put no more of their apps their for a while, etc.

Please give more details of this announcement by Borland as I appear to
have missed it. If you do not ahave details of the announcement a 
time and date from the relevant trade publication will do ( you read
a lot more magazines than I do so I could have missed this one. )_

If they are putting no more apps on OS/2 why have they just sent me details
their special offer for the first version of Brief DOS & OS/2 that they
are shipping under the Borland name. 

Martin Smith
msmith@netcom.com



>
>The list SJB of apps gave us is weak relative even to the top 3 existing
>Unix platforms (SCO, Solaris, HP/UX).
>
>>apps developers will follow, and os/2's success is becoming more and
>>more apprent.  
>
>What possible grounds do you have for stating that "os/2's success
>is becoming more and more apparent"?  It had a respectable sales
>initially, but it's bugginess seems to have stiffled its deployment.
>I wouldn't say its doing poorly, but it looks quite possible that it may
>not even make the 2 million mark of the the 2-3 million copies most
>analysts said it would do in March.
>
>>Min
>
>
>Brian
>-- 
>C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
>University of Utah                             United We Stand
>Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy