From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft blasting IBM into the dust?
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:18:05 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Nov11.001313.13771@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) write
s:
>In article <1992Nov10.191847.47990@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (S
TACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>
>>I think they are capable of it, but they are still going through culture
>>shock.  IBM is amazed that they have a product with mass appeal.  It is taking
>>them a long time to adjust to this.  MS has no current products that I am
>>aware of that don't rely at least in part on mass appeal.  They are used to
>>it, IBM isn't as of yet.  As for Multimedia and networking, it has been argued
>>(by me as well as others) that not everyone wants those things included with
>>the base package.  I won't use them, and really don't wan't to see the price
>>of the system jacked up.
>>
>
>Which might mean that Windows has more "bang for the buck."  I, for one,
>was very pleased that I could just hook up a network (Lantastic in my case)
>and have Windows recognize it--and hook up a CD-ROM drive and be able to
>run applications in a DOS window (or Windows only apps--like Bookshelf
>for Windows).

More bang for the buck?  C'mon be honest.  OS/2 does everything you list
above.  (Except automatically recognize your LAN.  But that shouldn't keep
you from using it.)
>
>I was, am, really upset that OS/2 for the "upgrade" price of $49 was unable
>to make use of the hardware I already had...  Windows at $49, has so far
>proven to be more *useable* as far as applications are concerned (but not
>BETTER)...

Useable?  I guess it depends on what you have.  I would disagree, but that may
be the case for you.
>
>If IBM really wants to compete against Windows 3.1, they should consider
>throwing, at least, rudimentary network support (ahhh, but if TCP/IP came
>in the box, there would be no contest!) and support for up-and-coming
>peripherals like CD-ROM (heck, their Ultimedia PC's *come* with CD-ROM
>drives... and OS/2 out of the box doesn't support it?!)
>
Yeah, TCP-IP doesn't quite cut it as rudimentary support.  Maybe something
like appletalk would be a good idea.  Wouldn't add *too* much too the cost.
OS/2 does now have a generic CD-ROM driver availlble.  (though I agree it
should be in the base package)

>Sure, why pay for it if you don't need it?  MS-DOS takes up 2-3 MB's on
>my computer--90% of the programs I don't use.  But just because I don't
>use it now, doesn't mean I won't use it later.  If MS can do it for DOS
>(ala SHARE.EXE) and for Windows (built in support for networks such as
>Novell and Lantastic et al), and still keep the price ($129 for Windows)
>within reach, why can't IBM do the same?

When I say "pay for things you don't need", you need to take that statement
with a grain of salt.  There are certain aspects of the OS that are basic and
should be included.  File management, interrupt handling and other such things
of course, a certain quantity of utilities such as editors, file finders etc.
Also some sort of interface.  Now beyond that you have things like multimedia
and LAN's.  Some people need/want them included, but you will be hard pressed
to argue that the majority of machine out there, particularly home based PC's
are equiped to deal with such things.  These things (IMHO) should be add ons.
A seperate package with the included, isn't a bad idea, but it isn't
necissarily a good idea to put them in all in the base package.  Now the OS
*should* recognize such things when they do happen to be on the system.  This
may be what you are getting at.  OS/2's support of such things is lacking, and
after trying out MMPM/2, find it to be worth less than half the price they ask
for it.  OS/2 can do it after a fashion with DOS networks however via VDM's.
Granted it is  something of a cludge, but it does work just fine.  As for
Windows selling for so little, that is because MS has been basically giving it
away to anyone who will take it.  MS most likely doesn't make their big bucks
on sales of Windows.  They also sell apps, expensive ones too.  Since so many
people are running on a system which they dominate, they make their real money
there.  IBM doesn't have much in the way of application software for OS/2 the
way MS does.  They are trying to make money on the system.  Unfortunately that
makes things more expensive.  (Fortunately not much)
>
>>>
>>>I think if IBM has any chance left at all then it is to release
>>>a more complete OS/2 INCLUDING multimedia, LAN etc etc and to release
>>>it in a way users can actually use. The CSD seems to take an expert to
>>>install. I am refering to something an idiot can use. And please oh please
>>>improve support for third party hardware a lot.
>>>
>>>But to be fair, I don't think this will happen before it is too late.
>>>
>>Stacy John Behrens
>>*===)-------------
>
>Joe
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy