From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Date: 26 Sep 92 19:41:42 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep24.211734.10487@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) write
s:
>In article <1992Sep23.234729.49350@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (S
TACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep23.051817.18831@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) wri
te
>>s:
>>>In article <1992Sep23.020719.2680@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.clare
mo
>>nt.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Sep22.204618.561@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writ
es
>>:
>>>>>
>>>>...
>>>>>I am excited with the prospect that a 32-bit operating
>>>>>system will catch on (which it will be, NT or OS/2 is still up in the air).
..
>>>>
>>>>The following is not aimed specifically at you Joe, so please don't take it
>>>>as flamage:)
>>>>
>>>>There is something that not a whole lot of people seem to be commenting abou
t.
>>>>..that maybe in the largest microcomputer market there's room for more
>>>>than one good 32-bit operating system?  People say stuff like "Kiss OS/2
>>>>goodbye" or "Windows NT: NOT!", but truth be told, both are going to achieve
>>>>some amount of success.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think we'll be seeing the end of either of these OS's anytime soon.
>>>>Talking about one trouncing the other is just wishful thinking.
>>>>
>>>>Ted
>>>
>>>
>>>No offense taken.  This is true, that there may be more than one OS
>>>success... though it is more likely that there will be only one "winner"
>>>in the PC desktop market.  Why?  Because software is too specialized to
>>>be profitable for small development companies to support more than one OS.
>>>Even in games, you have "strategy games" and "arcade games" and
>>>"simulations" and "learning games"...  it would be expensive for ANY
>>>company to try to support another OS for the products they manufacture.
>>
>>Hogwash.  MS supports multiple platforms.  IBM supports multiple platforms.
>>Many UNIX vendors support multiple platforms.  Heck it's getting hard to stay
>>competitive if you don't support multiple platforms.  What you have stated is
>>patently false in a large number of cases..
>
>Offense taken.  It *IS* expensive.  If you don't believe so, I think you
>need a reality check.  MS and IBM can do it because they can afford to do
>it.  I didn't say it can't be done, I said it was expensive to do.  Small
>companies won't be able to compete--and many could conceivably die off.
>The PC industry is a breeding ground for software developers mainly
>because the market is so large, and the platform so "standardized" (ie.,
>everyone can run DOS) that it's easy to write software that has a
>reasonable chance that it will work on people's machines.

Ahh, but I never said that it wasn't expensive.  That is another ball of wax
altogether.  Heck even small companies produce apps for multiple platform
though.  Look at the number of companies which produce DOS and Win apps.  If
you program in both systems, you will know that the two are so different that
they almost might as well be on different machines.  But companies do it
regularly because it is profitable.  (though expensive)

>That's one of the main reasons, I feel, that hardware is so easy to get
>for PC's.  I just bought a ROM burner for 79 bucks.  If you stop to
>think about it, this company wouldn't be able to afford to sell this thing
>if their software had to run under OS/2, NT, DOS, and Windows... and I
>checked, they don't sell a Mac or Sun version.

That's a pity.  I could use one for the Mac.
>
>I also did not say that supporting multiple platforms wasn't PROFITABLE.
>But doing so is so expensive, that attempting to develop a package could
>drain a company's resources that they never finish.  It's potentially bad
>for the customer too...  I rarely find a Unix package that's EASY
>to install, and most of the stuff IBM sells for its multiplatform systems
>(e.g., the package is available for the AS/400, RS-6000, etc.) really
>needs someone expensive (IBM charged $125 per hour) to install it.
>
Agreed.  Although many companies who are serious about UNIX will know how to go
about doing it.  (One of the side effects of the system, not good in most
cases IMO)

>So go wash your own hogs.  :)
>
>>
>>>
>>>Even in video tapes this was true:  Beta is dead, long live VHS.  (and
>>>to my mind, Beta was technologically superior to VHS)...
>>
>>Video tapes have little to do with computers except in recoring animation.
>
>But the analogy is there (unless one is too blind to see it).  Long before
>Beta died, many video houses only carried ONE type of format.  This lead
>to that type being the type preferred by the masses...  which further led
>to the decline of beta.  Funny how that works, neh?
>
I saw the analogy.  I just don't think it is a very good one.
>
>>>
>>>I hope that both OS's, NT and OS/2 (and Unix and Desqview and DOS)
>>>win... then that would certainly squish a lot of these threads, wouldn't
>>>it?
>>
>>Probably not.  Then we would get the "my OS kicks your OS's butt" arguements.
>>(They are surfacing already)
>>>
>>>-> Joe <-
>>>
>>
>>Stacy John Behrens
>
>or arguments for the sake of arguments...
>
Right.

Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy