From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: nt, an assessment
Date: 22 Jul 92 09:06:21 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul20.2712.2650@dosgate> "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com> writes:
>timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)  writes
>Other factors will kick in. When 32 bit OS/2 apps are released sales
>should accelerate, again.

OK, this it true.  But when will this be?

>It doesn't follow that if OS/2 2.0 sells 1 million, that NT will, as
>well.

I said NT *can* sell 1 million.  However, I also think that NT *will*
sell over 1 million.  Why?  It sounds pretty cool :)

>There will be a major OS/2 2.0 CSD in September, and a
>multi-processor version in November.

Not to dispute you dates or anything, but are these hard dates from IBM?
I remember the "June CSD" being mentioned quite a bit a while back :)

>MT>They can position NT right about where OS/2 is.  The hardware requirements
>MT>are only slightly higher, so why not?  And expensive marketing could
>
>There is the Windows user who is happy. If the user is still using
>Windows after OS/2 2.0 has been around for a year, the user doesn't
>need NT. That user will be waiting for Windows 4.0.

Why is this?  The computer market changes a lot in a year -- a 486/33 was
quite expensive a year ago, but a complete system now is well under $2000.
They're going to be a lot more common in a little while.  (Note that I'm
not saying a 486/33 is needed to run NT -- just that more powerful systems
are becoming far more common than they were just a year ago.)  Besides, the
user may be waiting for NT instead of using OS/2 -- maybe he/she likes
Excel or Word for Windows, or any number of other products that won't 
be ported to OS/2.

>Microsoft is a bit of a bind. If NT goes to the desktop they lose
>their double upgrade market. DOS and Windows. But if they price the
>upgrade to NT at double price, they will get few upgrades.

I'm not sure how much Microsoft gets from DOS & Windows -- anyone care
to step in here and make a guess?  I would suppose they get a great
deal of revenue from their applications.  In any case, the closer
together they bring Win 3.1 and NT, the smaller the gap where OS/2
would be the best choice.  And the less people using OS/2, the more
people using a Microsoft operating system of some kind (ignoring
other operating systems for the moment).

>And, unless Microsoft wants to lose the small market they must keep
>Windows around. Windows will serve to keep the installed base of NT
>small, so that a critical mass cannot develop. Many apps may never
>get past version 1.0.

Once again, if Windows NT is positioned right around where OS/2 is, then
it could easily develop a "critical mass" of users.  It is not a
foregone conclusion that OS/2 will be far more popular.  Maybe many OS/2
apps will never get past 1 version for 2.0.  Maybe they'll both do
pretty well.

>MT>Maybe IBM's lack of marketing shows that they aren't concerned at all.
>
>They were not prepared for the volume! But, now that Cannavino and
>Personal Systems have full control of OS/2 2.0 advertising and
>marketing, we can expect a very significant IBM 'presence'.

Well, I think I recall hearing something about "filling the channel" and
"meeting demand" in April/May.  And people were talking about a "marketing
blitz" coming in May/June.  We'll see.

>MT>Why does it have to be only a server?  Like I said, the hardware requirements
>MT>are only slightly higher than OS/2.  If I can run it and get good
>MT>performance, why not?
>
>Because Windows is there!

Question:  Why do you run OS/2 on your desktop?  Almost any answer you
give will suffice for NT.  And there'll be some reasons for running
NT where OS/2 won't do.

>MT>Fine, it'll be late, but it'll most probably be out within a year.  And
>MT>of course it'll have problems since it's only an alpha at the moment.
>
>And OS/2 will continue to gain momentum.

Sure, but how much?  That's anyone's guess.  There's already hundreds of
ISVs doing work on NT apps, so they obviously think it's got a chance.

>Yes. Microsoft was saying that the full Win32 API would be available
>for Windows, eventually. They seem to backing off that promise. It
>may be a way of differentiating NT from Windows 4.0.
>
>That is a risky move. Microsoft is developing a reputation for not
>keeping its promises.

Perhaps it is, but the fact that the full Win32 API is or isn't used
in Windows 4.0 may not have a huge effect on the success of NT.

>No. Olsen developed tunnel vision for VAX/VMS and didn't see, or
>else refused to accept that the market was changing.
>
>I think Gates is developing a similar fixation with NT. If Microsoft
>doesn't release some OS/2 2.0 apps before 2Q 1993, they will never
>have the same share of the app market they enjoy today.
>
>That is why Lotus, WordPerfect, Borland, etc. will be very aggresive
>in the OS/2 2.0 market. They see a level playing field.

You may be right about Gates here -- "All our wood behind one
arrow" was the quote, I believe.  However, that doesn't mean that
one arrow will miss.

See, you're looking at this as if OS/2 has already won, and it simply
hasn't.  OS/2 sales have been pretty good, but that doesn't mean
that NT doesn't have a chance.  If you look, you'll see that Lotus,
WordPerfect, Borland, etc... are probably all doing work for NT
as well.  *They* know it hasn't lost yet.

>    STEPHEN         Look through the Windows and you will see OS/2!
>    ^^^^^^^    :-)  Walking and chewing gum at the same time.
>
> stephen.dawson@canrem.com

- Mike