From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hard future for OS/2 2.0 ....
Date: 12 Sep 92 23:36:16 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <716296545snx@feki.toppoint.de>, marten@feki.toppoint.de (Marten Feld
tmann) writes:
>The time is counting to zero for OS/2 2.0.
>
>Here in Germany a big computer newspaper (ComputerWoche) is VERY
>sceptical about the success of OS/2 2.0. During the last weeks the
>comments on this OS are getting worse.
>
>Here are some points, the writers mentioned:
>
> -- OS/2 2.0  is too difficult for the end user

If the WPS is too difficult for the end user, then that user doesn't belong
anywhere near a computer.
>
> -- OS/2 2.0  needs too much hardware

Not much more than Windows, and any modern OS is going to need a lot of
hardware.
>
> -- OS/2 2.0  where are the appilications?
>
Coming slowly but surely.  Besides, your current ones will usually work just
fine.

> -- OS/2 2.0  there's no need for multitasking

Need?  Technically no, but then I suppose that technically most end users
really don't "need" anything higher than DOS 2.0.  This is garbage and the
people who think that need to catch up with modern technology.
>
> -- OS/2 2.0  is too expensive (here in Germany)

A curious point.  IBM (*International* Business Machines) doesn't seem to be
treating their foriegn customers very well.  Any ideas why?
>
> -- OS/2 2.0  not clear, what the long-term strategy of IBM is ..

What is the long term strategy of most companies?  This is kept mostly under
wraps for very good reasons.  This arguement is mostly blowing smoke.>

> -- OS/2 2.0  not clear, if OS/2 is suitable for server stations

I think that it is quite clear that it is sutable.  Heck there is even
software out there with this express purpose.  Even DOS stuff works.  This
isn't much of a question.  For workstations, well it doesn't run on them so
that answers that question doesn't it?
>
>
>  They say, that Windows 3.1 has won the battle against OS/2 2.0 in the
>market of the desktop user (= end user). For other things like network
>or server purposes they are all waiting for Windows NT or are still
>looking for a suitable UNIX-version ....
>
If they think Windows has "won" the war, they are sadly mistaken.  The war is
just beginning.  Besides I am seeing an increasing number of people dumping
Windows in favor of OS/2.  Well there will be several versions of UNIX that
look to be similair in power to NT, but neither of these systems compete with
OS/2 on workstations, so who cares?  (Remember OS/2 doesn't run on them)
Besides OS/2 is more powerful on the desktop than Windows and many people are
waking figuring this out.  (notice I said more powerful, you can decide for
yourself which is actually better)


>  Some are predicting, that 1994 the market of server-OS is shared by
>Netware, NT and UNIX and no one will see OS/2 there.

HA, HA, HA,...  It'll be there.  Where?  We'll just have to wait and see.  It
is sort of like where will NT fit into the scheme of things on the desktop.
Nobody is sure as of yet.
>
> If you are a  customer today it seems to be clear: Windows 3.1 is
>working, has multimedia in it, has lot's of beautiful application
>(Lotus, AmiPro, Excel, Word, Freelance ............) and it's cheaper
>than OS/2 2.0.

OS/2 is working, has multimedia availlable, can run all those applications,
and is more powerful.  In addition it is more stable.  Take your pick.
>
> The prices for dealers here in Germany are quite interesting:
>
>   Windows 3.1 for about $50 (without DOS), OS/2 2.0 for about $130

Well, that sounds about right.  Both are about $30-50 more than over here for
dealers.  As long as it is consistant.
>
> The customer price is very strange: OS/2 2.0 price is still official
>placed at 440.- DM (or $300) from IBM. Other dealers (mail) offer
>this OS for about 300.- DM (or $200).
>
> For me it's clear: OS72 is the right product for me.
>
> Any comments?
>
Plenty but they are all above.

Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------