From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 will DEFINITELY fail
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:35:14 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec14.032648.4550@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>, hochstae@allfiwib
1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>In <1992Dec11.191116.90161@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOH
N BEHRENS) writes:
>>Actually OS/2 seems to be selling pretty well.  Around thanksgiving I went
>>around to several Cleveland area computer stores, including 2 superstores and
>>informaly asked how OS/2 had been selling recently.  Invariably they said it
>>was selling pretty well.  Not a barn burner by any means, but it was selling
>>at a decent clip.  (Unfortunately I could not get any sales figures so these
>>were only general impressions of sales types)
>
>OS/2 has been sold over 1M, but Windows 3.1 is selling over 1M per month.

Win3.1 had been *shipping* over 1 million a month.  Big difference.


(some stuff about Corel deleted)

>
>Come on. What do you think for what OS Corel will develop Version 4 first?
>Windows 3.1 or OS/2 2.0. Windows of course, because they still will sell
>more copies for Windows. Version 4 will not be out before 94. So it takes
>additional time to port it to OS/2 2.0. Porting to Windows NT is quite
>easy. It takes a couple of days.

I have a feeling that the the release of the two will not be seperated by more
than 2 months.  Recompiling under NT is easy, but really making it use NT
isn't, keep that in mind.  Also, they aren't likely to finish one version and
*then* make the port, they will almost certainly work on them at about the
same time.  Also except for display routines and a few other things, porting
to OS/2 isn't really all that difficult.  The core routines don't get affected
a bit and putting a face on already written stuff isn't all that tough.

>
>Corel also could develop for WIN32s. So their software will run under Windows
>3.1 and Windows NT and both in 32-bit. So, do you really think, that they
>will develop for OS/2 2.0.

Yes I do.  There are a lot of OS/2 users out there already and their numbers
are continually growing.  By the time NT is released there will probably be
over 3 million users and probably 4-5 million by the end of '94.  I doubt
Corel will ignore a market that size, especially when a port to OS/2 wouldn't
take too many resourses.  Now if they take their time and do it right it will
take a bit longer, but then they will have a better selling product too.  It
all depends.
>
>My guess about this hybrid 2.5 version is, that they started developing
>it a long time ago, when NT was not discussed and now they finished it.
>
>Microsoft is doing the right thing here. They tell the ISVs, go writing
>WIN32s apps. They will run under WIN32s (which can be redistributed free)
>and Windows NT. So, who would seriously write apps for OS/2, which always
>hasn't been a good seller.
>
OS/2 1.x wasn't.  You can't possibly argue that OS/2 2.0 hasn't sold well.
Again 2 million potential users who wan't apps is nothing to sneer at.

>>In most cases security is rather pointless unless it is a multiuser system.  I
>>certainly don't need to be logging on to my own PC.
>
>You are lucky, you have your own PC. Many people have to share their PCs
>with others and there may be some confidental data on it.

Then you take steps to hide it, but the vast majority of machines simply don't
have lots of confidential info on them, and if you are dumb enough to put
critical info on a non secure machine, then you deserve what's coming to you.

>
>>Besides there are
>>security products availlable.  (granted they aren't great, but they will keep
>>most rif-raff off the machine)
>
>Yes, like this stupid restricted shell for OS/2 2.0. These "security" products
>can be easily broken into. People think, they have a secure machine, but
>actually everybody can do anything. This can be very dangerous!

Some go beyond just a restricted shell.  You also can pretty easily program
the machine to secure things that you don't wan't seen.  But in reality if you
wan't security you get a system such as Unix with all the trimmings

>
>>Also tell me honestly, do you *really need*
>>Unicode.
>
>If we all were in the US and we all would speak English only, there is
>no need for Unicode, but the world is bigger than the USA.

This is true, but the biggest single market is the US.

>
>>Granted OS/2 should have it, (and probably will someday) but I don't
>>know too many people who when investigating a system the first (or even tenth)
>>thing out of their mouth is, "Does it support Unicode?"  Heck it is amazing
>>how many people are unaware that Unicode exists.  Also, I challenge you to
>>walk into a store and buy a single NT application.  I have seen OS/2 apps in
>>stores.
>
>Right, they are in stores, because no one wants to buy them.

Cheap shot.  I most certainly wish to buy OS/2 apps.

>
>>Granted, very few, but they are availlable.
>
>Agreed!
>
>>The same cannot be said
>>about NT.  Right now there simply isn't a choice.
>
>When OS/half 2.0 was in beta, there weren't any apps. But take a look
>at the announcements of many companies, e.g. Borland, they promised to
>have their C++ ready <12 weeks after the release date of NT. I wonder,
>if their C++ Compiler for OS/2 will be out then.

Right.  They also promised the same thing for NT.  Think it will be there?
Given the problems Borland is having right now, odds are against it.
>
>Don't tell me about any announcements of OS/2 apps. OS/2 2.0 is out 8
>month now and there are still announcements only. This is worth really
>nothing. "We hereby proudly announce to have a stone-aged version of our
>foobar product for OS/2 2.0 sometime in the future".
>What shall anyone say to this?

It is important to know what is out there and what to expect soon.  Though it
is true that announcements often aren't lived up to, they are important.  I
like knowing what to expect rather than just hoping that company X will
hopefully do something.


>
>Christoph



-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy