From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: What and how I'd like to see c.o.o.a advocate.
Date: 21 Aug 92 06:19:13 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Originator: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu

(Please feel free to pass this on to anyone that might be interested.)

THE PROBLEM
During the past couple of weeks I've been quite active in c.o.o.a.
I also have been unduly angry.  I am simply frustrated at
the OS/2 community's reaction (or more specifically the lack
there of) to Windows NT.  Rhetoric and promises aren't going
to compete with NT.  I understand that normally when one sees
Microsoft press releases that more than a few grains of salt are
necessary.  THIS, LARGELY SPEAKING, IS NOT THE CASE FOR NT.
Microsoft in some sense is under-hyping NT, possibly because no
one would believe it if they flat out gave the list of features
it will eventually have.  WOSA is mostly real, it encompasses everything
from database access, to e-mail, to RPC, networking, etc.  In many
of these places they have working code in NT.  NT's feature list
that will be delivered a few months from now as a feature list
that is clearly superior to OS/2. I and others have covered that
list quite explicitly before, so I won't cover again.

Is it all dark for OS/2?  No, of course not _IF_ IBM starts emphasizing
OS/2's strengths and quits trying to make OS/2 all things for
everybody.  One of NT's primary strengths is that it's aimed
at a much more focused market... which can be loosely termed
the workstation.  Currently modern workstation-class machines perform
two functions, high-end desktops, and file/other_resource servers.
NT is designed very well for such a market.  Windows 3.X is available
for the lower-end desktops, and of course there are plans for
other windows-based systems to fill the middle ground.  Microsoft
has a broad-based plan to have Windows-based systems for most markets.

OS/2 on the other hand seems to have an identity crisis.
I believe most of its new users view it as a sort of desktop/workstation system.
IBM's specs seem to imply that OS/2 was intended for low-end systems
and would compete with Windows 3.X.  Traditional corporate use of OS/2
tends to be to use it for servers, thus pushing it toward the high-end.
IBM is now promising that it will run with symmetric-multiprocessing
in a Mach-based portable version, thus now seeming to target high-end
systems. It is impossible for one system to be good at this broad-range
and the sooner OS/2 stops chasing all of this simultaneously the better.

OS/2 needs a focus before it can effectively compete.  One way to compete
is to go head-on with your competitors product (NT).  As IBM is still a bit
slow to respond, perhaps this approach should be avoided.  The other
approach to competition is to emphasize ones strengths that are weaknesses
of the opponent.  IBM in it's pride from former times, seems hell-bent to
do what Microsoft does "better", but at the same time not being nearly
as agile.  What I would like to see is IBM to quit trying to do the
impossible and start enhancing those features of OS/2 that are and
will be better than NT, for a specific section of the market.

WHERE MICROSOFT WINS
Microsoft has the low-end market sewn up... why try to fight it?
Any 386SX machine with small memory, small disk runs Windows just fine,
but OS/2's better features make it too fat to run there.  While
OS/2 needs to attract those users that have hit Windows 3.X's limitations,
pretending that user will not need a lot more memory and more disk
and processor power does not do the user any favors and only leads to
reputation problems.  More under ATTRACTING USERS below.

NT is clearly designed at the low-end workstation level.  Basically
any 386-33Mhz with 12 or 16 megs of memory and higher is prime NT territory,
especially if that machine is on a network acting as a server.
OS/2 is missing a huge number of features in the area of networking.
It also does not have security or symmetric multiprocessing.
It is not portable.  In short, OS/2 is not ready for the high-end.

WHERE OS/2 WINS
It has the Work Place Shell, which is innovative, and easy to use.
It has great DOS support!  It doesn't have security or symmetric
multiprocessing.  But wait didn't I just tout those as "features"
for NT?  They are features, but only for a part of the market.
A closer look at OS/2 shows that it is quite good at the level
of the middle-range desktop.  People that know enough to purchase
machines through mail-order probably have a machine, that with
a little more memory runs OS/2 well.  Corporate "power-users" --
those that do huge spread sheets while downloading information
from an online service also have this class of machine.
Unfortunately IBM seems to have decided to do everything as wrong as
possible in meeting the needs of such a user.

ATTRACTING USERS
All high resolution video cards MUST be supported fully.  A user
that needs OS/2 knows about high resolution, probably has high resolution,
and will be quite annoyed AT OS/2 if it's not working.  That user
does not care WHO should write the driver, only that it's there and
is easily installable.

While C2 security might not be necessary, the concept of logons should
be introduced ASAP in OS/2.  There are two reasons... in a corporate
environment the extra security would be appreciated (even if
the logon doesn't affect in any way file ownership), and many
users, especially home users SHARE a machine. Having the use "logon"
allows multiple desktop configurations, which means I don't have
to agree with my spouse/child's taste in screen decoration or folder
setup.

Multimedia support should be a part of the base package.  OS/2 is the only
modern system I can think of that tries to charge for it's multimedia.
How does IBM expect to attract developers when the developers would
have to ask their users to pay $149 before they can use their package?
This rules out all hope of having low-end multimedia packages for OS/2.
Users of the class most suited for OS/2 either want, or will want
multimedia, but not for $149.  As things stand developers won't
develop the low-end packages, and Microsoft will get around
to that mid-range version of Windows and OS/2 will die the death
an unresponsive-IBM deserves.

Stability, speed, ease of use: For a company that prides itself on
such matters IBM has done a pitiful job with OS/2.  The Work Place Shell is
slow and buggy -- Drive folders especially. Windows emulation is
slow -- when you don't have native apps how can you attract users
if things are slow.  In general OS/2 2.0 has been very sloppy
in terms of quality.  Too many quirks.  It's also clear that
no "real" users were sat down in front of WPS and feedback obtained.
WPS is good, but very rough.

IBM needs to develop a mass-market mind set.  This week's PC Week
has a quote from IBM saying that IBM had originally only expected to
sell 1.5 million copies this year.  Fire the idiot that made
that projection... the industry has been starved for such an OS,
there is no reason but IBM's incompetent marketing and lack the
of speed, stability, and drivers that OS/2 couldn't have sold
4 million this year.  IBM may understand mainframe marketing,
but it's clear they don't have a clue about OS/2's market.

Reasonably priced peer-to-peer networking.  Small networks, even
at home are fast becoming the norm for an OS/2-class user.
Something in the $100 range per CPU for up to 10 machines is
needed.  The networking should provide printer and file sharing, and
be very easy to administrate.  IBM Direct could have a bundle of
2 software sets and 2 ethernet cards like Novell does with NetWare Lite.

Reasonably priced TCP/IP.  The current package was released while still
obviously buggy (for example Drive folders don't work) and too
expensive.  The complete TCP/IP package shouldn't be more than
$300.  Stop hiding the package.
(I can't believe I need to tell IBM to tell their customers
that a product exists, but with TCP/IP for OS/2 it's necessary.)

Improve the clone support.  OS/2 has done fairly well here, but
needs to go further still.  Advertise the fact!  If PS/2's can't
compete in their own right, then they should die the death
they deserve.

EITHER DROP OS/2 3.0 OR MAKE IT A SEPARATE PRODUCT
It will be impossible to make a symmetric multiprocessing, network
server OS that runs well on a current medium-scale machine.  This is not
currently a strong point of OS/2.  Why not fix and properly market
OS/2 in the market it is sized for?  If IBM wants to compete
with NT then do so with AIX... it is currently much better suited to task.

As currently designed, OS/2 is much more suited to being a personal
operating system.  Why not capitalize on that as a feature.
NT inherits quite a bit of baggage as both a server and a workstation
OS.  IBM should slim OS/2 and capitalize on that slimness.
It's true that it will concede a part of the market to NT, but at the
same time it will pick up more of the larger desktop market.

FINALLY
IBM should make a multi-tiered plan that says what's for the low, medium,
and high-end, and quit confusing everybody about whether and how Taligent,
OS/2, and AIX fit together.

Also, get some real marketing people... IBM should be embarrassed
at the poor marketing that has been done for OS/2.

Brian Sturgill
brian@cs.utah.edu
Compuserve: 70363,1373
(801) 581-5591
FAX: (801) 581-5843