From: 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 a dead end? NO!
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:07:02 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1993Jan27.215236.23880@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> In article <1993Jan27.104625.7500@gw.wmich.edu> 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>In article <1993Jan27.053844.6159@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>>> The Amiga's rate of sales increased over time; OS/2's is decreasing.
>>>>
>>>>	Where did you get this statistic?  OS/2 sales at retail are
>>>>decreasing, OS/2 shipments via OEM are increasing.  Overall OS/2
>>>>shipments are increasing.  The Amiga is not a market that is increasing.
>>>>This year will probably see an increase in Amiga sales but 1985 to 1992
>>>>saw the Amiga losing ground not gaining ground.
>>> 
>>> Were did you get your statistic?  Sorry, but IBM's numbers do not show
>>> OS/2 sales rates as increasing.
>>> 
>>> 	Sales Rate:
>>> 	Apr-Jul:	1 million / 4 = 250,000 per month
>>> 	Aug-Oct:	.5 million / 3 = 167,000 per month
>>> 	Nov-Dec:	.5 / 2 = 250,000 per month.
>>> 
>>> If you consider that the later you get in the year, the more of OS/2 sales
>>> would be from bundling, then it's not totally unreasonable to say that
>>> it is decreasing, but I think the fairest classification is that the
>>> sales rate is flat.
>>
>>
>>	Again, as was mentioned by someone else, your statistic is misleading
>>(and so is IBM's).  When OS/2 was released, they had over 250,000 backorders
>>for it (remember the electronic distribution on March 31?).  That cuts that
>>statistic off right there.  But for the sake of argument, I will agree that 
>>OS/2 sales overall have reached a plateau.  But my main argument was that
>>someone said that Amiga sales were increasing.  This is WAAAAY off.
> 
> First of all I do not accept that IBM had 250,000 backorders.  They
> were definitely not accepting orders in February, and I was told by
> OS/2 Evangelest Dave Whittle that the number done through electronic
> distribution was rather small (less than 10,000).
> Even if your statement is true, then numbers would read:

	Um, Brian, all official OS/2 2.0 beta tests (our company had a
couple) were given free upgrades to 2.0.  That statistic was counted and
they were put on that log (according to our files) on Feb 15, 1992.  There
were thousands of OS/2 2.0 beta tests last year.  Then we have the
issue of the 1.x upgraders who flooded the channels upon OS/2's release.
Give the point up, it is obvious that there was a tremendous backlog of
orders and the 250,000 electronic shipemtn on March 31 is well known.  You
of all people should be aware of it.


> 
>  	Mar-Jul:	1 million / 5 = 200,000 per month
>  	Aug-Oct:	.5 million / 3 = 167,000 per month
>  	Nov-Dec:	.5 / 2 = 250,000 per month.
> 
> And this is still basically flat.  (Which you basically acknowledged anyway
> so perhaps I should shut up! :-))
> 
	Haha, well, again, my main charge was to the user who said that
Amiga sales were on the rise which is pretty laughable.


> ...
>>>>
>>>>	Again, I was a niche user when I first went to Windows 3.0.  
>>>>I was really a niche user when I used Windows 2.11 for quite a few things.
>>>>Yet, we all agree that Windows is a mainstream environment now.  What
>>>>is there to stop OS/2 from eventually replace Windows?  NT?  Not likely.
>>>>Windows 4.0 (in my opinion) is going to have to be BETTER than OS/2 if
>>>>Windows/DOs is going to continue to be the primary GUI environment.
>>> 
>>> What makes you think OS/2 can compete with Windows 3.1, let alone
>>> Windows 3.1/Windows for Workgroups/Windows NT/Chicago (Windows 4.0)?
>>> The app base and public perception are clearly with the Windows camp.
>>> You've got IBM marketing competing with Microsoft !!!___MARKETING___!!!!
>>> Microsoft products are quite popular and not available under OS/2.
>>> 
>>
>> That is true presently.  And MS is great with marketing no doubt about it. 
>>But at one time, most users laughed at Windows for being too slow, no apps for
>>it, a toy for morons, etc.  I was called a "closet mac lover" because I liked
>>WIndows but I knew DOS well but simply liked the GUI and the multitasking of
>>Windows.  Many companies don't enjoy having to sift through half a dozen
>>products to figure out which one to go with for a particular setup.  A year
>>from now the much laughed at OS/2 as server and client model might be quite
>>nice for companies who want a simple and useful solution.
> 
> The argument that companies don't like to sift through a half a dozen
> products, seems to me to be an argument for NT.
> With OS/2 for example if you want RPC, TCP/IP and multimedia, you're dealing
> with 4 different products made by different parts of IBM in different
> locations.  These pieces are not well integrated.  With NT these all are
> in the base package and very well integrated.
> 

	I agree with you to a point but the managers at companies we deal with 
generally buy microsoft products.  But they have become confused about
which way to go, Windows for workgroups, Windows NT, and now the talk that
Novell isn't going to support WfW (that's another discussion in itself).
IBM's strategy is (from my understanding) is their rep finds out what 
they want and gets them (for example) OS/2 and the necessary extensions.
NT would be a very good idea in the fact that it is a single software
solution for networking but its costs in hardware are presently too high.
I have seen a lot of non blue shops running OS/2 2.0 as a server with
(gasp) 1.x as clients.  
	If I were IBM (and I'm not fortunately) I would make sure OS/2
could act as a server to the Windows 3.1 family.


> As to client-server... NT is inherently client-server.  From it's
> whole internal design is client-server to the RPC APIs.
> Really, only if Microsoft is not serious about DCE, do I see OS/2 having
> any chance to beat NT there.

	you know, doncha wish that NT were released now?  We have another
6 months of just plain speculating about this stuff ahead of this and by
that time you will probably be tired of my typos and lame jokes since we
will probably just speculate away until its release!

> 
>>
>>
>>> I can see a possible argument that OS/2 might acquire and hold a significant
>>> market share, but what possible reason do you have to believe that OS/2
>>> will become dominant?
>>> 
>>	I see Windows 4.0 becoming the dominate environment (assuming here that
>>DOS fades as fast as you and I seem to agree on).  But I consider OS/2 to be
>>the high end dominate platform, not NT or Windows for workgroups.  I think
>>NOvell will eventually move into the IBM camp once their Unix strategy dries
>>up.
> 
> Well if Novell did move into the OS/2 camp I would agree that OS/2 might
> have a chance to become dominant, but I doubt Univel will dry up.
> Even if it does, it will be in the distant future, too late to usurp NT.
> 

	Personally (This is MY OPINION ONLY) I think that Novell wants to
kill of Unix so that it can push Netware harder.


>>
>>
>>> You see I think you miss an important point.  When IBM and Microsoft
>>> split, Microsoft was stuck without the middle piece of their OS plan
>>> (that was going to be OS/2 2.0).  Likewise IBM was left without a
>>> high-end portable OS (that was going to be OS/2 3.0 -- now know as
>>> Windows NT).  Given the success that Microsoft has had in getting ISVs
>>> to commit to NT, IBM is incredibly lucky that Microsoft does not have that
>>> middle piece or OS/2 2.0 would have been blown away.
>>> As it stands, Chicago gets closer everyday, OS/2's desktop app base however
>>> remains small, and there are few signs of significant growth in the near term.
>>> If the OS doesn't have native apps, then the users aren't locked in.
>>> Microsoft has a huge piece of the low-end and shows every sign of walking
>>> away with a big piece of the high-end, thus I don't see Microsoft
>>> leaving the OS realm anytime soon. Further the set of users that fall
>>> in the hole between 3.1 and NT is really not all that big.
>>> 
>>	Agreed, but in terms of this speculation, all I can say is that I am
>>assuming that the app base for OS/2 will grow.  I can't fill in the missing
>>pieces until NT is released and see how well it is received.
>>
>>
>>> The question is can IBM lock-in the middle before Microsoft takes it
>>> for themselves. Even if IBM does accomplish this, they are far from dominance
>>> 
>>> In the end I have to agree with the original poster that OS/2 2.0 is likely
>>> to end up a niche OS.
>>
>> I guess the key here is that I think of niches as OS's like Next which don't
>>really run other OS/Environment's software.  Even if OS/2 doesn't take off in
>>terms of an app base I can still run Windows and DOS apps.  Hardly stuck in a
>>niche there.
>>	Moreover, most people, including myself, thought OS/2 would be a flop
>>and gave little development time to learning it and developing for it. Now that
>>it obviously is successful, the ISV's are moving to develop for it.  The
>>problems in IBM's count (only some of them) in this area is not that ISV's
>>DON'T want to write for OS/2 but that they lack the proper compilers (C/set 2
>>is pretty cruddy I think), and that IBM has not standardized some of the
>>components for it.  2.1 should change the latter part of that statement though.
> 
> I guess the main difference between us is that I don't see the ISVs moving
> toward OS/2.  Is see tham all busy making Win32 apps and both
> Windows 4.0 (Chicago) and NT sport Win32 APIs.
> If you believe that Windows 4.0 will be dominant on the low-end why do
> you not believe NT will be dominant on the high-end?
> Note: I'm defining all these ends in terms of the desktop.  In terms of
> servers, Novell is likely to dominate for some time to come.
> 

	I understand, but I see things in a less proprietary way than you do.
I don't believe in a all or no microsoft solution.  I am not a Microsoft
lover or hater.  As long was Windows 4 allows systems with less than 6
megs of ram to run very well it will do well.  I may be simply brainwashed
by the company I work for but I see DOS as the OS for usrs with 1 meg of
memory or less, Windows for users with 5 megs or less and OS/2 for usrs
with greater than 5 megs.  As you and I have argued for the last few months
and I will say it again, I don't see NT as a compelling operating system.
But this all hinges on what we agree is our basic difference: WILL ISVs
DEVELOP SIGNIFICANT APPS FOR OS/2 IN THE NEXT 9 MONTHS?  If the answer is
NO then OS/2 is doomed.


>>>>Brad Wardell
>>> 
>>> Brian
>>> -- 
>>> C. Brian Sturgill                  Windows, WfW, Windows NT and some OS/2 2.0
>>> University of Utah                 information available via anonymous ftp to
>>> Center for Software Science        easy.cs.utah.edu. Also all my Tidbits posts.
>>> brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373     Windows NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
>>
>>Good discussion, Brian.
> 
> Agreed, good discussion!
> 
>>						-Brad
> -- 

Good discussion v1.1



> C. Brian Sturgill                  Windows, WfW, Windows NT and some OS/2 2.0
> University of Utah                 information available via anonymous ftp to
> Center for Software Science        easy.cs.utah.edu. Also all my Tidbits posts.
> brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373     Windows NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679


						-Brad