From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
Date: 5 Jan 93 10:26:26 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R Ebright) writes:

>In article <19189@mindlink.bc.ca> Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright) writes:
>>
>>Why do I now think that OS/2 will definitely dominate the desktops in the
>>future, and why NT won't be the *most* popular platform on PC's in general?

>(small deletion)
>>
>>Here's why:
>>
>>Why do so called UNIX OS's (in our terms) fail?  Because lack of a user
>>base..  And because the user base is so low, the prices must be higher.

>Well, there may be more people using OS/2 than DR-DOS,  but it is the
>microSoft folks who have the user base.

>(deletion)
>>
>>Windows NT will not be compatable, and will even have worse compatabilities
>>than OS/2, thus driving the NT user base down even more..
>>

>The history of software is that significant advances are 'not compatable'
>with old software.  Incompatabilities have been the norm and the industry
>has survived.  

Are you sure about that? Not in the PC world anyway.

>(Indeed, IBM's mainframe business might be super prospering today if FS
>(Future Systems) had been brought to market in the 70's {FS was an AS400 type
>operating system}.  It was not because the salesmen said the customers didn't
>want something incompatable with OS/360.  So IBM mgmt opted for gradualism [MVS]
>instead of incompatability.)

>>There is a lot of anti-Microsoft love/hate relationships going around with
>>Microsoft.  People are starting to see Microsoft as a company that looks
>>out only for itself, and not for it's users..  There is a LOT of
>>anti-windows feelings out there..   Many people hate windows, but only use
>>it because there really wasn't a better alternative..  Now there is..
>>Thus driving the Windows and the NT user base down even more..
>>

>Well, in the 60's and much of the 70's IBM was the most hated computer
>vendor in the country.  And people like Burroughs made much much much better
>computers that anyone who tried really liked a lot better.  But that didn't
>make Burroughs successful.

>>There is a lot of OS/2 advocacy out there..  If someone turned all those
>>OS/2 advocacy quotes into bumper stickers, I'm sure they'd sell pretty
>>fast..  Thus driving the NT user base down even more..
>>

>And there are a lot of loony f-ball fanatics here at Ohio State, but that
>doesn't make OSU *win* anymore games.

>(more stuff deleted)
>>
>>Where's OS/2 headed???  On all our desktops..  :)  Thank goodness.. relief
>>from Microsoft at last..  Just think!!!   Imagine a popular OS without
>>any Microsoft APPS!!!  Doesn't that sound nice??  I wonder if Microsoft
>>will be bankrupt by the end of the 90's?  I wonder if Microsoft has started
>>developing OS/2 apps like the said they would..  Hopefully not..  :)

>My father was a programmer on an IBM 305 RAMAC; so I have followed the
>industry since the 50's and have noticed the following about predictions:

>1-7 years - fairly accurate - just look at what the smart people are
>		doing today and extrapolate.

>8-12 years - right about half the time at best - guess today on what's
>		going to work tomorrow.

>13-20 years - right damn little of the time - "Who would want a computer
>		in their home?" - author to member of Home Brew Computer Club

>Don't underestimate Dave Cutler and the rest of the NT crew.  Dave and five
>others extended DEC's life 10 years.  He has done well in the past.

>But I suspect technical matters will not be paramount in the _short run_.
>They never have been in the past so I don't know why they should be now.

>microSoft will give NT a good launch and it will pull into the lead, just like
>Windoze.  

Specify. Into the lead of what? Desktop usage, server usage, workstation
usage?


>OS/2 will stay around.  Hay, the Amiga is still here!  But will it eventually
>pull ahead?  IMHO, no way unless two factors occur.

>	1) IBM has to decide to say in the low end computer business.
>	(They will never be what they once were, but they can still be
>	a lot more successful than microSoft.)

>and 	2) IBM has to make OS/2 both less costly and more productive than NT.
>	(They are playing catch-up!)

I don't quite see how they can be playing catch-up, when NT is not
released yet.

>BTW, that Scholar's Academic Workstation idea recently kicked around on the
>net recently looks like a good start if anyone in IBM marketing is listening.
>-- 
>		Jim Ebright (james.ebright@osu.edu) 
>    "Spam, eggs, sausage and spam - that's not got much spam in it."
>    Fax # 614-785-0292.  Tel # 614-785-0282.  Beeper # 614-646-1093
>     >>>    All kids can be educated -- even yours and mine.    <<<
-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)