From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 31 Jul 1992 11:02 EST  

In article <1992Jul31.115853.8029@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>, 
jarober@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (DE Robertson james an 410-740-9172) writes...

>	If OS/2 apps become available.  For all the talk, the trade rags I read
>indicate the Borland and Lotus will be SLOW to release OS/2 versions of
>their main apps - the Windows versions are bigger money makers, plain and 
>simple.

This seems interesting.  Define Borland's "main apps".  If you're talking 
languages, I would tend to agree that they're making money on Windows 
related compilers.  On the other side of the house, however, Quattro Pro, 
Paradox, and DBase aren't exactly dominant _Windows_ apps.

Although Lotus has Windows flavors of their main apps, Ami Pro is the only 
one which appears to be a major money maker in the Windows arena.

For the most part, both Borland and Lotus make their money on DOS apps.

>	You make the 'great net mistake' here as well.  Most users are
>not terribly technical.  Most users do not download in one window,
>compile in a second, run a WP in a 3rd, and play a game in a fourth.  They
>run one, and only one app at a time.  For this crowd, OS/2 and
>Windows are equal in that they act as DOS shells.  They don't CARE
>what OS they run - the MIS department makes that decision for them.  Sure,
>users are getting more sophisticated, but from my experience in
>consulting, the above holds pretty true.

If this is the case, "most users" have no need for Windows - just give them 
a fixed disk organizer or a decent menu program to load apps and then 
they're fine with just DOS.  Does your experience also tell you that there 
is no need for the average user to have a machine more powerful than an XT, 
since any capability beyond that is superfluous anyway?  Are you sure that 
you want to imply that the only benefit of OS/2 is multitasking?

>	They want a simple system - PIF files are enough of a pain - The 
>OS/2 methodology of tweaking non-OS/2 apps is WAY too much effort for the
>average stiff who just wants to run his dams app.  Not everyone has
>true blue equipment, and OS/2 is not easy to load on clones - Dos/Windows
>is far simpler to load.  Again, the average stiff does NOT have the patience
>that a tech guy does.  

Apparently the MIS department who selects the operating system for the user 
does not take the time and effort to set up the system for the user :-)

Have you ever used OS/2 2.0?  I would guess not.  If you had, you might not 
have implied that manipulating PIF files is easier than OS/2 tweaks and you 
would have known that, for the majority of DOS and Windows apps, migrating 
the application is generally sufficient to run them.

>	IMHO, OS/2 2.0 is Beta software - nice, but released too early.
>In this regard, Windows 3.0 was also Beta, with 3.1 being somewhat
>ready for prime time.  Until IBM make OS/2 a <LOT> easier to load and
>a <LOT> easier to tyweak, it will remain a niche OS.

Yeah, right.  What kind of consulting did you say that you do? 

JD
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy