From: z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Back to OS/2 was Re:A radical idea.
Date: 9 Jan 93 03:09:57 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1ilh6lINN5kj@shelley.u.washington.edu>, tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>BTW, Nations like USSR, Poland, E. Germany, Czech, learned the hard way, just
>>how much real progress can be made if there is no incentive to keep working.
> 
> Well, they got to space first, and a lot of the world's great scientists
> were from the Soviet Union, so they certain seemed to be able to make
> real progress.
> 
> --Tim Smith

	Well look where they are now. The Soviet ( Now Russian ) is a shadow
of what it was 15 years ago. Although they still have the largest Heavy
Boosters, further R&D has been drastically cut. Face it Marx forgot the basic
human trait of laziness. Without an incentive, why do it. For some idealistic
left wingers, "The good of society" is incentive enough, but for most people
who have to eat, pay bills, cloth children, etc.... "The good of society" comes
second.

This thread has digressed beyond OS/2. It's been real, it's been enlightening
(I thought Marxism was dead), but it hasn't been real enlightning. :)

Back to OS/2. BTW, OS/2 3.0 with the Mach microkernel will be as close to a
truely open system as we can expect in the next 5 years. IBM is one of the
largest players in OSF. OS/2-> AIX-> OSF-> Unix?? Well it started to look like
progress :)

You get the point. There is already a general trend towards open H/W, and S/W
architecture. Look at VESA local bus, and Intel's varient. Those show great
promise, and IBM has announced to support an accepted standard local bus on
PS/2 in the future.

The Biggest problem with truely open systems, is lack of a standard.  Without a
standard, OPEN SYSTEMS, also refered to as CHAOS, will actually thwart
progress.

The Argument made made earlier about ADA, well look where ADA is used, try to
buy a Borland ADA compiler for $99. It is rigid, extensible but, to get
government approval, require expensive testing.	

DOS is more of a standard than anything else, but it is not open, and is
subject to the whims of it's owners. DOS users are there subject to the whims
of DOS's owners.

OS/2 is the next logical step from DOS. It uses a nearly identical command line
shell, is easy to move to, from DOS ( OK, a little subjective ), and priced to
be affordable for Joe Average User.

From the 2.1 Beta, If IBM releases 2.1 as a stable product, and markets it
better, does more bundling, TONS of Print advertising, out market Microsoft
2:1 in Marketing $$, OS/2 may very well steal the wind from WindUAE's.

The Seamless is actually usable! Yes, very Useable. I haven't tried it on a 4MB
machine yet, but I just might give it a try. We converted all of our machines
to OS/2, except for one, just to be safe, and really have no need for windows
any longer. That Last Machine will be getting OS/2 2.1 Beta in a few days.

As for NT, and the claim of NT apps' Just look through the NT applications
guide printed by Microsoft( Given away at COMDEX ) lists just under 600 apps.
Check the release dates. most ( I estimate, but haven't counted them ) say 93'
about:
30% 1st 1/2 of 93, 
40% late 93'
20% 92'

Estimate of those that even list a ship date.

Now Let's analyze this. Microsoft didn't have the Dev CD ROM until when? 
April ? OK, lets be generous and say early ones last January.

They have been developing on an unstable, moving target. It wasn't even Feature
complete ( if it is now ) until Late October.

If the Development tools are relatively good, documentation is good ( Microsoft
usually provides the best documentation around, if they choose to document it)
, and the developers have had little trouble ugrading NT and the development
tools, as upgrades are released, they will have had one 1 to 1/2 years of time
to work on NT. Now given the fact that these tools were beta, prone to bugs,
and the real beta didn't actually appear until October, they will have had 
9 - 12 Months of time developing an app based on beta tools.

Now real software development is not buying a compiler, an editor, and typing
away. It is Design, coding, and testing. let's say 1/3 for each.
How can you realistically design a product for an OS that hasn't been fully 
specified?
Lets say it was fully specified by June, and feature complete by October.
Now NT developers could have started design in June. lets say 3 Months for
a small app. Started Coding in October, and Testing in January thru March.

As we all probably know, take your worst estimates and double them.

That puts most of these "Almost Ready to Ship" apps into 94'

OK, I saw Procom Plus for NT at Comdex, and it actually looked prety decent.
I suspect that the vast majority of these Vendors Listed in the Microsoft NT
apps guide, won't be ready by release date. I bet less than 10% ( 30 32-bit 
NT apps ). Unless of course NT doen't Ship before June.

So that gives OS/2 2.1 about 3 months Jump on NT, and OS/2 apps, 6 months to a
year jump on NT apps.

If IBM can run another low price upgrade like $49 Window 3.1 upgrade to 
OS/2 2.1, and Windows Users can run "the tremendous number of" WindUAE's 3.1
apps, people will probably give it a try.

I would bet that the number of Converts to OS/2 is 5:1 to those who tried it
and went back.

This 2.1 Beta is basically free, just get a copy from someone that has it.
It's OK, IBM actually consents to this. For Once a Brilliant move!

Michael Kupka


Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3809 comp.os.os2.advocacy:12144