From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Easy programming a must ??
Keywords: os/2 , programming marketing
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:10:36 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1993Jan25.124252.14512@dde.dk> tpo@dde.dk (Thomas peter Sonne Olesen) writes:
>A) Every body agree that an OS without programs is useless.

Agreed.  (There are a few exceptions, though.  Arguably LAN Server
with OS/2 is a network operating system, and you can use it without
any add-ons in that configuration.)

>B) Meny people agree that the lack of OS/2 programs is a major reason
>   why OS/2 is still not the standard OS on PC.
>   ( Yes I know that OS/2 runs DOS and Windows programs, but so does
>     DOS and windows ) 

IBM's statement that OS/2 2.x is a "better DOS than DOS" has merit.
IBM's assertion that OS/2 2.1 will be a "better Windows than Windows"
also has merit.  Neither DOS nor Windows run the existing stock of
16-bit OS/2 applications.  Nothing else will run the growing body of
OS/2 2.x applications.  Obviously applications that require OS/2 will
drive OS/2 sales, but it isn't a necessary condition.  Otherwise
neither Desqview nor Windows/386 2.x would have done as well as they
did.  (Both were used as DOS multitaskers; exclusively in Desqview's
case, predominantly in Windows/386's case.)  (A similar argument could
be made for why DOS upgrades sell.  After all, DOS 5.0 runs all the
DOS applications DOS 6.0 will -- probably more in fact.  Yet DOS 6.0
will sell at least a few copies.  Why?  Because it will probably add a
bit of value to the existing application base.)

The major reason neither Windows nor OS/2 is the "standard OS" on the
PC (note that I include both -- Windows probably has 7% penetration on
the installed base; OS/2 about 1.5%) is inertia, quite simply.
(Inertia can be a good thing.  It's the reason why you don't trade in
your automobile for the latest model every six months.)

>I believe that allthough at lot of developtment tools exist for OS/2
>GCC, emx, IBM's C-compiler theese tools doesn't make it easy for 
>every man to make programms. It's hard to make a PM program is C++.

True.

>Doesn't OS/2 lack of an easy PM dev. tool like Visual Basic ?

False.  Not only does OS/2 have a simple development tool (REXX), it
is built into every copy of OS/2.  Also, the Visual REXX extensions
are available free of charge -- you can download them from IBM's BBS,
the Internet, CompuServe, or wherever.  Visual Basic starts at about
$140.

See the February issue of Byte for some information on Visual REXX.

See today's (January 25) Infoworld rumor column for information on VP
-- the next step.

>I think (as it has been said i this group before) that OS/2 is a wonderfull
>OS for programmers and over computer entusiasts. But the major group of
>PC users havn't learned computer science, and will use 90% of thier time
>using standard programs, and maybe 10% messing around with som small programs
>they have tried to make them self. All those people think products like
>Visual basic (or the macro Basic in WINWORD ) are wonderful product. It's
>very easy to make a program that really looks like the prof. ones. 
>(And maybe meny of the prof. ones are actually VisualBacis programs).
>They feel good about seeing their own programs between all the other 
>windows programs. 

Agreed, which is why you see REXX a standard part of every copy of
OS/2.  If you like BASIC, you'll love REXX.  (Well, I feel that way,
at least.  I was extremely reluctant to try REXX, but I think it is
great now.)

>Another reason why I think it is important with an easy programming tool
>is the first time programmers. A lot of young people that start to make
>programms stay with the OS where they developed their first program for
>meny years. A today that means DOS. All theese young programmers spend
>a lot of hours, week, month and maybe years learning every detail about their
>first OS. Then one day when they start to make serious programs they may in,
>many situation choose DOS again, simply because they then will know what
>they are working with.

On the other hand, if you want to multitask DOS, I think people would
agree that the best way to do it is with OS/2 2.x.

>The problem with the young folks is allso the main reason why the minimum
>hardware requirments for OS/2 is still a barrier.

The hardware requirements for OS/2 are a barrier.  The question is,
are they an insurmountable one?  A fast 386SX or better, VGA, 6 MB
RAM, and around 30 MB of hard disk space (give or take) isn't all that
expensive (and it hasn't been for some time).  (It's hard to believe,
but the 80386 was introduced almost eight years ago.)

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0i, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy