From: shawmd@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael D Shaw)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.pcgeos
Subject: Re: GeoWorks' future (was Re: An SDK in 1993, did he say?)
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:31:41 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug13.130636.4269@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> doug-taylor+@osu.edu writes:
>
>I think that there will always be a gap between what the standard
>entry-level machine is and what the latest version of Windows or OS/2
>will run on.  I'd be willing to bet that Windows NT 2.0 (or whatever
>it will be called) will require a P5 or better with 16 megs of RAM,
>leaving all the machines based on the "brain-dead 486" in the dust.
>By then, maybe GEOS will require a 386SX with 2 megs of RAM, and we'll
>be talking about GeoWorks' window of opportunity there.
>
Good argument but still missing the big picture, along with advancement
of technology the price of it comes down.  It was only what, 5 maybe 7(?) years
ago the C-64 came out and it was the best little PC for the buck, but unless
your a die-hard who likes to look for tiny pockets of interest here and there
its hard to find new stuff for it.  Now some die hards may say this is bull,
but there's comes a time when you have to know when a machine's future is dead.


>For the present, let's look at GeoWorks' situation.  It sounds like
>they are a small company, without the huge programming staff or PR
>budget of a MicroSoft or an IBM.  They may be facing real tradeoffs
>between product quality and getting that product to market in a timely
>manner.  Sure it would be great if they could get GEOS 2.0 on the
>market by the fall Comdex.  It would be neat if they could steal NT's

Let's talk about Comdex... I went and was sadly disappointed in Geoworks'
showing.  They were there, but a closed door saying "Appointments Only" is
not a smart advertising policy if you want to let the world know who the
hell you are and that you should buy this product because it blows the doors
off everything else out there!!!

>thunder.  The folks at GeoWorks probably think that would be neat,
>too.  The problem is, it probably is not possible to do that.  They
>could maybe get some financing and hire more programmers, but
>programmers take time to train, especially on a radically new concept
>like an object-oriented operating system.

Sorry, I can't buy this one.  OOP isn't that difficult that there are only
a handful of programmers out of Shoalin Temple that know the method.

>So what do you do if you're Brian Dougherty?  My guess is that you
>take the long-range view.  You figure that if you can't make one
>window of opportunity, you'll make the next.  You ally yourself with
>other software companies, like Borland, who (1) produce high-quality
>software; (2) bring products to market quickly; and (3) are also
>threatened by MicroSoft.  You try to forsee new trends, like pen
>computing, that you can edge yourself into.  Then I guess you hope
>that high-quality, easy-to-use software will win out over market share
>and marketing hype in the end.

Sometimes you need to look at the short-range view.  And in this case, as fast
as technology is moving, it's a must!

>
>-- 
>   Doug Taylor                         |   Nothing real can be threatened.
>   The Ohio State University           |   Nothing unreal exists.
>   doug-taylor+@osu.edu                |            - A Course in Miracles

Sorry if any of this come out like flames, nothing personal against you but
Geoworks is starting to piss me off just a little. :)

Mike Shaw
shawmd@gn.ecn.purdue.edu