From: 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 a dead end?
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:51:30 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <C1FoqA.GvD@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel) writes:
>>:  o it has fewer users than the Amiga
> 
>>How many people bought Amiga in the first year?
> 
> The Amiga's rate of sales increased over time; OS/2's is decreasing.

	Where did you get this statistic?  OS/2 sales at retail are
decreasing, OS/2 shipments via OEM are increasing.  Overall OS/2
shipments are increasing.  The Amiga is not a market that is increasing.
This year will probably see an increase in Amiga sales but 1985 to 1992
saw the Amiga losing ground not gaining ground.

> 
>>:  o there are essentialy no native applications for it (I know people are  
>>claiming
>>:    a thousand applications exist, but when I walk into CompUSA or Egghead, I
>>:    don't see any...)
> 
>>You don't need OS/2 applications to take advantage of OS/2.  I'm not forced to  
>>buy OS/2 applications until I'm ready.  And plenty of choices on the horizon.   
> If there are no apps for it, but just the ability to run what people can
> already run without it, why would anyone see a reason to move to it. Only the
> technical types and those who really need OS/2 for something specific would
> see a reason to buy an OS that has some technical advantages over Windows,
> namely improved multitasking.
> 
>>How long did it take to get native Windows apps from anyone except MicroSoft?
> 
> Much less than nine months. And We are still building on those nine months.
> Lots of vendors were behind Windows before it came out, and soon after, they
> were flocking to it in large numbers.
> OS/2, by contrast, has nothing but shareware utilities going for it.
> 

	I don't think you used Windows in the "early" days of 3.0.  
I had no specific 3.0 apps available to me until spring of 1991, a year
after Windows 3.0 was released.  You can't count the 2.11 apps of Windows
for Windows 3.0 since no one lets OS/2 advocates claim OS/2 1.x apps.
The apps really started to roll out in 1992.  Word Perfect, Lotus,
Ami Pro, etc.  All came to their prime in 1992 -- 2 years after Windows
3.0 was released.  There is still no real datebase for Windows (access
maybe which was just released).  


>>:  o IBM has never had a successful PC software product
> 
> 
> What? OS/2 is probably the biggest bust of all time in the computer industry,
> or at least the OS industry. Remember that CP/M is only dead today. OS/2 never
> got anywhere from the very beginning.)
> IBM will never make a net profit on OS/2, unless it somehow replaces DOS.
> (100 million users? I really doubt it).

	That is quite an exageration.  Office Vision certainly comes
to mind as one of the biggest busts.  How can you claim an OS that
ships 2 million in 9 months a bust?  That is simply ridiculous.  I am
not speaking as some idle advocate, our computer systems ship out with
OS/2 now primarily because it is a LOT easier to use.  When 2.1 comes out
we will be putting OS/2 on virtually all our systems (only a third go out
with OS/2 now).  I won't argue the ease of use debate, facts speak for
themselves and unless any of you deal with a computer company's tech
support stats then don't even bother to speak about it.  We get less
calls about OS/2 than we do about Windows and we push OS/2 to novice users
(granted, we install it for them).


> 
>>tried, they quickly realized where their talent lies.  Has MS ever had a  
>>successful multi-tasking operating system (Xenix?, OS/2 1.x?)?  MVS and AIX are  
>>:  o IBM is also committed to another operating system, based on "Pink",
>>:    that seems to fill the same role as OS/2
> 
>>You need to read some of IBM's announcements.
> 
> The original comment is echoed by many others in the industry. No one cares
> what IBM is claiming.
> 
>>CP/M was around for quite a while after DOS was introduced.  In fact you can  
>>still find it. Windows isn't dead or even dying, but OS/2 is real competition.
> 
> OS/2 is a non-issue as far as most people are concerned. You know that.
> 
>>I'll take a piece of the OS/2 niche!
> 
> The point is that not many people will.

	Again, I was a niche user when I first went to Windows 3.0.  
I was really a niche user when I used Windows 2.11 for quite a few things.
Yet, we all agree that Windows is a mainstream environment now.  What
is there to stop OS/2 from eventually replace Windows?  NT?  Not likely.
Windows 4.0 (in my opinion) is going to have to be BETTER than OS/2 if
Windows/DOs is going to continue to be the primary GUI environment.


Brad Wardell
at Western Michigan University
Stardock Systems


> 
> 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy