From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: nt, an assessment
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:55:33 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In article <1992Jul20.2712.2650@dosgate>, Stephen Dawson writes:

SD>NT will be better than OS/2 2.0.

Better in some ways, worse in others.

SD>                                 It will offer better message
SD>control on the desktop. Other features (security, and POSIX are
SD>largely irrelevent),

Largely irrelevant to YOU, perhaps. Not to others. Posix and security
requirements make using OS/2 very difficult for government contract bids;
NT meets (and exceeds) these requirements.

SD>                     but OS/2 is a moving target. A delay in NT's
SD>release until 2Q 1993 means it will be competing with OS/2 2.1.

It would, possibly. What makes you think that NT will slip to 2Q93? It is
currently listed as going out 4Q92, although consensus is that it will not
be ready until 1Q93. Are you basing this on fact, or is it speculation?

SD>There will be a major OS/2 2.0 CSD in September, and a

Our IBM rep has said this, yes.

SD>multi-processor version in November.

But not this. Where did you hear this?

SD>There is the Windows user who is happy. If the user is still using
SD>Windows after OS/2 2.0 has been around for a year, the user doesn't
SD>need NT. That user will be waiting for Windows 4.0.

Which many people think NT is.

SD>Microsoft is a bit of a bind. If NT goes to the desktop they lose
SD>their double upgrade market. DOS and Windows. But if they price the
SD>upgrade to NT at double price, they will get few upgrades.

This is quite possibly a factor.

SD>And, unless Microsoft wants to lose the small market they must keep
SD>Windows around. Windows will serve to keep the installed base of NT
SD>small, so that a critical mass cannot develop. Many apps may never
SD>get past version 1.0.

We'll see. I tend not to speculate too much on the OS wars; things change too
fast to get any accurate predictions.

SD>They were not prepared for the volume! But, now that Cannavino and
SD>Personal Systems have full control of OS/2 2.0 advertising and
SD>marketing, we can expect a very significant IBM 'presence'.

God, I hope so. I was at IBM labs when OS/2 was released. The internal
screaming about the abysmal marketing was louder than the external complaining.
And they had every right to complain. I want to see IBM actually *sell* this;
why should *I* be the one to explain to my accountant what OS/2 is? He'd never
even heard of it. Mass marketing doesn't mean just Fortune magazine.

MT>Fine, it'll be late, but it'll most probably be out within a year.  And
MT>of course it'll have problems since it's only an alpha at the moment.

SD>And OS/2 will continue to gain momentum.

I sincerely hope so. There are some real problems that need to be addressed:
SVGA driver support, tape support, backup problems, WPS instability, performance

SD>Yes. Microsoft was saying that the full Win32 API would be available
SD>for Windows, eventually. They seem to backing off that promise. It
SD>may be a way of differentiating NT from Windows 4.0.

Our MS contact has said pretty much the same thing.

SD>That is a risky move. Microsoft is developing a reputation for not
SD>keeping its promises.

We'll see. I don't think that they are quite that bad, but MS reputation in
large MIS shops is pretty bad, I'll agree.

SD>No. Olsen developed tunnel vision for VAX/VMS and didn't see, or
SD>else refused to accept that the market was changing.

Hadn't thought of that. Good analogy.

SD>I think Gates is developing a similar fixation with NT. If Microsoft
SD>doesn't release some OS/2 2.0 apps before 2Q 1993, they will never
SD>have the same share of the app market they enjoy today.

Well, certainly not for OS/2. I think WinWord could definately snag a good
percentage of OS/2 word processing (and not the current WinWord for OS/2),
but WordPerfect will probably get the foot up ahead of time. Getting that
foot in the door is all important, as we all know.

SD>That is why Lotus, WordPerfect, Borland, etc. will be very aggresive
SD>in the OS/2 2.0 market. They see a level playing field.

They are also playing in ALL of the fields, but I tend to agree anyway.
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Proctologists have tunnel vision.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy