From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:57:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.222826.6482@umr.edu> ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>
>In fact, I will give you a summary of my problems with MS, just so
>you don't think I'm in bed with them.
>
>First of all, Microsoft supplies the OSes, DOS and Windows.  MS also
>sells applications, Word, Excel, etc.
>
>On the other hand, IBM sells OS/2.  No applications.
>
>Now, if I were an applications developer, I would be willing to give
>OS/2 a *large* benefit of the doubt on several areas BECAUSE I KNOW
>IBM WILL BE STRAIGHT WITH ME.  They don't even have the temptation
>to hide undocumented calls and then use the calls themselves to 
>compete with me.  

Finally, a rational thought.  And one that reflects my own beliefs.  I
develop for Windows, but as I've posted before, it makes me nervous 
thinking that the competition (ha! I'm not in the same league) developed
the operating system that my products depend on.

>
>Unfortunately, Microsoft does.  Even though I can't prove that they
>do, I am still nervous that they will use undocumented features to gain
>a competitive advantage over me.  I would be suspicious of any tech-
>nical support, because why would Microsoft be willing to "help out"
>a competitor?
>
>
..........

>Or, the super smart course is to hedge your bets and develop
>for both OS/2 *and* NT.  Which is what Borland, WP, and Lotus are doing
>anyway.  They may not be marketing the OS/2 product as much, but, face
>it, if it turns out that MS was screwing with them, they will in
>the future.  The idea is to have a backup product. 
>
>Myself, I will develop only for OS/2.  I have not the time nor the
>energy to do the development on both systems.  This may change once
>I graduate from college.  If I can only get a job as a Windows
>developer, then I will learn Windows programming really fast.  :)
>I mean, face it, I got bills to pay, just like you do.  OS/2 is not
>worth starving over.

Extremely correct (are you listening Fred.Exe?).  When it all comes down
to it, WHO CARES what operating system is "technologically superior"--what
most real-world people care about is paying the bills.  If that means
installing and developing for OS/2, so be it.  If it means writing code
for Windows, do that too.  As long as the mortgage gets paid.  Yes, I know
that sounds quite mercenary, but one cannot eat loyalty to a product.

>
>This is a much more rational way of presenting things, rather than 
>saying that "MS is crude and evil and blah blah blah".

Which is, I believe, just a bunch of gripers frustrated at the success of
a competing operating system.

>
>MS pulls no punches and makes a lot of money.  That's part of being
>in business in America.  You're required to be ruthless.  I find it
>somewhat admirable, somewhat amusing, and somewhat sickening.
>Kinda like riding on a well-engineered roller-coaster.  :)
>

Well said!

>cpk
>-- 
>"The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only.  If you gotta load or un-
>load, go to the WHITE ZONE.  You'll love it.  It's a way of life!" --Zappa
>
>Technology always seems to keep one step ahead of human wisdom.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy