From: drxmann@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dustin R. Christmann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hercules is obsolete--Upgrade!
Date: 6 Sep 92 09:02:08 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Sep4.064425.27441@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>>As the proud ex-owner of a Timex/Sinclair 1000, an Atari 800XL, and an Amiga
>>2000, I have come to realize one thing: computers are lousy investments.  Even-
>>tually old technologies (including Hercules) have to be left behind, and you're
>>stuck with obsolescence.  Deal with it.
>Sounds like you've been batting a thousand.  Maybe you've made ANOTHER mistake
>with your choice of OS/2?

Well, I wouldn't consider having had any of those computers mistakes, espe-
cially the Atari and the Amiga.

>Quite right.  I understand that it's a company's right to decide whether or
>not they should support SOMEBODY ELSE's standard.  They do try to support
>their own obsolete standards (CGA and EGA) but they don't need to support
>any standard made by other companies--it's their choice.

True, and if it had been up to me, 2.0 wouldn't have even have had CGA.

>Likewise, Microsoft is justified for not writing apps for an operating
>system they don't want to support.
>
>The mustard cuts both ways.  So let us ALL stop arguing about those two
>points, eh?

I agree.  I may one of the few people that take the opinion that if MS chooses
not to write apps for OS/2, they are not necessarily demons from the depths of
Hell.  And as a potential customer, screw 'em.  It's their loss.

MS made what I think is a good business decision from a fiscal, but NOT from a
customer-oriented, standpoint.  Why should they develop software for a compe-
ting OS?  Ultimately, any company, unless they're state-owned, is in business
to make money, period.  How you do that is the question.  MS felt that it was
in their best business interests to screw some of their customers.  It happens
sometimes.  It's called capitalism.  And as long as they continue to make mo-
ney, why shouldn't they?  IBM only started being more end-user-friendly when
they started getting their lunch eaten in the PC biz.

One more thing.  If I hear or read "MS told us to develop for OS/2 back in '88"
one more time, I do believe that I will hurl in a very big way.  Big deal.
What do you think that IBM was telling folks to develop for back in 1978?  It
for damn sure wasn't DOS or OS/2.  Developers took a risk by believing MS when
it said that OS/2 was the future.  Business is all about risk, and the computer
business even more so.  Some guessed right that OS/2 wouldn't take off, some
didn't.  Those that didn't got hurt financially.  That's capitalism.  Sometimes
you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug.  Ask most entrepreneurs if
they haven't made bad business decisions or even failed before.  Most will tell
you that they have. 

(Whew, was that tirade ever tangential!)

>>IMHO, VGA is the MINIMUM video standard that should be bothered with in an OS
>>like 2.0.  And I'll bet you one thing: when NT comes out, it sure as hell isn't
>>going to be trumpeted as supporting EGA or CGA.  I'd be surprised if VGA
>>weren't the minimum required video for NT.  And frankly, I wouldn't blame MS
>>one damn bit.
>
>We'll see.  Microsoft has been rather good about trying to support as many
>devices as possible (no, I'm not forgetting about BASICA--but their Apps
>have (more or less) supported HGC; Microsoft Chart, Word for DOS, Multiplan...
>nd WINDOWS!)

True.  But that is their decision.  My only point is that I think that MS will
look at the average likely NT user (power user or server) and consider VGA the
minimum video standard that the vast, vast majority of these users will have.

>It isn't hard to write a device driver for video.  I've done it myself on
>several occasions.  AS LONG AS THE SPECS ARE WELL LAID OUT.  Whether or not
>HGC (or hell, even VGA) is useful on a REAL system is another matter
>entirely.

But that is my point exactly.  I've used Windows 3.0 on a CGA system.  Under-
whelmed doesn't even begin to describe my opinion of it.  I couldn't possibly
imagine the WPS in CGA, nor do I want to.  640x200x2 doesn't cut it by any
stretch of the imagination.  I'm sure that it is relatively simple to write
such a device driver.  But is it worth it?  I say absolutely not.

>But it may be marketing genius to support older technology at first.  Look at
>Windows 3.0 which ran on an 8088, for chrissake... and I knew VERY few people
>who ever tried to run it on an XT--let alone use it on an XT.  But it gave
>people a WARM and FUZZY that they could upgrade in increments.

But even Microsoft "recommends" a 386SX for Windows 3.1, which now requires a
286.  The boat is beginning to pull out of the harbor for XT users, with MS-DOS
5.0 (and a few text-mode apps) being the only Microsoft apps that run on XT's,
now that Windows Real Mode is history.

>OS/2 simply just doesn't do that for my clients.  It's come to: "Look, in order
>to upgrade to it, ya gotta replace your AT's, your network operating system,
>your monochrome monitors... we have to rethink your OLE's..."

Well, no matter who your customers choose, be it MS or IBM,  you're going to
be looking at many of the same problems and the same costs eventually.

>It isn't an upgrade.  It's a NEW investment... and many customers are seeing
>it as an iffy investment (with NT looming over the hill, FUD does work
>y'know).  I personally think it would have been worth a few man-months
>to write non-IBM video drivers... especially something to soothe those
>slow upgraders--like HGC.  But this is just an opinion.

But let me pose the question to you this way: Would your clients be happy with
looking at OS/2 in HGC?  Or Windows 3.1?  Or Windows NT?  Or would they come
back to you after a while and say, "God, this really looks awful."

Obviously, OS/2 is not for everyone, contrary to what some OS/2 zealots would
have you believe.  If a site has a large number of monochrome 286s, I wouldn't
even consider OS/2.  But if a site had or was preparing to buy a lot of 386s
or 486s,  I would look and see if OS/2 were an option.  It all comes down to
whether mere upgrades or entire overhauls are needed.

This post is bound to get me kicked out of the Fraternal Order of Microsoft-
bashing OS/2 Bigots...  :-)
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanx,					| The remainder of this .signature has
Dustin R. Christmann			| been confiscated by the DEA and will
(drxmann@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu)		| be auctioned off by the government. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------