From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Who understands IBM any more?
Date: 11 Oct 92 18:01:13 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <3120@accucx.cc.ruu.nl>, nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) w
rites:
>I am a hapy user of OS/2 2.0. It is a stable, reliable environment
>with a lot of usefull properties. For me personal the "crash protection"
>is the most important one. It is very impressive to get rid of
>a crashed DOS box with a click of the mouse.
>
>I am also interested in NT. Not as a beta product but when it becomes
>mature. It sounds as if their task protection might become even better
>than OS/2 2.0's. Also Cario sounds interesting. And of cource the
>ability to run on faster platforms than Intel.

One little point.  Cairo is a non-feature.  That is pure MS marketing bype.
It supposedly will be here in mid '94 which is one year after the OS.  That is
ridiculous and inexcusable.  Given their marketing and their past record with
shells, I wouldn't hold my breath for it.
>
>What I absolutely DON'T understand is IBM. I have to admit somewhere
>sometimes I see a small add or some small article but even after more
>than 6 months of release most press is still negative. That is, if OS/2
>is mentioned at all in the many NT oriented articles. I have seen
>some predictions saying in 1995 it will be 24% OS/2 vs 10% NT but I
>have also seen predicions which even don't mention OS/2. Also, besides
>perhaps ObjectVision, I have not seen many adds for mature OS/2 apps.
>I DID see a lot of companies comitment to NT, hardware vendors, software
>vendors etc. Of cource the same applies for OS/2
>
It all depends on where you look.  For example Lotus has always been a good
supporter of OS/2 and Computer Associates has just increased their commitment.
 (See the current Computer Shopper, I forget which page)  As for adds, you are
basically right, they tend to be hard to find.  I have been seeing an ever
increasing number of them but it isn't enough in any case.

>When I look at the way IBM and MS handle things it seems to me IBM
>does do everything very conservative while MS does it all very
>afressive. If that continues to be the winner can only be Microsoft.
>In todays world it isn't the quality of the product but the quality
>of the marketing that counts. That might be unfortunate but it is
>the hard and cold truth.

That is 100% true and MS has proved that quite well.
>
>What I wonder about is if IBM realizes this. It might be possible
>they believe their product is so superior it will sell itsself
>(a very weak way of thinking from a merketting point of view). It
>migfht also be possible they believe NT will fail technically or
>will be released in a much stripped down version. Or very late.
>Given the track record of MS and the very ambisious plans they
>have that is not unlikely. I would personally not think it
>to be very smart but it would make sence.

I don't know if they do think it will sell itself, but that seems to be what
they want, and it is foolish.
>
>Whoever can shine more light on this subject?
>
>In my personal opinion it would be best BTW if both got an about
>equal share of the market on the long term. Most important features
>will be copied anyway and most major software (Win32, POSIX, OS/2 2.0 API
>and of cource DOS and Winows 3.1) will probably run on both platforms
>in a while anyway. Either by recompilation or directly. That is if
>they aren't playing bad cop good cop of cource.
>


>Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
>_ This text is supplied AS IS, no waranties of any kind  |  A  A   I   P  P
>| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
>| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
>*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P
>
>"The IBM PC is still waiting for a version of the CP/M OS.", G.M. Vose, 1982.
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------