From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: os/2 driver situation
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:03:53 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In message <1992Jul24.173949.6105@njitgw.njit.edu>, David Charlap
writes:

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

DC>I wonder, though.  I was under the impression that the DoD only
DC>certifies hardware/software combinations.  NT can't be certified by
DC>itself, but only in bundles with certain specific computer models.
DC>And each combination would need to be certified independantly.

True. But  my point  was that  NT's C2  "rateability" is not necessarily
just pie in the sky. It does mean something to certain customers.

DC>Still, MS may team up with a hardware vendor or two to certify a few
DC>government-class machines.  I wonder if they can legally do this...

Don't see why not. Certainly  hardware vendors looking for C2  contracts
would be  more likely  to seek  alliances with  MS rather  than IBM. IBM
lists  Posix  as  a  "desirable  future  option", whatever the hell that
means. Microsoft is listing Posix as an implemented feature in 4q92  (or
1q93 or 2q93, depending upon who you believe).

DC>Really?  So it will be in September?  I only heard "Fall".

We originally heard "June". IBM has said in writing that the CSD will be
out in the summer; the last day of summer is September 20th, so...

DC>Well, there've been two-page ads in every issue of Network World for
DC>about a month and a half now.  I've seen Workset/2 advertised in Dr.
DC>Dobb's Journal for about two months now.  I don't get other computer
DC>mags, so I can't say for sure.  I've yet to see a television ad, but
DC>I'm not qualified there - I've only seen one MS ad on TV, and there
DC>were heaps...

True.  What  annoyed  me  was  that  the  original  marketing scheme was
completely brain-dead.  Sure, advertise  OS/2 in  WSJ, Fortune magazine,
etc. It  targets the  CEOs and  purchasers. But  to do  that INSTEAD  of
advertising in mass  market PC publications  (PC Mag, Byte,  etc) showed
just how out of touch NDD was with the general public.

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

DC>Why is everyone placing SVGA support as an IBM responsibility.  IBM

Because it is a major hurdle to OS/2 acceptance in the marketplace,  and
there is little impetus  for vendors to support  it. It's easy to  buy a
new system and  check out what  is available that  supports OS/2, it  is
less simple to get your current SVGA system running under OS/2.  Vendors
who sell their systems with Windows support have little economic  reason
to support OS/2 (or worry about it at any rate), since they could easily
support the company with Windows sales alone.

Sure, once OS/2 is sitting pretty in the marketplace, it will be in  the
vendor's best interest to support OS/2. At the moment, the demand is not
there, so if IBM wants OS/2 to become a de facto standard OS on machines
OTHER than PS/2s (as it has  claimed), then it has to stimulate  support
for OS/2 on  non-IBM equipment. That  includes starting the  support for
OS/2 for SVGA systems.

DC>has repeatedly stated that they will only provide direct support for
DC>IBM hardware, with respect to drivers.  Other drivers must be gotten

IBM doesn't have complete support  for its' own equipment. I  am writing
this on  a true  blue PS/2  model 95  with IBM  XGA card.  I don't  have
seamless Windows in XGA, because IBM hasn't got the drivers yet. So  why
should a third party company support OS/2 drivers properly when even IBM
doesn't bother?

I have the Windows NT *alpha*  from Microsoft. It has more drivers  than
in  it's  PRE-release  state  the  IBM  has  for  their  three month old
operating system. THAT is the  public perception. IBM can claim  that it
is the  vendor's responsibility,  but why  should the  consumer care? He
buys Windows, he gets driver  support; he buys OS/2, he  doesn't. Simple
choice. It's not up to the vendors to resolve this, they don't care  who
wins. It's IBM's responsibility to make their OS succeed, no one elses.

DC>from the hardware manufacturers.  Just like with Windows 3.0.  This
DC>will become a non-issue when vendors get drivers for their products,
DC>just like it eventually became one for Windows.

I would agree, except that I'd say *IF* OS/2 becomes a standard, it will
be a non-issue. Remember that Windows 3 came out in a vacuum; it  wasn't
competing with an established GUI standard in the marketplace. OS/2  is,
and it will be an uphill battle.

[Continued]
.pa

[Continued from previous message]

DC>Tape support is similar.  IBM supports their own drives.  Other drive
DC>manufacturers will (eventually) get drivers for their own drives.

Again, even native IBM drives weren't originally supported. And when you
say that drivers  will eventually appear,  I agree. The  problem is that
people don't migrate  until the drivers  are available, and  the vendors
won't support something if there's not enough sales to warrant doing it,
and the sales aren't there  because people are waiting for  the drivers.
This logic loop is infinite. Resolving it requires someone kicking it at
the start. From  a vendor's view,  who cares? Colorado  tape drives sell
extremely well.  What do  they care  if you  use OS/2,  Windows, or DOS?
They've made the sale. Sure, they will lose _new_ sales to OS/2, but not
enough to force them to support OS/2 in the short term.

Remember,  people  are  talking  about  NT  as  the natural successor to
Windows. If IBM wants  the market share, it  will have to fight  for it.
And that includes seeing that drivers for their OS get out.

DC>The other things are bugs, not design flaws.  They will be fixed RSN.

I sure hope so. This OS is nice, but definately not ready for prime time
yet.

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.

BD>They are also playing in ALL of the fields, but I tend to agree anyway.

DC>MS's applications division shoudl be playing ALL of the fields too.

They're overextended as it is. And from a business standpoint, it  makes
sense. Why in the world  should the leading OS manufacturer  be expected
to port its applications over to a competitor's OS? At least during  the
shakeout period, it doesn't make  a lot of sense. Especially  given that
IBM says OS/2 is better Windows than Windows, and runs Windows code,  MS
will simply take them up on it.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | I'm a brain in a vat. What about you?
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Methodist by birth, Druid by choice.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044