Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ark1!nems!mimsy!tank!eecae!netnews.upenn.edu!eniac.seas.upenn.edu!silver
From: silver@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Andy Silverman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: IBM's plan for OS/2 and you
Keywords: $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Message-ID: <15677@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 19 Oct 89 14:16:04 GMT
References: <900@micropen> <15626@netnews.upenn.edu> <1255@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: silver@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Andy Silverman)
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 23

In article <1255@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <15626@netnews.upenn.edu>, silver@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Andy Silverman) writes:
>|                                                Complaints about IBM have
>|  always been that there was one way to do things on the mainframes, another on
>|  the PC, another on the (fill in the blank) and there was no standardization
>|  between them.  OfficeVision is supposed to eliminate this...
>
>  Is making the PC cost as much as a mini the proper solution? 

The mistake is in assuming that IBM is targeting OV at the single-user
workstation market.  It seems much more like they're aiming it at the
integrated corporate market where people use mainframes and PC's together.
Much like they do internally.  In this case, they're obviously hoping the
large corporations will be willing to spend a lot of money.  They're also
hoping for the cost per megabyte to go down as higher density chips become
available...


+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Andy Silverman        | Internet:   silver@eniac.seas.upenn.edu |
| "All stressed out and | Compu$erve: 72261,531                   |
|  nobody to choke."    |                                         |         
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+