Xref: utzoo comp.windows.ms:5419 comp.os.os2.misc:226
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!agate!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!jessica.stanford.edu!aaron
From: aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Query:  Which would you recommend?  Windows?  or OS2 w/ PM?
Message-ID: <1990Sep19.171840.9384@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 19 Sep 90 17:18:40 GMT
References: <4227@rex.cs.tulane.edu>
Sender: Aaron Wallace
Organization: Academic Information Resources
Lines: 35

In article <4227@rex.cs.tulane.edu> keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) writes:
>Here's a question for the net:
>
>I was looking through some magazines lately and came up with these (rounded,
>from memory) figures:
>
>OS2 SE/PM:  $295        Windows:        $129
>			MS-DOS:         $ 65
>	    ----                        ----
>	    $295                        $194
>
>A difference of only $101.  For an operating system that leaps as far ahead
>of MSDOS as OS2 does, and for a better integrated GUI, that seems an awful
>small price to pay.
>
>This brings up a few questions in my mind.  Why would anyone buy Windows
>when such a better alternative is available for a comparative price?

While the quality of the OS is an important consideration (and OS/2 is a much
better OS than Windows + DOS), the quality of available applications is an even
bigger factor.  Things like Ami Pro, Corel Draw, Winword, and such don't exist
for OS/2.  Yet.

>Also, why doesn't Microsoft try to push OS2 more?  I can see how they would
>be afraid to at this time, considering how Windows 3.0 has taken off, but
>why didn't they before?  And will they in the future?

If OS/2 2.0 runs Windows binaries like MS claims, I think you'll see a *very*
big push when it comes out.

Right now, though, MS basically got rivals Lotus and Wordperfect to devote 
resources to OS/2, then came out with Windows 3 and left them holding the 
(empty) bag with no Windows 3 products...

Aaron Wallace