Xref: utzoo comp.windows.ms:11769 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:8877
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mcnc!rti!bcw
From: bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here!  READ THIS, you'll be impressed
Summary: Problems with OS/2
Message-ID: <1991Apr22.135439.17136@rti.rti.org>
Date: 22 Apr 91 13:54:39 GMT
References: <1435@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> <F0wR11w164w@questor.wimsey.bc.ca>
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
Lines: 34

In article <F0wR11w164w@questor.wimsey.bc.ca>, asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Adam Smith) writes:
> > 
> > There is an old saying about things which appear too good to be true,
> > and another one regarding the relative birth rates of suckers.  I well
> > remember the heralding of the original OS/2 version and how flat it fell
> > after actual release.  Many of the features promised then are (apparently)
> > being included, but let's wait for six months after actual public release
> > before we decide, eh?
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Too little too late. I already bought a NeXT.

The other major problem with OS/2 (besides its dismal perception in
the marketplace).  The high end is already owned by things like NeXT,
and Unix with Xwindows and Motif.  OS/2 V2.0 won't run on anything
less than a 386 SX, so it will be in the unhappy position of having
to fight off MS-DOS and Windows on the smaller 386's (and not even
being able to touch the majority of Windows machines which are still
running on fast 286's), and having to fight of Unix and Motif on the
high end machines (big 386's and 486's).  The other systems have
their problems too, but they're already _there_, and a new & much
improved Motif is due out just about the time that OS/2 V2.0 becomes
commercially available.

And the Unix/Motif combination is _already_ portable to RISC - no
need for the "portable OS/2".

If they had come out with this a year or two ago it could have been
very different, but at this point the system's success is very
problematic - but for reasons that have little to do with its
technical merit (or lack thereof).

						Bruce C. Wright