Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:1855 comp.windows.ms:12012 comp.os.os2.misc:1123
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven.umd.edu!umd5!bchin
From: bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here! READ THIS, you'll be impressed
Message-ID: <8493@umd5.umd.edu>
Date: 27 Apr 91 01:42:44 GMT
References: <4837@gumby.Altos.COM> <1991Apr26.211100.7830@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 67

In article <1991Apr26.211100.7830@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes:
>The absolute best way to guarantee acceptance of any version of OS/2 is      
>to bring the price in line with competitive OS's.  If OS/2, MSC, and SDK     
>were $400, total, it'd sell like proverbial hotcakes.                        

>Compare ESIX S5R3, which includes a development system (compiler, assembler, 
>libraries, include files), TCP/IP networking, the X Window System, and       
>too much more to mention here, with OS/2.  
[prices deleted]
>... ESIX, at $825, is the clear winner.  

Okay:
*r = retail price, *s = "street" price, or what one would expect to pay,
*e = edu price, and ~ means best guess.
Prices from vendors in latest PC Rag and local campus computer store.
All below probably "need" a 386 w/ 4mb RAM and 60mb HD's.

 OS/2 Dev cost:
		OS/2 SE 1.3	$150 *r		~$90 *e
		MS-C 6.0	$300 *s		$265 *e
		OS/2 SDK	~$400 *s 	$350 *e
		-----------
		total:		$850		$705 edu

 Windows Dev cost:
		DOS 4.0		$75 *s		$75 *s
		Windows 3.0	$90 *s		$80 *e
		MS-C 6.0	$300 *s		$265 *e
		MS Windows SDK	$325 *s		$260 *e
		-----------
		total:		$790		$680 edu
                                                         
 Alt Win Dev cost:
		DOS 3.3		$60 *s
		Windows 3.0	$90 *s
		Borland C++	$325 *s 
		-----------
		total:		$475  (edu pricing N/A)


     What does this mean?  Clearly, for small developers and hackers,
Windows is currently the way to go.  With OS/2 2.0, Windows apps
*should* be able to run, so small programs and stuff of the like
would probably be built in Windows first.  Also, most of the companies
that build such apps need the *large* installed base right now to 
stay afloat.  However, for big programs and those that need the
multi-threaded, protected VM, and multitasking of a real OS,
(ie. PageMaker, SAS, Mathematica, Excel, etc.) it would probably
make sense to build these in OS/2 instead of stuffing and pounding
it into Windows.

     The prices above do not take into account the fact that
ESIX has TCP/IP.  However, ESIX currently needs seamless integration
into Novell and other PC based LAN systems to penetrate the PC market,
while TCP/IP is available in many forms to DOS/Windows and OS/2 users.
Also, while the target audience of the Windows-OS/2 products
and that of X-Windows/UNIX systems on 386's do intersect, they
are mostly different.  I could not recommend X-Windows/UNIX systems
to most people.  Until implementations like the NeXT become
mainstream UNIX, UNIX is too cryptic and cumbersome.  Many
people do not *need* are *want* to have multi-user capability
on their 386's; it would be dead weight.  DOS/Windows and
OS/2 on the otherhand, I can envision on most anybody's desk.  
--
Bill Chin			internet:bchin@umd5.umd.edu
PC/IP, Computer Science Center	NeXTmail:bchin@is-next.umd.edu
U-Maryland, College Park        *Standard Disclaimers Apply*