Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:1993 comp.windows.ms:12428 comp.os.os2.misc:1271 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!bywater!arnor!ibmman!larrys From: larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here! vs Windows 3.0 vs NeXT/MACH Message-ID: <1991May8.190718.12134@watson.ibm.com> Date: 8 May 91 18:58:16 GMT References: <066gx8m@rpi.edu> Sender: larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com Reply-To: larrys@yktvmv Organization: IBM Research Lines: 106 News-Software: NewsKit 1.2 - LaMail Nntp-Posting-Host: ibmman (Sigh) I guess I have to respond, or else everyone will think I am conceeding the argument: In <066gx8m@rpi.edu>, barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: >I see many markets when I look no further than our own institution. Granted >there will be OS/2 2.0 enthusiasts. In a small business market with an >installed base of '386s price/performance of OS/2 2.0 may win the day. With >nominal upgrades to hardware (RAM, networked disk space) it may be a >winning combination, given the right applications. Given an amazing >development environment it might be even more popular. All this and more >I grant you. > >However (saw it coming, didn't you!?), for those with a drastically limited >budget and access to the Internet Win 3.0 remains very attractive. Much of >what is needed for development is far more mature than any OS/2 tools >(aind forever will be more mature). Many shareware and freeware app's exist >(on cica.cica.indiana.edu). It has a relatively low hardware requirement >(depending on what you need to do). There are millions of copies out there. I suppose that everyone in the world has Internet access? Oh...I didn't think so. Windows does have a relatively low hardware requirement; *BUT* if you want ANY sort of decent performance, you are going to have to shell out the big bucks, just like OS/2. I agree that Windows has a large user base, but IBM is trying to change that (and from what I hear, they have an extremely good shot at doing so...but I must digress before I tread on the thin ice.). BTW: to those who keep insisting that OS/2 has a "miniscule" following (that word is a direct quote from someone. Yeah, you know who you are), think again. Just because IBM doesn't wear its sales figures on its sleeve like some sort of badge ("Hey mon, look whoat I deed" - said with your best Jamaican accent. ;), doesn't mean that OS/2 is doing poorly. >To the extent that I work in an environment where I am spending other people's >money and have little say in which operating system we use it is a foregone >conclusion that we will be using DOS Window 3.x for sometime to come. If >any transition occurs it will ibe towards Unix and/or Unix compatible resources >(TCP/IP, NFS, mail, News, etc.). I do not logically see how OS/2 would TCP/IP, NFS, ... are already available. Or did you think that I receive my newsfeed on a Unix machine? Oh...I didn't think so. >fit into a predominately Unix environment, where hundreds of Macs and PCs >are attached to a broadband network. Add to this the installed software >base and the related cost of upgrading hardware and buying new software to >take full advantage of OS/2 features. And to what advantage? Primarily >technical advantages, no killer app's, no promise of massive increases >in productivity, no promise of leveraging existing resources, very few >flashy applications, few bells and wistles that the average computer >user can sink their teeth into. If I were you, I would wait until 2.0 comes out before stating that OS/2 won't help in these areas. Again, I must digress... ;) >No, I don't REALLY care if the kernal is portable. What we really care about >is whether or not file formats are compatible (i.e. Word for Windows, (Sigh) This is getting ridiculous now. So you think that NT will provide this??? NO!!! NT is simply a way of mapping the Windows, OS/2, VMS, and Dos APIs to a common set of kernal functions. THAT'S IT! Your file formats will still be as incompatible, etc.. >Word for Mac, Word for OS/2 can exchange files). Note that NeXT can read >DOS 3.5 disks and that Wordperfect and Wingz are available on the PC, Mac >and NeXT. In my book, OS/2 must provide similar app's with similar file >compatibility and then it might make on new platforms (not existing platforms). >Who cares if a network node is a Mac, Vax, PC, NeXT, Sun, RS/6000, etc. as >long as there they are networked and resident app's can share files (and >they serve unique local needs)? This is endemic to the university/big >corporation market (not the small business market). "can share files" - see note above. >Other markets will have other concerns, some may not care what is bundled >on their clone as long it supports the app's they need. > >As to function: > >Sit average user in front of a NeXT with Improv and voice mail, etc. and >I dare say you'll get their attention. If anything the NeXT is packaged >well, in the same way that the Mac was packaged before it. The hardware >and software work well together and everything is bundled in one package >(plug and play). It may be relegated to nich markets, but I dare say therein >you will find religiously devout backers of the system. Agreed. The NeXT is a nice machine. >None-the-less, I remain satisfied (under the circumstances) with Win 3.0 >and its public support. Neither the NeXT or OS/2 can currently claim a >comparible audience. This too may change. IMHO, I suspect OS/2 will have to >keep an eye on the NeXT et al more so than on Win 3.0 and clones. This >may turn out not to be the case. Until OS/2 2.0 (3.0, etc.) is out >no one will know for sure. I agree. I will wait until 2.0 hits the streets. Cheers, Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LARRYS@YKTVMV.BITNET OS/2 Applications and Tools larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com IBM T.J. Watson Research Center larrys@eng.clemson.edu Yorktown Heights, NY Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too seriously.