Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:2018 comp.windows.ms:12466 comp.os.os2.misc:1300 Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!barryf From: barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here! vs Windows 3.0 vs NeXT/MACH Message-ID: <_p9g#sl@rpi.edu> Nntp-Posting-Host: aix01srv.aix.rpi.edu References: <066gx8m@rpi.edu> <1991May7.164109.13128@amd.com> <-47gvh+@rpi.edu> <1991May8.172013.5583@terminator.cc.umich.edu> <91128.201500MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu> Date: 9 May 91 15:42:46 GMT Lines: 87 Larry et al I gather from comments that the point of my statements was missed. It is clear that OS/2 will offer similar app's, file compatibility, network support, etc. It is clear that OS/2 will offer "real" multitasking, a new file system, loadable file systems, etc. I and many others think this is wonderful, well and good. For those purchasing new systems in the next year 0S/2 with PM or its new GUI may be the reasonable route to go. DOS has outlived many expectations and has become a tangle of added features, no doubt. Granted, not everyone has access to Internet or BITNET and many of the resources available therein are not available on BBS's. Depending on who you talk to and what there needs are OS/2 may even be a cheaper environment to develop for in the long run. The perspective I offered takes these and many other points into consideration (through endless committee meetings, reviews of technical reports, reviews of budgets, etc.). In a very pragmatic sense I must also consider installed base at our site. It is unlikely that, all things considered, OS/2 will "displace" DOS/Windows on many (if any) systems. It may find its way onto a few diehard PC servers (vs mainframes acting as servers, workstations acting as servers). It may find its way onto some developer's desks (though much development here is done on workstations and mainframes). Given a general resistance to change (human nature?) and a non-trivial cost (when multiplied times hundreds of machines) it is less likely that OS/2 will find its way onto many desktops (displacing DOS/Win 3.0). I have suggested that one way OS/2 may find its way onto the average user's system is via definition of "compelling new needs". To the extent that current needs are more than adequately met with DOS alone, and a DOS/Win 3.0 combination, IMHO for a transition to occur (all things considered) the individual would have to be presented with an amazing new application that in effect defines a new market/need (a la desktop publishing, and spreadsheets before it). Not to belabor the point, but IMHO the NeXT is packaged with this approach in mind. It is saying to the average user, "you need an object oriented environment" by presenting Improv, e-mail, applets (thesaurus and spell checker that works with all app's, voice annotation that works with all app's, etc.). Let the app's sell technology. Otherwise you are singing to the choir when you impress upon developers (a small market) the technical merits of OS/2. Who will by the developer's products if OS/2 isn't on the desktop? Unless these products run under Win 3.0 and OS/2 (at this time) not many people are out there to buy them (sales figures would be valuable to help encourage developers, or discourage them). If I were a would-be NeXT developer I would be discouraged (10k order of magnitude vs 10M for PC's). No one in my office (besides me) can conceive of a "loadable file system" let alone determine that OS/2's system is better than DOS/Win 3.0 based on file system comparisons. They would rather stick with what works for now until such time as they are compelled to switch. Some in our office are not compelled to use Win 3.0 (DOS only) because the applications they have work for them and no new needs have been defined. Others in the same office had new needs defined for them and they switched (begrudgingly). The two camps happily coexist because we have file format compatiblity between app's (e.g. PageMaker can import MultiMate documents, Excel can open Lotus files, Word can open Multimate files, Q&E reads dBase files, etc.). Someday we may have OS/2 coexisting along side these other systems, but I sincerely doubt they will be displaced in the next year or two (given all of the above, and lacking newly defined needs uniquely addressed by OS/2). Reason aside, don't mistake my comments as anti-OS/2 or pro-XYZ. I am employed to assess needs and present alternative solutions. No one solution has arisen to solve all needs. New needs are constantly being defined. I don't see this debate as a OS/2 vs the world problem, but I remain curious as to what new needs OS/2 will define, if any. barry ps In PC Week I read where Imara is porting its product to Win 3.0. The company was described as a longtime showcase for OS/2 developments. Market economies, being what they are, don't always listen to reason. -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Barry B. Floyd \\\ barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu | | Manager Information Systems - HR \\\ usere9w9@rpitsmts | +-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--------------------troy, ny 12180-+