Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!well!mitsu
From: mitsu@well.sf.ca.us (Mitsuharu Hadeishi)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Experience in Shopping for OS/2 (Long)
Message-ID: <25288@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: 7 Jun 91 06:01:34 GMT
References: <1991May29.062117.9353@midway.uchicago.edu> <11750015@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com> <72732@microsoft.UUCP>
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 20


(in reference t^ comments about Microsoft treating OS/2 like MS-DOS
with a hint of changes to come)

Hear, hear!  Obviously OS/2 is analogous not to MS-DOS, but to Windows,
because it is really an upgrade for almost all users, not a first operating
system.  You should be able to purchase OS/2 off the shelf, just like
Windows.  In fact, for most users, installing OS/2 would be a hell of
a lot easier than installing Windows; there are only a few parameters to
set, and in my experience OS/2 1.x runs on almost every clone in existence.
The same cannot be said, frankly, of Windows 3.0.  Though OS/2 is a more
sophisticated operating system, paradoxically this makes it a lot
*simpler* to install and maintain.  When was the last time you heard OS/2 1.x
users complaining about having to tweak fifteen parameters in their
SYSTEM.INI file to get their system to work?  Almost never.  OS/2 1.x
should be an off-the-shelf product.  Of course, there was little reason for
anyone to purchase OS/2 until MS Word was released, because there was no
mainstream WP available for OS/2 until then.  Sales figures before then
are basically bogus since only developers would have a reason to buy
OS/2 1.x.  THis is no longer the case.