Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!labrea!jade!ucbvax!hplabs!parcvax!burton From: burton@parcvax.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: A different View of the value of OS/2 - it's better than UNIX Message-ID: <494@parcvax.Xerox.COM> Date: Sat, 12-Sep-87 03:26:12 EDT Article-I.D.: parcvax.494 Posted: Sat Sep 12 03:26:12 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 13-Sep-87 07:53:04 EDT Organization: Xerox PARC Lines: 107 Keywords: market acceptance of UNIX lacking I'd like to posit a different view of the value of OS/2, putting aside any issues of delivery date or such. If I understand the arguments correctly, OS/2 offers no benefits over UNIX, particularly UNIX running with a DOS option. I beg to differ, having bet several years of my career on UNIX. Let me say first off that I'm one of those marketing types that so many readers/posters of the net like to make fun of. I am, however, comfortable enough with both DOS and UNIX to understand many of their strengths, even if I don't code in C. There is absolutely no benefit, read NONE, for an operating system itself, except to support applications run by users. And, users will generally pay money for this capability, particularly in the business world where people can justify any kind of office automation on the basis of productivity improvements or increased business. Howeer, most users are funny. They really don't care about the OS, or the chip, or the tracks per inch of the floppy drive. All they want is to get their work done with minimal hassle. And, most people won't/can't learn much about their systems, except to turn it on, load their applications, print results, DOS is popular because it makes very few demands upon the user. This is what most people can cope with. If you don't believe me, watch the "average" user try to cope with the complexities of Lotus or Wordstar. Worse yet, to install wordstar, even if all the necessary instructions are provided. Most people won't/can't do it. And like it or not, folks, these are the people with the money to buy the products you who are developers do. Now, for the average user who is terrified of installing Wordstar or backing up files, or who uses a hard disk without any subdirectories [too much trouble to get them to work right], let's tell that person about UNIX. Any version. Let's tell them about logins, logouts, and supersers. Let's tell them about the hassles in using a floppy with a UNIX system. Compare the simplicity of typing A: to get to the floppy with the RTFM-type syntax of UNIX. Now, let's tell them that the filesystem can easily be corrupted, and that there are stringent requirements for getting it back up. You've lost that person as a paying customer. What's a filesystem? Corruption? (Is that like politics in Boston or Chicago, or is that like AIDS??) Sure, UNIX does more, but the average user today is just getting into LAN's, and doesn't need usenet or mailx or uucp. Or adb or SCCS. I'd love to be the salesman selling against a machine with UNIX, for the average user. (Look at the popularity of the Mackintosh as proof of people's aversion to any kind of command line environment.) And, this isn't just idle ramblings. About five years ago, when PC's were new and 68000's were cheap, companies like Fortune Systems tried to popularize UNIX systems for general office automation use. They even put menus on top of the raw UNIX interface. But it didn't work, even though the economics favored a multi-user Fortune against several standalone PC's. People wanted the simplicity of PC's. They didn't want to have to learn all about a system that was really intended for an environment with professional management. And, in this business, if people don't accept your solution within a year or two, you have been passed by in the market. The marketplace demonstrated that it didn't want the complexities of UNIX-based systems, regardless of the benefits. (The marketplace isn't a few engineers here and there, but the millions and millions of white collar workers who drive cars with automatic transmissions and never built a Heathkit in their lives and use cameras with auto-exposure and automatic flash.) The notion of a UNIX "hypervisor" for multiple virtural DOS as an effective competitor to OS/2 is a vain hope. I personally like using UNIX, and perahps I may even consider it, but I shudder at the thought of UNIX on a machine also used by my wife. or most other average users. So that won't "save" UNIX. --------- I could go on about this, but I hope that readers get the point. Not having seen OS/2, I can't comment about specific points. But, I think that the key issue is that OS/2 will resemble DOS and that it will run today's applications. True, you won't get all the benefits of OS/2 without new applications, but you won't lose too much. The other big issue is that OS/2 is vaporware. I think this is a very myopic perspective. Consider IBM's dilemma. They ahve this evolutionary/ revolutionary operating system that is designed to use the power of the PS/2's (and AT's). The OS is useless without applications. However, IBM doesn't provide any signiciant applications, the OS and the LAN programs excepted. Third parties do. Given today's environment, there is absolutely no way that you can distribute the developer's version of OS/2 and keep it a secret. If you tried that, you would get all sorts of lurid rumors in PC Week about OS/2, AND YOU WOULD CONFUSE YOUR CUSTOMERS. Who would then continue to leave you for DEC and Apple. Much better to tell everyone about it. IBM's real customer base in the Fortune 1000 is quite sophisticated about the development process. Small busienss doesn't care that much, and individual users just aren't that much of a factor. So, sports fans, who's on first?? [What's on second, and I-don't-give-a-damn is on third -)]. -- Philip Burton burton@parcvax.COM ...!hplabs!parcvax!burton Xerox Corp. preferred path: burton.osbunorth@xerox.COM 408 737 4635 ... usual disclaimers apply ...