Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sunybcs!bingvaxu!leah!uwmcsd1!marque!ddsw1!gryphon!richard From: richard@gryphon.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: A different View of the value of OS/2 - it's better than UNIX Message-ID: <1522@gryphon.CTS.COM> Date: Sun, 13-Sep-87 14:05:05 EDT Article-I.D.: gryphon.1522 Posted: Sun Sep 13 14:05:05 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 15-Sep-87 01:07:32 EDT References: <494@parcvax.Xerox.COM> Reply-To: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA Lines: 125 Keywords: market acceptance of UNIX lacking In article <494@parcvax.Xerox.COM> burton@parcvax.Xerox.COM (Philip M. Burton) writes: >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. Did the gamble pay off :-) >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. From a marketing point of view this is true, you sell solutions. But when the user is comfortable using his solution (WS or 123, whatever) and actually discovers how to use the operating system commands, they quickly run up against limitations in RT/11 err, CP/...ERR MS-DOS. >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. I dunno. Most folks I've seen have no problem with WS or 123, its the Zenographics Mirage and Future-Net type applications that seem to be a pain. >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 Installing wordstar ? 'copy ws*.* c:' Screw the installation instructions. :-) >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??) I've corrupeted disks from here to Cucamonga, and have my share of PC disks that are un-recoverable. Sorry, the only corrupted filesystem I've found I can recover 100% is the Amiga's (No flames here about the inapproprtaeness of the amiga to run WordStar, I'm only talking about the integrity of the filesystem when any given track is trashed) >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.) Re: the average user today getting into LAN's. Well, golly, I don't know much about all this, but for the year I used a 3Com network (when it worked) I felt like rewriting uucp would be easier than dealing with limited tools 3Com gave us. >And, this isn't just idle ramblings. Mine are. >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. I wonder what would have happened if you took one of those fortune systems, painted it blue or beige and put a big fat IBM label on it ? >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. Peoeple didn't want the simplicity of PC's, they could have had that with RT/11 or CP/M, what they wanted was THEIR OWN (IBM) COMPUTER to sit on THEIR DESK. >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.) Was it really the solution that sold them, or the marketing and company image ? >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. ^^^^ Hope Cheryl doesn't hear this obvious denegration of women :-) >--------- > >So, sports fans, who's on first?? [What's on second, and I-don't-give-a-damn >is on third -)]. > Who's on first, Guess Who's on second, Yes is on third. >-- >Philip Burton burton@parcvax.COM ...!hplabs!parcvax!burton -- Richard J. Sexton INTERNET: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!richard "It's too dark to put the key in my ignition..."