Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!boulder!sunybcs!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!hplabs!parcvax!burton From: burton@parcvax.Xerox.COM (Philip M. Burton) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: A different View of the value of OS/2 - it's better than UNIX Message-ID: <499@parcvax.Xerox.COM> Date: Sun, 13-Sep-87 19:53:49 EDT Article-I.D.: parcvax.499 Posted: Sun Sep 13 19:53:49 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 15-Sep-87 04:34:29 EDT References: <494@parcvax.Xerox.COM> <1522@gryphon.CTS.COM> Reply-To: burton@parcvax.xerox.com.UUCP (Philip M. Burton) Organization: Xerox PARC Lines: 130 Keywords: market acceptance of UNIX lacking In article <1522@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >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 >>several years of my career on UNIX. > >Did the gamble pay off :-) > That all depends on how your view a gamble. Certainly, in of itself, it was a lousy situation. Stock option always "underwater," the good people at the company (many are still net readers and you know who you are) got the old shafteroo, but lots of politics and get-rich-quick. But, as an education, it sure beats most of my formal education, in terms of how poor management can sink a good product, which it was for the time. And, I'll never again believe the promises of how great this is going to be, no matter how sincere the people. > >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, I know CP/M and DOS, not RT/11, so I'll speak only of those. Their limitations are frustrating, but the limitations generally don't keep people from using the system as a "plug and play" box. Imagine if you had to get a ham radio licence just to play your stereo or a TV technician's training just to use your VCR. That is what UNIX demands. Too much complexity just to get started. >Installing wordstar ? 'copy ws*.* c:' Screw the installation instructions. :-) Then you obviously never installed Wordstar. It has a huge number of options, many of which require a good understanding of your printer type (you may need to enter printer control codes) and your port type. Further, there is a whole "secret" menu that is really essential in setting up defaults like line length. > >>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. >> > >I've corrupeted disks from here to Cucamonga, and have my share of PC Are you confusing bad media with actual filesystem corruption? Almost all of my DOS filesystem problems are media related. Same was true in my CP/M days, except when I've done some hacking with Norton Utilities or the CP/M DU program. >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 guess what. Most users still feel and 3COM is the high end of LANs, and they don't need something as "powerful". >>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 ? > The Fortune 32:16 would have sold one hell of a lot more systems if it had been called the IBM PC VAT or some such. No questions about that. But then again, speaking from personal experience, IBM treats its customers better than Fortune did. [No flames, and I can't comment back, unless I want the founders of Fortune to sue me.] >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. Wrong!!! They wanted a box that could run Lotus 1-2-3. Just as an earlier generation of buyers didn't want an Apple II, but a box that ran Visicalc. Another thing to remember is that most of the old CP/M companies were very poorly managed, although Adam Osborne's debacle was more visible. The dealers hated most of their CP/M company vendors, and they welcomed IBM because of it's obvious name recognition. But it was the dealers who helped make IBM, because in the retail computer business, like any retail business, "shelf space" will make or break any product. > >>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 ? Well, it is obvious that marketing and image has had lots to do with the success of the IBM PC. But isn't that true of cars, cameras, perfumes, food fads, politics, styles in dress, or most other human activities. There no philosopher king who makes the decisions. >>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 :-) I don't know who Cheryl is, but my wife Ilene would not be. She tells everyone she can about how this stuff isn't made for her, but techie-types like me. My wife is no dummy, but she simply doesn't care about this stuff. She simply wants to use the damn thing to run her business. >Richard J. Sexton [wasted space for the stupid mailer.] -- Philip Burton burton@parcvax.COM ...!hplabs!parcvax!burton Xerox Corp. preferred path: burton.osbunorth@xerox.COM 408 737 4635 ... usual disclaimers apply ...