Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tektronix!tekgen!tekigm2!tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM!klieb From: klieb@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Kurt Liebezeit) Newsgroups: comp.os.os9 Subject: Soapbox ramblings (long) Message-ID: <3979@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> Date: 23 Dec 88 05:40:02 GMT Sender: klieb@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM Reply-To: klieb@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Kurt Liebezeit) Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Vancouver, WA. Lines: 122 (... up on the soapbox...) Am I alone in thinking that Microware's pricing strategies are out of line with the supposed home computer market? I have been running OS-9/68k version 1.2 at home on my Uniquad 2, and a couple of months ago I got the upgrade to 2.1. The upgrade cost me $75 from the board manufacturer, which was reasonable; however, the upgrade did not come with manuals, nor were they available from Hazelwood or Frank Hogg Labs. That left Microware as the only source. I called Microware, only to find out that the cheapest way to get a current technical reference and user's guide was to buy some package (strictly paper manuals, mind you) for $150!! Good grief, who can really afford $225 for a software+manuals UPGRADE? Is this any way to popularize an operating system? Suppose the manuals have 300 sheets. Say that the upgrade doesn't come with a binder. Suppose that each sheet costs between 3 and 5 cents; printed sheets will be the former, and photocopies the latter. In any case, the reproduction costs can't be more than $10 or $15 dollars. Triple that, or even quadruple it, and you still don't get anywhere near $150. To me, $150 says "We don't want your business. Go away." Along the same lines I inquired about C compiler updates; to go from 2.0 to 3.0 would be $100; this is a little on the high side, but at least it includes a compiler manual. The gentleman I spoke with mentioned that version 3.0 supports this Great New Source-Level Debugger. Later on in the conversation it occurred to me to ask whether the Debugger was part of the compiler upgrade; no, he said, that costs SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY dollars more! Yipes! Looks like I'll be debugging in 68k assembler for the foreseeable future. Once again, $750 says "We don't want your business. We're doing nicely selling OS-9's real time features and rom-ability to big corporations that can afford it. Go away." Oh well, Real Programmers(tm) don't use source level debuggers anyway... I just can't believe that Microware couldn't sell more than six times as many debuggers at one sixth the price ($125). Who really buys an OS-9 system? I think that you'd find that, excluding embedded application licenses, the average OS-9/68k owner bought OS-9 to use as a programming platform. Probably Unix was too slow, bloated and cryptic. That means, on average, every single non-embedded license is a potential sale for a debugger. We're not talking about an information appliance like a Mac, where I would guess that 1 in 50 Mac owners needs a debugger. A recent issue of Byte featured Steve Ciarcia answering a reader's query about why he didn't design a 68000 into any of his projects. Part of his reply was that the development tools for 68000 were too expensive, and he mentioned OS-9 specifically by name. Is there a Microware marketing manager in the house? Jerry Pournelle, whom I can't stand otherwise, made the same comment in an earlier issue. It is reasonably common knowledge that OS-9 is far more popular in the real- time embedded applications market than in the home computer "compete with low-end Unix" market. Yet, when I purchased my Uniquad in January of 1986 I sensed that OS-9 was breaking out of that mold: it became available for the Atari, Microware announced support for the GKS graphics standard and the 63484 ACRTC, and Sony/Microware announced their joint intent to develop the CD-ROM with OSK. By continuing to milk the high end of the price vs. demand curve I am forced to conclude that it was all an illusion. OS-9 is a quality product: it provides a clean, Unix-like platform for programmers. But when you look at the bare facts about their pricing, even for manuals, upgrades, and technical support, you have to conclude that those of us who aren't developing software for toasters are simply along for the ride. We really aren't their main customers, to such an extent that I have to question why we are here. ========= and now some quizzing of the audience, in which the host inquires ========= of his listeners their opinions. This brings me to my first question, gentle denizens of the net: are the bugs (as yet undiscovered by me) in 2.0 of the OSK C compiler worth paying $100 to trade for the bugs (perhaps small, and hopefully few) in version 3.0? Or was the version change to 3.0 mainly to support the Great New Source-Level Debugger, priced beyond the reach of ordinary mortals? The overall cost of upgrading my Uniquad to more bug-free levels is pretty high, all in all: OSK software upgrade to 2.1 $75 Manuals for above $150 C compiler upgrade (maybe) $100 Stylo upgrade w/ manuals $65 Total: $390 Worst of all, I'm told that OSK version 2.1 is pretty buggy, so I'm looking at another $75 to go to 2.2. Why am I doing this? Why don't I give up and start over with GNU, or Minix, or something similar? Why? Why? Why? Even Messy-DOS, Microsoft C, and Codeview is looking better and better. The second question is: how bad are the bugs in OSK 2.1? Worth going to 2.2? Wait for 2.3? Punt? More questions: has the user group gone down the tubes or what? Were the money problems so bad that we'll never see another MOTD published? Or are they suffering from a lack of volunteers to write articles, etc? Did I jump on a sinking ship by buying OS-9/68k in 1986? Will OS-9/68k ever break out of the mold of running on a host of industrial controllers and a few scattered home -brew machines and/or Ataris? Will the long-awaited Sony/CD rom machines ever come out? Is anyone out there running OS-9/68k other than TOP? (which, by the way, is a beam of light in an otherwise silent and murky software world). What about the rumored graphical interface for OSK (along the lines of what the Coco III has)? I'm about ready to start my own user group, with first priorities given to (a) illegal manual duplication {|^), and (b) software bug reporting. Not that Microware's bugs have been numerous, or devastating; part of support is knowing what is really a bug, and what is simply operator error. The problem, once again, is that it costs a lot for support capable of serving both the beginners and the competent. Good manuals with examples and a monthly bug list are worth more than a hotline to me. If the bug list were electronic it would doggone cheap, too. Does the OS-9 conference on Compu$erve have bug lists? Wait, I know, we'll write a BBS that calls all the members in a tree- like fashion at 3am every week or so. We'll distribute it free to anyone who wants it. For point to point mail it will call directly to the destination and the computer will only answer the phone between 03:00 and 03:02, that way no one except the sender gets charged... yeah, it'll be compatible with uucp and news... all you have to do is click on the letter and drag it over to the mailbox... I'm starting to babble again. (... sound of thud ...) Well, that's enough rambling for now. Kurt Liebezeit klieb@tekigm2.TEK.COM ...!tektronix!tekigm2!klieb Yep, I said that. Tektronix didn't.