Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!umigw!umbio!medsoft!p4.f10.n135.z1.fidonet.org!Ed.Maurer
From: Ed.Maurer@p4.f10.n135.z1.fidonet.org (Ed Maurer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Microsoft, OS/2, and UNIX
Message-ID: <267.2434BA33@medsoft.uucp>
Date: 31 Mar 89 11:14:00 GMT
Sender: ufgate@medsoft.uucp (newsout1.18)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:135/10.4 - AMS Support-Net 13, Miami FL
Lines: 52

GOOD GRIEF - DEJA VUE! Didn't you send the same message with regards
DOS version 2.0 back in '81 and every year since ?

 > Microsoft claims that OS/2 is "priority one, two, and three" for them.
 > After reading that recent issues of various PC magazines, I can't
 > help but wonder. It is my feeling that Microsoft isn't so sure
 > about OS/2 catching on like wild fire. It seems that they are
 > protecting themselves against OS/2's demise. Here are some tidbits:

Half the articles in most computer mags are just as well suited to the 
National Enquirer - Remember the demise of the PS/2? (reports of its doom 
were greatly exaggerated). I've got about the same sources as most of the 
computer rags...a friend whose brother-in-law has a drinking buddy whose 
2nd cousin is the night watchman at MicroSoft, etc.

 > Some may say that diversification is good, but how can people choose
 > OS/2 over UNIX when Microsoft won't? What does OS/2 have over UNIX?
 > (buggy...etc. etc.
 > PM) What does UNIX have over OS/2? (lots of installed bases, maturity,
 > etc.)
 > Any comments?

Every year the same argument, and every year it gets shot down for a few 
damn good reasons: First and foremost, the user base simply will not accept 
UNIX in any of its current releases (numerous, and therein lies reason 2: 
No standardization - compared to most UNIX's, MS/OS2 and IBM/OS2 are saimese 
twins). OS/2 was never designed to be a multi-user OS, and hence any 
comparison to UNIX is absurd to start with. Without a shell, UNIX is far 
too much for the average end user - and whose shell is going to be the ONE? 
Most UNIX based application sites (not university or development sites; 
application sites, where the bulk of computer use is done) still require a 
highly paid and trained administrator. And OS/2 is no more buggy than the 
first release of most OS's and it certainly is not slow. Admittedly, the 
DOS compatibility box is a 'kludge', etc. but overall it's quite useable - 
this missive is being typed in it (Yes, I know all about UNIX or is it 
XENIX or AIX or...). I could go on - your point about windows is not quite 
correct, as is your statement re IBM's support for AIX - only on the RT. 
there is NO official UNIX support in the PC arena. Software is late? 
Software was always and presumably will always be 'late.'- many developers 
were waiting for the final release of the Presenation manager, rather than 
vanilla OS/2; to read into this that OS/2 is dead is ridiculous. I could go 
on, but it's all been said before, and unfortunately, will probably be said 
again, and again......

   C:\dd Maurer >


--  
Ed Maurer - via FidoNet node 1:135/3
Medical Software Exchange BBS (305) 325-8709
UUCP: ...uunet!gould!umbio!medsoft!10.4!Ed.Maurer
ARPA: Ed.Maurer@p4.f10.n135.z1.fidonet.org