Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!rochester!kodak!ektools!isctsse!pajerek
From: pajerek@isctsse.UUCP (Don Pajerek)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why unix doesn't catch on
Message-ID: <199@isctsse.UUCP>
Date: 11 Apr 89 16:24:31 GMT
References: <1922@dataio.Data-IO.COM> <101000047@hpcvlx.HP.COM>
Sender: daemon@ektools (The Devil Himself)
Reply-To: pajerek@isctsse.UUCP (Donald Pajerek)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastman Kodak Telecommunication Services, Rochester, N.Y. 14650
Lines: 31

In article <101000047@hpcvlx.HP.COM> daveg@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Dave Guggisberg) writes:
>
>Have others noticed this, or is it just me?
>
>Every year we hear about how UNIX is going to take over the
>world, next year.  And MS-DOS, OS/2 (fill in your favorite/hated OS)
>will be dead.                
>
>BUT we've been hearing this every year for the last 5 years.  I 
>wonder what that means.  

People in large numbers won't switch to UNIX, or OS/2, or anything
else until 1) there is a compelling reason to do so; and/or 2) they
don't have to throw away there existing software investment.

Both the OS/2 and UNIX partisans believe that true multi-tasking
is such a compelling reason, but it's only recently that systems have
been available at a reasonable price that meet both conditions. I
refer naturally to the 386 machines that run merged DOS/UNIX environments
that allow users to multitask their DOS applications.

Previous multitasking approaches have failed in many ways. For example,
Windows will only multitask Windows applications; OS/2 will only multitask
OS/2 applications.  Besides, any multitasking at all on less than a 386
processor is impractical for performance reasons.

So predictions of UNIX dominance have been premature so far, but this
may change over the next couple of years.


Don Pajerek