Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mailrus!uflorida!mephisto!prism!ce1zzes
From: ce1zzes@prism.gatech.EDU (Eric Sheppard)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Stoopid *nix freaks!
Message-ID: <6371@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 25 Feb 90 00:03:00 GMT
References: <90052.182144CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu> <6937@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> <25e6d6ed.26a3@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 28

In article <25e6d6ed.26a3@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) writes:
> 
> If the objection is cost, well, the answer to that is the market system
> that balances supply, demand, and price.  The price would be lower now
> if there were more buyers.  There would be more buyers if RAM was cheaper.
> 
> If the objection is its size and complexity, I would suggest that you
> do an objective compaison of it against any alternative, keeping in
> mind all the capabilities of OS/2.

My observation of OS/2 so far is that it's enormous and memory hungry, and
EXPENSIVE!  If the developers of OS/2 price this system competitively with
MS/PC-DOS, then it will rapidly approach the critical mass point that is only
dreamed of now.  In addition, releasing system-call interrupt lists or other
source code will allow more people to develop for OS/2.  Right now, anyone
can go to their neighborhood bookstore and pick up a book or two on MS-DOS
programming, and develop a decent program.  With Windows (and, I suspect, PM),
you must shell out several hundred bucks for the development kit.

I'd like to explore the capabilities and advantages of OS/2, but right now,
it's cost-prohibitive.  My guess is it will stay that way for a long time.

Eric, tinkerer-at-large
-- 
Eric Sheppard      Georgia Tech    |  "Of course the US Constitution isn't
Atlanta, GA                        | perfect; but it's a lot better than what
ARPA: ce1zzes@prism.gatech.edu     | we have now."
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!ce1zzes