home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!lims01.lerc.nasa.gov!scdorcy
- From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
- Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
- Message-ID: <31JUL199211022620@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>
- News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
- Sender: news@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov
- Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
- References: <1992Jul29.065821.24656@seas.gwu.edu> <r5nmfzl.xtifr@netcom.com> <1992Jul30.161639.5706@microsoft.com> <1992Jul31.115853.8029@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>
- Date: 31 Jul 1992 11:02 EST
- Lines: 57
-
- In article <1992Jul31.115853.8029@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>,
- jarober@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (DE Robertson james an 410-740-9172) writes...
-
- > If OS/2 apps become available. For all the talk, the trade rags I read
- >indicate the Borland and Lotus will be SLOW to release OS/2 versions of
- >their main apps - the Windows versions are bigger money makers, plain and
- >simple.
-
- This seems interesting. Define Borland's "main apps". If you're talking
- languages, I would tend to agree that they're making money on Windows
- related compilers. On the other side of the house, however, Quattro Pro,
- Paradox, and DBase aren't exactly dominant _Windows_ apps.
-
- Although Lotus has Windows flavors of their main apps, Ami Pro is the only
- one which appears to be a major money maker in the Windows arena.
-
- For the most part, both Borland and Lotus make their money on DOS apps.
-
- > You make the 'great net mistake' here as well. Most users are
- >not terribly technical. Most users do not download in one window,
- >compile in a second, run a WP in a 3rd, and play a game in a fourth. They
- >run one, and only one app at a time. For this crowd, OS/2 and
- >Windows are equal in that they act as DOS shells. They don't CARE
- >what OS they run - the MIS department makes that decision for them. Sure,
- >users are getting more sophisticated, but from my experience in
- >consulting, the above holds pretty true.
-
- If this is the case, "most users" have no need for Windows - just give them
- a fixed disk organizer or a decent menu program to load apps and then
- they're fine with just DOS. Does your experience also tell you that there
- is no need for the average user to have a machine more powerful than an XT,
- since any capability beyond that is superfluous anyway? Are you sure that
- you want to imply that the only benefit of OS/2 is multitasking?
-
- > They want a simple system - PIF files are enough of a pain - The
- >OS/2 methodology of tweaking non-OS/2 apps is WAY too much effort for the
- >average stiff who just wants to run his dams app. Not everyone has
- >true blue equipment, and OS/2 is not easy to load on clones - Dos/Windows
- >is far simpler to load. Again, the average stiff does NOT have the patience
- >that a tech guy does.
-
- Apparently the MIS department who selects the operating system for the user
- does not take the time and effort to set up the system for the user :-)
-
- Have you ever used OS/2 2.0? I would guess not. If you had, you might not
- have implied that manipulating PIF files is easier than OS/2 tweaks and you
- would have known that, for the majority of DOS and Windows apps, migrating
- the application is generally sufficient to run them.
-
- > IMHO, OS/2 2.0 is Beta software - nice, but released too early.
- >In this regard, Windows 3.0 was also Beta, with 3.1 being somewhat
- >ready for prime time. Until IBM make OS/2 a <LOT> easier to load and
- >a <LOT> easier to tyweak, it will remain a niche OS.
-
- Yeah, right. What kind of consulting did you say that you do?
-
- JD
-