NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/12905

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 7.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!news.univie.ac.at!scsing.switch.ch!univ-lyon1.fr!ghost.dsi.unimi.it!rpi!gatech!cae!cae!not-for-mail
From: [e-mail] (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 a dead end? NO
Date: 27 Jan 1993 11:40:08 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In article <[e-mail]] [e-mail] writes:
]In article <[e-mail]], [e-mail] (Brian Sturgill) writes:

[ Misc. Stuff From Sturgill basically saying anything Microsoft does is OK,
  anything IBM does (no matter if it is the same thing) is evil. Will
  anyone every be truly objective? ]

]] I'll agree with you on OS/2 not being a bust, Windows 3.0 shipped over
]] 3 million copies it's first year.  If OS/2 sales continue to be flat,
]] then it should sell about 2.75  million copies in its first year.
]] Though in truth the industry has changed considerably since 1990 (the
]] user base is larger and Windows had no real PC-based competition), so I
]] think OS/2 would need to sell 4-5 million to be in the same category of
]] success as what Windows 3.0 was.  Nonetheless it clearly rates as very
]] good in terms of sales.  Unfortunately it must acquire an app base
]] before that success can be considered long term.  Microsoft had done
]] their advance work well and had the ISV's lined up to deliver the apps
]] for Windows 3.0.  IBM seems not to have done any advance work for OS/2
]] 2.0, and now with near perfect Windows 3.1 (if not better than 3.1)
]] support on the horizon, I'm not really convinced it will ever get an
]] app base.  (A lot will depend on whether or not it really takes 12-18
]] months for Microsoft to release Chicago.)
]]
]
]    Agreed.  IBM really should have had  the ISV support there.  But keep
]in mind, Microsoft dumped OS/2 in their laps.  IBM had expected Microsoft to
]write apps to OS/2 until the last minute when MS out of the blue (from our
]point of view at least) dumped OS/2 in favor of their WIndows 32 solution.  I
]also would consider the statistics the opposite way you do.  Windows 3.0 had no
]competition so its sales should have been higher than OS/2's by a long shot.
]Wherease OS/2 has to compete with Windows 3.1, DVx, etc.
]

I believe what you say, and agree with it.  Strugill says that
if there is no competition and you sell 3 items, you are doing GREAT.
If there is heavy competition, and you sell 2 items, you are a loser,
and need to sell 6 or 7.   That is flat wrong.  If the tables were turned
on Sales figures  (os2 sold 3 mill in its day, and Win only sold 2.75,
He'd probably say win only needed 1 million to be king).

If you can sell 2.75 million copies in a very competitive market, thats
_GREAT_.  If you only sell that much when you are the only gane
in town, thats poor.  So, MS should have sold 4 - 6 million or so
in their first year.

]] What makes you think OS/2 can compete with Windows 3.1, let alone
]] Windows 3.1/Windows for Workgroups/Windows NT/Chicago (Windows 4.0)?
]] The app base and public perception are clearly with the Windows camp.
]] You've got IBM marketing competing with Microsoft !!!___MARKETING___!!!!
]] Microsoft products are quite popular and not available under OS/2.
]]
]

Well, what makes you thing It cant Brian?  Just because windows
carries microsoft's name?  Thats been about your whole basis in your
most recent posts.  "If it carries MS's name, nothing can compete."

Well, it seems that OS/2 *IS* competeing.  OS/2 is selling, and IS being
used by a lot of folks.  IBM shipped 2million coppies, and YES, I know
you are fond of saying "They lie!  Only 10,000 people use OS/2".  However,
MS seems to have had the monopoly of pre-installed software on machines,
so I would imagine the "preinstalled" number is basically nil
when figured into how many copies of OS/2 were purchased by end
Users.  Hell, we had to go to great lengths to get it because it
wans't pre-installed, and alot of software stores didnt carry it
for a bit.  MicroCenter carried it, and thats where I bought it.
Eveyrwhere else, it was no where to be found.  Those two facts
(hard to find + not preinstalled very much) makes the 2million
mark believeable.

The point is: OS/2 is competing right NOW.  If you can't see that,
you are blind.  Yeah, You'll response and quote some magazine article,
or do some stupid math or try to give a discourse on the myth that
people actually USE OS/2, but your figures are garbage, and your logic
is flawed.


Point #2:  Competing with "NT, Chicago, Cairo, and WFWG" is bogus.
First, Chicago = VaporWare ^2, and Cairo = VaporWare^4.  NT isn't
here yet, and WFWG is not a very good product, and has a LOT of
shortcomings.  I love how Brian names a bunch of nonexistant products
and says "DO you thing OS/2 can compete with THAT??" [as he points
his finger at a blank point in the sky].  Yes, OS/2 can certainly
compete with the emporer's new clothes.  OS/2 is already here.
The other little puffs of vapor aren't.  I dont care what you
think the timeframe for "Chicago" will be, it isn't even in beta,
or at least wide beta.  They dont have a dev kit for it, etc, available
to the public.  I see it as at least a year before SDKs are released for
it.  NT doesn't really exist yet for a lot of companies either.  Yes,
you might have companies writing apps for it, but in the REAL world,
outside of research, when I talk to clients about Windows/NT & such,
and those clients that have seen winNT beta don't want to see the
final release:  they are already scared of the HW requirements, its speed,
etc.  They just stick with Dos/Win, and actually are considering OS/2.

Funny how alot of people I deal with daily either use OS/2,
or want to buy it.  Gee.. Guess OS/2 really doesn't have any interest in
it Brian.

]] I can see a possible argument that OS/2 might acquire and hold a significant
]] market share, but what possible reason do you have to believe that OS/2
]] will become dominant?
]    I see Windows 4.0 becoming the dominate environment (assuming here that
]DOS fades as fast as you and I seem to agree on).  But I consider OS/2 to be
]the high end dominate platform, not NT or Windows for workgroups.  I think
]NOvell will eventually move into the IBM camp once their Unix strategy dries
]up.

I dont see WIN 4.0 becoming dominant until its OUT.  If win 4.0 pulls
the same kind of stuff that Win 3.1 does  (ie, win 3 and win 3.1 app
incompatibility), I see it as not being used.  People in my office
that use MSwin 3.0 didnt upgrade to 3.1 because of the incompatabilities
with existing apps.  They won't go 4.0 either if its introduces
incompatibility.  Can't discount the "If it aint brojke dont fix it "
mentaility either.  Once they use something and like it, some people
refuse to change.

Once again, Brian's vaporware has taken over industry.  Its usually
not a good idea to bet on an app over a year before it is released.



I think Ill wait for things to be released before I declare them
winners.

--
Chris McClellen                  | "If at first you dont succeed... re
Georgia Institute of Technology  | #define success..." - Anon.
[e-mail]