NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/8429

Text File | 1992-11-14 | 6.7 KB | 136 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!ornl!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!darwin.sura.net!wupost!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news!manta!discar
From: [e-mail] (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft blasting IBM into the dust?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:03:38 GMT
Lines: 125

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joe Discar) write
>s:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S
>TACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>>
>>>I think they are capable of it, but they are still going through culture
>>>shock.  IBM is amazed that they have a product with mass appeal.  It is taking
>>>them a long time to adjust to this.  MS has no current products that I am
>>>aware of that don't rely at least in part on mass appeal.  They are used to
>>>it, IBM isn't as of yet.  As for Multimedia and networking, it has been argued
>>>(by me as well as others) that not everyone wants those things included with
>>>the base package.  I won't use them, and really don't wan't to see the price
>>>of the system jacked up.
>>>
>>
>>Which might mean that Windows has more "bang for the buck."  I, for one,
>>was very pleased that I could just hook up a network (Lantastic in my case)
>>and have Windows recognize it--and hook up a CD-ROM drive and be able to
>>run applications in a DOS window (or Windows only apps--like Bookshelf
>>for Windows).
>
>More bang for the buck?  C'mon be honest.  OS/2 does everything you list
>above.  (Except automatically recognize your LAN.  But that shouldn't keep
>you from using it.)

I am honest (not blind).  Let's take my points above:  Lantastic (as you
pointed out, doesn't work).  Neither does Bookshelf for Windows.  And I've
had mixed success with DOS only CD-ROM programs like Multimedia Mammals and
Mixed up Mother Goose.  Have you seen these working?  Have you actually
gotten these to work (with sound?) if so, send me an email on your
DOS settings.

Furthermore, I can simply use the DOS drivers provided in the CD-ROM drive's
package... and Windows Applications can directly access the drive.  Clipart
can stay on the 'ROM without me having to copy it to an OS/2 partition (or
buy an "extension")... seems to be useful to me.

>>
>>I was, am, really upset that OS/2 for the "upgrade" price of $49 was unable
>>to make use of the hardware I already had...  Windows at $49, has so far
>>proven to be more *useable* as far as applications are concerned (but not
>>BETTER)...
>
>Useable?  I guess it depends on what you have.  I would disagree, but that may
>be the case for you.

Most people are using OS/2 as a DOS or Windows App launcher.  That's like
"needing" a Mac truck so you can carry groceries from the corner store to
your home.  Although it works, it can be a little cumbersome when you
want to cut a tight corner...

>>
>>If IBM really wants to compete against Windows 3.1, they should consider
>>throwing, at least, rudimentary network support (ahhh, but if TCP/IP came
>>in the box, there would be no contest!) and support for up-and-coming
>>peripherals like CD-ROM (heck, their Ultimedia PC's *come* with CD-ROM
>>drives... and OS/2 out of the box doesn't support it?!)
>>
>Yeah, TCP-IP doesn't quite cut it as rudimentary support.  Maybe something
>like appletalk would be a good idea.  Wouldn't add *too* much too the cost.
>OS/2 does now have a generic CD-ROM driver availlble.  (though I agree it
>should be in the base package)

I can understand *why* Windows can do it: it's built on top of DOS, so
that DOS's strengths are easily inherited by Windows (all they need to
do is, basically, support DOS INT 21 and the BIOS's INT 13...).

OS/2 has got to start from the ground up... because DOS and the BIOS
simply are not there for use by OS/2 applications.  Does this make
Windows BETTER than OS/2?  Of course not, but it *does* allow Windows to
have the edge of being able to support most hardware devices for the
PC... right out of the box.

>
>>Sure, why pay for it if you don't need it?  MS-DOS takes up 2-3 MB's on
>>my computer--90% of the programs I don't use.  But just because I don't
>>use it now, doesn't mean I won't use it later.  If MS can do it for DOS
>>(ala SHARE.EXE) and for Windows (built in support for networks such as
>>Novell and Lantastic et al), and still keep the price ($129 for Windows)
>>within reach, why can't IBM do the same?
>
>When I say "pay for things you don't need", you need to take that statement
>with a grain of salt.  There are certain aspects of the OS that are basic and
>should be included.  File management, interrupt handling and other such things
>of course, a certain quantity of utilities such as editors, file finders etc.
>Also some sort of interface.  Now beyond that you have things like multimedia
>and LAN's.  Some people need/want them included, but you will be hard pressed
>to argue that the majority of machine out there, particularly home based PC's
>are equiped to deal with such things.  These things (IMHO) should be add ons.
>A seperate package with the included, isn't a bad idea, but it isn't
>necissarily a good idea to put them in all in the base package.  Now the OS
>*should* recognize such things when they do happen to be on the system.  This
>may be what you are getting at.  OS/2's support of such things is lacking, and
>after trying out MMPM/2, find it to be worth less than half the price they ask
>for it.  OS/2 can do it after a fashion with DOS networks however via VDM's.
>Granted it is  something of a cludge, but it does work just fine.  As for
>Windows selling for so little, that is because MS has been basically giving it
>away to anyone who will take it.  MS most likely doesn't make their big bucks
>on sales of Windows.  They also sell apps, expensive ones too.  Since so many
>people are running on a system which they dominate, they make their real money
>there.  IBM doesn't have much in the way of application software for OS/2 the
>way MS does.  They are trying to make money on the system.  Unfortunately that
>makes things more expensive.  (Fortunately not much)
>>
>>>>
>>>>I think if IBM has any chance left at all then it is to release
>>>>a more complete OS/2 INCLUDING multimedia, LAN etc etc and to release
>>>>it in a way users can actually use. The CSD seems to take an expert to
>>>>install. I am refering to something an idiot can use. And please oh please
>>>>improve support for third party hardware a lot.
>>>>
>>>>But to be fair, I don't think this will happen before it is too late.
>>>>
>>>Stacy John Behrens
>>>*===)-------------
>>
>>Joe
>>
>--
>Stacy John Behrens
>*===)-------------

Joe again.