Rumor mill from PCWeek
Bill Oconnor
w...@rock.cis.ufl.edu (Wayne J. Hyde) wrote:
>Here is a paragraph from "Rumor Central" on PCWeek:
>And here's one sure to get the OS/2 ever-faithful fired up. At a
>top-level IBM meeting next Monday, Lou G.'s lieutenants will try to
>make a case -- yet again -- for killing OS/2, claims one of Spence's
>Big Blue tipsters. But Gerstner doesn't want to throw in the towel,
>the tipster claimed, even though OS/2 hasn't been selling much since
>October. The contrarians, spearheaded by John M. Thompson, sources
>say, are trying to tell Lou that IBM could make more money by joining
>with Microsoft rather than fighting Redmond and by throwing IBM's
>hardware weight behind Win 95 and NT. Lou reportedly wants to fight
>the good fight -- but for how long?
This is very interesting. I ask the question; If IBM can't kill
OS/2, who the HELL can?
This could be a BIG week for the Win "loonies"! Many sleepless
nights, many prayers being whispered. Oh God if IBM can't kill
it, WHO the HELL can?
>Wayne Hyde | Network Manager | http://www.cis.ufl.edu/~wjh
--
Bill OConnor
* When the NEWS is bad! -- SHOOT the messenger! *
Stephen Drye
>
> Here is a paragraph from "Rumor Central" on PCWeek:
>
> And here's one sure to get the OS/2 ever-faithful fired up. At a
> top-level IBM meeting next Monday, Lou G.'s lieutenants will try to
> make a case -- yet again -- for killing OS/2, claims one of Spence's
> Big Blue tipsters. But Gerstner doesn't want to throw in the towel,
> the tipster claimed, even though OS/2 hasn't been selling much since
> October. The contrarians, spearheaded by John M. Thompson, sources
> say, are trying to tell Lou that IBM could make more money by joining
> with Microsoft rather than fighting Redmond and by throwing IBM's
> hardware weight behind Win 95 and NT. Lou reportedly wants to fight
> the good fight -- but for how long?
>
> Flames can be sent to Spencer, not me.
>
Don't even flame Spencer. It's a rumour column, and we should all know
by now how accurate rumours relating to the death of OS/2 are. They
should call the next release Twain ("The rumours of my death...").
Plus, as rumours about OS/2 go, it's a positive one. It even mentions
Gerstner refusing! If this were the average, run of the mill PCWeek
rumour, Gerstner would personally be blowing up the planes carrying
the OS/2 development staff from Boca to Austin... :)
Rumour = something printed that currently has no basis in fact.
This rumour is more iffy than most seeing as it doesn't mesh with
John W. Thompson's (why, oh why does IBM have to have two senior execs
whose names differ by only the middle initial?) published remarks
from COMDEX. The bit about Lou probably refusing does sound reasonable.
Plus, IBM has been down that particular garden path before. The _big_
cliff at the end of the path seems to still be there, too, judging
from the performance of Corel, Symantec et al. who have thrown their
weight behind MS recently.
Stephen Drye
scd...@bnr.ca
Not speaking for Nortel Secure Networks.
Wayne J. Hyde
Here is a paragraph from "Rumor Central" on PCWeek:
------
And here's one sure to get the OS/2 ever-faithful fired up. At a
top-level IBM meeting next Monday, Lou G.'s lieutenants will try to
make a case -- yet again -- for killing OS/2, claims one of Spence's
Big Blue tipsters. But Gerstner doesn't want to throw in the towel,
the tipster claimed, even though OS/2 hasn't been selling much since
October. The contrarians, spearheaded by John M. Thompson, sources
say, are trying to tell Lou that IBM could make more money by joining
with Microsoft rather than fighting Redmond and by throwing IBM's
hardware weight behind Win 95 and NT. Lou reportedly wants to fight
the good fight -- but for how long?
-----
Flames can be sent to Spencer, not me.
--
Wayne Hyde | Network Manager | http://www.cis.ufl.edu/~wjh
3461-423 SW 2nd Ave | Fla Cooperative Fish & | Off the keyboard, through
Gainesville, FL 32607 | Wildlife Research Unit | the router, over the bridge,
(904) 372-3602 | (904) 392-1861 | nothing but net!
Steve Withers
>
>Here is a paragraph from "Rumor Central" on PCWeek:
>
>------
>And here's one sure to get the OS/2 ever-faithful fired up. At a
>top-level IBM meeting next Monday, Lou G.'s lieutenants will try to
>make a case -- yet again -- for killing OS/2, claims one of Spence's
>Big Blue tipsters. But Gerstner doesn't want to throw in the towel,
>the tipster claimed, even though OS/2 hasn't been selling much since
>October. The contrarians, spearheaded by John M. Thompson, sources
>say, are trying to tell Lou that IBM could make more money by joining
>with Microsoft rather than fighting Redmond and by throwing IBM's
>hardware weight behind Win 95 and NT. Lou reportedly wants to fight
>the good fight -- but for how long?
>-----
>
>Flames can be sent to Spencer, not me.
Predictable FUD.
With bad news creeping into the press about Win95, it was more than
predictable that a story like this would emerge to raise the FUD level
about OS/2.
Soeone forward this story to Dan Gillmor. Ask if he needs any more
proof with respect to ZD's complicity in supporting MS.
***********************************************************
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand
sbw...@ibm.net / swit...@vnet.ibm.com
Canadian since '58 / Kiwi (too) since '88 / OS/2 since April '92
Life started great and just keeps getting better!
***********************************************************
Christopher Robato
:>
:>Joseph Coughlan <jo...@gaia.arc.nasa.gov> writes:
:>>> > The contrarians, spearheaded by John M. Thompson, sources
:>>> > say, are trying to tell Lou that IBM could make more money by joining
:>>> > with Microsoft rather than fighting Redmond and by throwing IBM's
:>>> > hardware weight behind Win 95 and NT.
:>
:>>Think abouty this comment. IBM can make more money by backing Win95 and
:>>NT. That's DEC's and HP's PC strategy. [...]
How? Both DEC and HP hardly made money on their PCs. Probably lost money
like everyone else.
Follow what Steve Jobs is doing now with NeXT and what Bill Gates knew all
along---make money selling software. And IBM is already trying to become
more of a software (and services) company.
:>>IBM cannot make more money that
:>>way. All they would do is hand MS the cleint OS and watch MS leverage
:>>NT to sell NTAS.
:>
:>>Does one expect MS to cut it's ties to DEC and HP ? I think not.
:>
:>Good point, but remember that the market likes standardization.
:>Consider Sun's fight to keep OpenLook -- they kept it up long after
:>the rest of the world had switched to Motif, and started losing sales
:>because customers wanted standardization.
:>
:>jim frost
:>ji...@world.std.com
:>--
:>http://world.std.com/~jimf
Excellent argument and example.
Let's throw away NT and Windows 95 then and let us all standardize on Motif.
Rgds,
Chris
*>>>Vote OS/2 for Presidential OS, Campaign '96<<<*
***** cro...@kuentos.guam.net *****
>>>> (On FUD) I came, I saw, I countered. <<<<
[[[ Anime .sig follows ]]]
"Seigi no Senshi, Sailor Fuku bishoujo senshi, Sailor Venus!"
"Sanjyo Yo!"---Minako Aino, Code Name wa Sailor V!
Steve Withers
report was entirely predictable. The object is to make the
corporates stop sitting on the fence and finally eat Win95.
They don't have to.........OS/2 is here to stay.
In <WJH.96Ja...@rock.cis.ufl.edu>, w...@rock.cis.ufl.edu (Wayne J. Hyde) writes:
>
>Here is a paragraph from "Rumor Central" on PCWeek:
>
>------
>And here's one sure to get the OS/2 ever-faithful fired up. At a
>top-level IBM meeting next Monday, Lou G.'s lieutenants will try to
>make a case -- yet again -- for killing OS/2, claims one of Spence's
>Big Blue tipsters. But Gerstner doesn't want to throw in the towel,
>the tipster claimed, even though OS/2 hasn't been selling much since
>October. The contrarians, spearheaded by John M. Thompson, sources
>say, are trying to tell Lou that IBM could make more money by joining
>with Microsoft rather than fighting Redmond and by throwing IBM's
>hardware weight behind Win 95 and NT. Lou reportedly wants to fight
>the good fight -- but for how long?
>-----
>
>Flames can be sent to Spencer, not me.
>
>--
>Wayne Hyde | Network Manager | http://www.cis.ufl.edu/~wjh
>3461-423 SW 2nd Ave | Fla Cooperative Fish & | Off the keyboard, through
>Gainesville, FL 32607 | Wildlife Research Unit | the router, over the bridge,
>(904) 372-3602 | (904) 392-1861 | nothing but net!
Joseph Coughlan
> Wayne J. Hyde wrote:
> >
> > Here is a paragraph from "Rumor Central" on PCWeek:
> >
> > ------
> > And here's one sure to get the OS/2 ever-faithful fired up. At a
> > top-level IBM meeting next Monday, Lou G.'s lieutenants will try to
> > make a case -- yet again -- for killing OS/2, claims one of Spence's
> > Big Blue tipsters. But Gerstner doesn't want to throw in the towel,
> > the tipster claimed, even though OS/2 hasn't been selling much since
> > October. The contrarians, spearheaded by John M. Thompson, sources
> > say, are trying to tell Lou that IBM could make more money by joining
> > with Microsoft rather than fighting Redmond and by throwing IBM's
> > hardware weight behind Win 95 and NT.
Think abouty this comment. IBM can make more money by backing Win95 and
NT. That's DEC's and HP's PC strategy. DEC's ALPHA is faster than the
PPC and it's got more win32 software. IBM cannot make more money that
way. All they would do is hand MS the cleint OS and watch MS leverage
NT to sell NTAS.
In fact HP's PC exec was interviewed and he specifically mentioned OS/2
as the reason HP had to offer NT. HP needed a robust OS to counter IBM's
OS/2 system as a client OS.
Does one expect MS to cut it's ties to DEC and HP ? I think not.
> > Lou reportedly wants to fight
> > the good fight -- but for how long?
Since Lou's OS/2 is winning marketshare I say for as long as he's
making marketshare on MS Windows' expense.
> Don't even flame Spencer. It's a rumour column, and we should all know
> by now how accurate rumours relating to the death of OS/2 are. They
> should call the next release Twain ("The rumours of my death...").
Right. It's getting tiresome to read the same boring rumor all these
years. Now that OS/2 is selling IBM is supposed to
> Plus, as rumours about OS/2 go, it's a positive one. It even mentions
> Gerstner refusing! If this were the average, run of the mill PCWeek
> rumour, Gerstner would personally be blowing up the planes carrying
> the OS/2 development staff from Boca to Austin... :)
>
> Rumour = something printed that currently has no basis in fact.
PSP had an exec who was aksed about MS's Steve Balmer's comments on
IBM wasting time and money on OS/2. The reply was about like this
"Ask Steve why he's talking about OS/2."
I read on line that MS stock dove to 80 today. MS's stock price is
part of the engine that fuels their growth. IBM can start a price
war on OS/2 and Applications to take cash out of MS's war chest and
further force MS to come to terms. Why would IBM dump OS/2 and go
crawling to MS behind DEC and HP ?
Nick Marc
-> Subject: Rumor mill from PCWeek
->
->
-> Here is a paragraph from "Rumor Central" on PCWeek:
->
-> ------
-> And here's one sure to get the OS/2 ever-faithful fired up. At a
< clipped phony rumors >
-> -----
Wall Street investors consider PcWeek a shill for Bill Gates and the
Microsoft community. As usual, the article is another plant in the
continuing effort of MS to control the industry and smear IBM. MS is
losing ground so badly at the poor sales of Windows 95 and Windows NT
that they are absolutely desparate.
Nick Marc, Office Manager
Chauvet & Company
Nick Marc
-> Subject: Re: Rumor mill from PCWeek
->
-> Wayne J. Hyde wrote:
-> >
-> > Here is a paragraph from "Rumor Central" on PCWeek:
-> >
-> > ------
-> > And here's one sure to get the OS/2 ever-faithful fired up. At a
-> > -----
-> > Flames can be sent to Spencer, not me.
->
-> Don't even flame Spencer. It's a rumour column, and we should all kn
-> by now how accurate rumours relating to the death of OS/2 are. They
-> should call the next release Twain ("The rumours of my death...").
->
-> Rumour = something printed that currently has no basis in fact.
->
The stock market reflects the poor performance of Windows 95 and
Windows NT by downgrading Microsoft's stock and removing it from
reputable buy lists. Smaller companies dependent on the sale of
Windows 95 are folding or taking enormous financial losses.
Microsoft is desperate and has pressured all publications within it's
ad dollar reach to destroy OS/2 (dislodge is the word they are using)
or lose it's multimillion dollar ads. PCWeek and all other Ziff Davis
publications have started an all out smear campaign fearful of losing
their own jobs/publications. That's the power of Bill Gates and his
billions. The loss in dollar value of Microsoft stock within the
last 30 days is more than 100 million dollars.
Nick Marc
jim frost
>> > The contrarians, spearheaded by John M. Thompson, sources
>> > say, are trying to tell Lou that IBM could make more money by joining
>> > with Microsoft rather than fighting Redmond and by throwing IBM's
>> > hardware weight behind Win 95 and NT.
>Think abouty this comment. IBM can make more money by backing Win95 and
>NT. That's DEC's and HP's PC strategy. [...]
>IBM cannot make more money that
>way. All they would do is hand MS the cleint OS and watch MS leverage
>NT to sell NTAS.
>Does one expect MS to cut it's ties to DEC and HP ? I think not.
Good point, but remember that the market likes standardization.
Joseph Coughlan
If you are suggesting that NT is becoming a standard then I'd encourage you
to use that imagination to write childrens' books. :)
IBM's already decided to support Win3.x, NT and OS/2. They can customize
OS/2 to fit nicely into their computing infrastructure. They also can
compete for accounts that use MS OSs.
I've read the opposite about MS SQL. It's not being considered by many
companies because it only runs on NT. MS's decision to provide tools ONLY
for NT is hurting them. No surpise there.
IBM needs OS/2 to control MS. With OS/2 IBM can engineer and support their
servers and thus MS cannot hope to boycott or manipulate the industry lest
they drive customers to OS/2. Without OS/2 MS can and will continue to
leverage their client OS to sell servers, software and solutions. IBM
will have no options.
Some examples:
IBM sells PCDOS and forces MS to continue to sell and service MS DOS
lest IBM make sales in that area and migrate users to OS/2. Intel
is now selling 486's agressively to keep cash away from AMD and CYRIX
despite Intel's need to get us all to run Pentiums.
I think these sort of behavioral responses come under the heading of
game theory. What you do influences what others do. The next effect of
your choices are compounded. Rarely do the pundits consider these more
complex events. Bean counters are the worse people to have around
during a strategic decision.
Ronald Van Iwaarden
>Wayne J. Hyde wrote:
>>
>> Here is a paragraph from "Rumor Central" on PCWeek:
>> make a case -- yet again -- for killing OS/2, claims one of Spence's
>They should call the next release Twain ("The rumours of my death...").
Clever!
--Ron
Gabriel N. Schaffer
In a previous article, jo...@gaia.arc.nasa.gov (Joseph Coughlan) says:
>IBM's already decided to support Win3.x, NT and OS/2. They can customize
Of course IBM is going to support Windows -- it's got most of the market
share.
>I've read the opposite about MS SQL. It's not being considered by many
>companies because it only runs on NT. MS's decision to provide tools ONLY
>for NT is hurting them. No surpise there.
I would hardly consider that to be true. MS is being more successful by
focusing their efforts on one OS, rather than spreading their resources
thinly across a dozen of them. For MS to support other operating systems,
it would cost far more than they are currently losing in sales do to not
supporting them. Remember, the reason MS broke off with Sybase is that MS
wanted to significantly change SQL Server to optimize it for NT, and Sybase
wanted wanted to keep the codebase the same across all platforms. It would
have been cheaper for MS to just buy Sybase in the first place!
MS also doesn't support NT on SPARCs. Is that a problem? Hardly. SPARC
machines are neither the cheapest nor the fastest on the market. However,
they are popular because there are probably more apps available for Solaris
SPARC than any other workstation platform. If you ran NT on a SPARC, you
wouldn't be able to run the thousands of apps available for Solaris,
leaving you with just a plain old workstation that wasn't very cheap and
not very fast either. If you want cheapest get PPC, and if you want
fastest get Alpha. There just wouldn't be enough users to be worth
supporting. They are in a similar position with MIPS -- it was supported
in the first place because it was supposed to rule the world, and now that
it hasn't come to rule the world, they can't drop MIPS support because Dave
Cutler uses it.
>IBM needs OS/2 to control MS.
IBM's control over MS is minimal at best.
--
/~~~~ / /~~~ / /~~/~~ gn...@po.cwru.edu
/ ___ __ /_ __ (__ __ /_ __ _/__/__ _http://www.gabe.com/
/ / ___/ / ) /__) ) / / ) ___/ / / /__) /__)
/____/ /__/ (__/ (___ ___/ (__ / / /__/ / / (___ / \__
Joseph Coughlan
>
> In a previous article, jo...@gaia.arc.nasa.gov (Joseph Coughlan) says:
>
> >IBM's already decided to support Win3.x, NT and OS/2. They can customize
>
> Of course IBM is going to support Windows -- it's got most of the market
> share.
Which windows? NT ? Hardly. NT is stil being outsold by OS/2.
Why doesn't MS support OS/2? OS/2 has the majority of the 32-bit OS
market. How long can MS play politics at the expense of thier business
customers ?
> >I've read the opposite about MS SQL. It's not being considered by many
> >companies because it only runs on NT. MS's decision to provide tools ONLY
> >for NT is hurting them. No surpise there.
>
> I would hardly consider that to be true.
Well it is true. I would wonder why you'd doubt it. It's totally sensible
and the way business computing has been heading for years.
> MS is being more successful by
> focusing their efforts on one OS, rather than spreading their resources
> thinly across a dozen of them.
Fluff or fact ? Either way what you say is damning for MS.
MS can't port OLE lest MS get defocused. Okay OLE stinks.
Or MS can port but will not becuase they want to lock you into MS OS and
technology. It stinks again.
> For MS to support other operating systems,
> it would cost far more than they are currently losing in sales do to not
> supporting them.
Cut an paste to every ISM mailbox. MS is too small to support heterogenous,
enterprise computing. You just made a great case for NOT using MS
technology. Thank you. IBM DB/2 has OS/2, NT and etc. support. MS has
SQL for NT and that is all she wrote.
> Remember, the reason MS broke off with Sybase is that MS
> wanted to significantly change SQL Server to optimize it for NT, and Sybase
> wanted wanted to keep the codebase the same across all platforms. It would
> have been cheaper for MS to just buy Sybase in the first place!
MS dumped SYBASE because it was to the benefit of MS's bottom line.
Customers came last as usual.
> MS also doesn't support NT on SPARCs. Is that a problem? Hardly. SPARC
> machines are neither the cheapest nor the fastest on the market.
SPARC is significant. You think the ULTRA Sparc isn't fast ?
Doing what ? multimedia and graphics or dead end benchmarks ?
> However,
> they are popular because there are probably more apps available for Solaris
> SPARC than any other workstation platform. If you ran NT on a SPARC, you
> wouldn't be able to run the thousands of apps available for Solaris,
> leaving you with just a plain old workstation that wasn't very cheap and
> not very fast either.
SOLARIS and SPARC's are fast, far bettet than NT aned ALPHA. Just ask the
market place. As for ignoring the Ultra SPARC.. Why ?
> If you want cheapest get PPC, and if you want
> fastest get Alpha. There just wouldn't be enough users to be worth
> supporting. They are in a similar position with MIPS -- it was supported
> in the first place because it was supposed to rule the world, and now that
> it hasn't come to rule the world, they can't drop MIPS support because Dave
> Cutler uses it.
What ? Dave Cutler uses MIPS NT so MS has to support MIPS NT ?
> >IBM needs OS/2 to control MS.
>
> IBM's control over MS is minimal at best.
Sure. MS is so big right?
IBM's control over MS is maximal. MS can't act without mentioning OS/2.
Gates recent Inforworld intervew was more about IBM than MS. He can't
stop FUDing IBM. Unlike you, he knows IBM's got MS in it's sights and
is executing on an anti-MS strategy.
Let MS drop MS DOS. IBM PC DOS will sell quite well. Let MS
ignore the WFWG browser market as they once said they would. IBM
announced a Browser for WFWG and days later MS announced they would
make a browser for win3.1.
Christopher Robato
haffer) writes:
:>
:>
:>In a previous article, jo...@gaia.arc.nasa.gov (Joseph Coughlan) says:
:>
:>>IBM's already decided to support Win3.x, NT and OS/2. They can customize
:>
:>Of course IBM is going to support Windows -- it's got most of the market
:>share.
:>>I've read the opposite about MS SQL. It's not being considered by many
:>>companies because it only runs on NT. MS's decision to provide tools ONLY
:>>for NT is hurting them. No surpise there.
:>
:>focusing their efforts on one OS, rather than spreading their resources
:>it would cost far more than they are currently losing in sales do to not
:>wanted to significantly change SQL Server to optimize it for NT, and Sybase
:>wanted wanted to keep the codebase the same across all platforms. It would
:>have been cheaper for MS to just buy Sybase in the first place!
Successful? Certainly in the high end database side, it's certainly in the
wanna-be status. Wanna-be like Oracle, Sybase, Informix, CA-Associates.
When you spread your efforts to different platforms, it only means you can
run on much more platforms, qualitatively and numerically, than you do if you
are only on one. It so happens that's a requirement in MIS circles. You
must be percieved as open, not closed. That means letting the customer run
his OS and platform of choice with your program. That's not in the MS
agenda. But it's what the customer wants that counts. Or did you forget
that basic fact?
MS targetting their efforts on their own platform is of course, part of their
undeniable strategy to lock solutions into a closed highly integrated and
proprietary form. I thought the whole world wants to move away from such
philosophies. I think that's regression, not progression.
Gabriel N. Schaffer
>> >
>> > Here is a paragraph from "Rumor Central" on PCWeek:
>> >
>> > And here's one sure to get the OS/2 ever-faithful fired up. At a
>> > the tipster claimed, even though OS/2 hasn't been selling much since
>> > say, are trying to tell Lou that IBM could make more money by joining
>> > with Microsoft rather than fighting Redmond and by throwing IBM's
>> > hardware weight behind Win 95 and NT.
>> > the good fight -- but for how long?
>
>Since Lou's OS/2 is winning marketshare I say for as long as he's
>making marketshare on MS Windows' expense.
Do you have any recent evidence of this? The only evidence I've seen was
from when Warp came out, but that was before Win95 shipped.
>I read on line that MS stock dove to 80 today. MS's stock price is
>part of the engine that fuels their growth. IBM can start a price
>war on OS/2 and Applications to take cash out of MS's war chest and
Do you really think that would be a viable option? MS has over $5B sitting
in the bank. MS could stop selling products for a year and still remain
solvent. MS could decide "OK, everything's free this year" without having
to worry about going bankrupt. So, assuming Win95 and OS/2 were both free,
I don't think OS/2 would gain more users than Win95 -- I don't think many
people want OS/2 now but are waiting for it to go on sale. I don't think
IBM could win such a "war" unless it started _paying_ people to use OS/2.
And applications? Seriously now, IBM has around a half-dozen common (on
shelves in typical software stores) consumer applications. (If all Lotus
software were free from now on, I don't think they could get as much
marketshare as MS has currently.) Perhaps IBM has more, but I doubt they
are common. Meanwhile, MS has over 100 applications, most of which are
common. I don't think IBM has much ammo for this war.
Jay Urbanski
:Which windows? NT ? Hardly. NT is stil being outsold by OS/2.
:Why doesn't MS support OS/2? OS/2 has the majority of the 32-bit OS
:market. How long can MS play politics at the expense of thier business
:customers ?
Hah. So now OS/2 outnumbers Windows 95, Windows NT, All 32-bit
versions of Unix, and MacOS combined? Let me know when you get back
from pluto.
:> MS also doesn't support NT on SPARCs. Is that a problem? Hardly. SPARC
:> machines are neither the cheapest nor the fastest on the market.
:
:SPARC is significant. You think the ULTRA Sparc isn't fast ?
:Doing what ? multimedia and graphics or dead end benchmarks ?
Sparc is significant because of marketshare, period. The ULTRA Sparc
brings them back to being competitive, but it's still not the fastest
around. Sun is the only major workstation vendor that sells a 64-bit
CPU but only has a 32-bit OS. Stick to advocating SGI, at least
they're ahead of the pack technologically.
:SOLARIS and SPARC's are fast, far bettet than NT aned ALPHA. Just ask the
:market place. As for ignoring the Ultra SPARC.. Why ?
Funny all the longime Sun customers I know complain about Solaris
being a slow dog compared to good old SunOS. Sparc's are faster than
Alphas, no matter what OS you run, only in your dreams. Where did you
get the idea that market share had anything to do with performance?
As for ignoring the Ultra Sparc, they're insanely overprice that's
why. An Ultra Sparc with 32M ram and a 1G hard drive costs around
20K. For that price I can get a quad P6 Intergraph TDZ with 128M ram
and a 9G hard drive. I don't care how nice their bus is, it's not
worth $15,000.
Jay Urbanski
MCSE
Certified Solaris Administrator
Paranet
Kris Kwilas
>Blue's problem isn't a lack of ammo; it's deciding whether to use the nuclear
>bomb (MVS), a fuel-air explosive (OS/400), a carpet bomb (RS/6000 - AIX),
>a vulcan (SP2), or a tomahawk (OS/2).
That is a comment worthy of saving. ;-)
Kris
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kris Kwilas kwi...@uiuc.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------
Author of the Highly Unofficial IBM OS/2 Beta FAQ(12/31/95)
Available from http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~kwilas/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brought to you by the letters O and S, and the number 2.
pcg...@helppc.com
|
|In a previous article, jo...@gaia.arc.nasa.gov (Joseph Coughlan) says:
||| Wayne J. Hyde wrote:
||| >
||| > Here is a paragraph from "Rumor Central" on PCWeek:
||| >
||| > ------
||| > And here's one sure to get the OS/2 ever-faithful fired up. At a
||| > top-level IBM meeting next Monday, Lou G.'s lieutenants will try to
||| > make a case -- yet again -- for killing OS/2, claims one of Spence's
||| > Big Blue tipsters. But Gerstner doesn't want to throw in the towel,
||| > the tipster claimed, even though OS/2 hasn't been selling much since
||| > October. The contrarians, spearheaded by John M. Thompson, sources
||| > say, are trying to tell Lou that IBM could make more money by joining
||| > with Microsoft rather than fighting Redmond and by throwing IBM's
||| > hardware weight behind Win 95 and NT.
||| > Lou reportedly wants to fight
||| > the good fight -- but for how long?
||
||Since Lou's OS/2 is winning marketshare I say for as long as he's
||making marketshare on MS Windows' expense.
Looks to me like MS is calling in all its little Munchkin favors in an
effort to stop the stock price's slide. With everyone who depends on
W95 sales for livelihood reports bad sales/earnings, even the stupes
on Wall Street can see who's to blame. Remember, that was 20% of the
"world's richest man's" fortune that evaporated over the last 6 months;
not just chump change.
|Do you have any recent evidence of this? The only evidence I've seen was
|from when Warp came out, but that was before Win95 shipped.
You figure it out. Warp sells 4 million plus in a year, into a user base
of 6 million - W95 sells an adjusted 12 million plus in a year, into a
user base of? 60 million? Who's gaining market share? And it's pretty
obvious at whoose expense: MS.
||I read on line that MS stock dove to 80 today. MS's stock price is
||part of the engine that fuels their growth. IBM can start a price
||war on OS/2 and Applications to take cash out of MS's war chest and
|
|Do you really think that would be a viable option? MS has over $5B sitting
|in the bank. MS could stop selling products for a year and still remain
|solvent. MS could decide "OK, everything's free this year" without having
|to worry about going bankrupt. So, assuming Win95 and OS/2 were both free,
|I don't think OS/2 would gain more users than Win95 -- I don't think many
|people want OS/2 now but are waiting for it to go on sale. I don't think
|IBM could win such a "war" unless it started _paying_ people to use OS/2.
|And applications? Seriously now, IBM has around a half-dozen common (on
|shelves in typical software stores) consumer applications. (If all Lotus
|software were free from now on, I don't think they could get as much
|marketshare as MS has currently.) Perhaps IBM has more, but I doubt they
|are common. Meanwhile, MS has over 100 applications, most of which are
|common. I don't think IBM has much ammo for this war.
What IBM might do on pricing should have MS worried. IBM expensed the
aquisition of Lotus, that means that on the books, Smart Suite is 100%
(lets say 80%) paid for, virtually no overhead, pure profit what ever
IBM gets per copy. This clearly leads to an opportunity to pre-load
Smart Suite, depriving MS of Office cash flow - which has replaced DOS
as MS's preload cash cow. IBM has plenty in the bank too, Gabe; and,
the ability to show a profit on a $25 Smart Suite. Advantage IBM.
Don't fool yourself into zero-sum thinking. IBM doesn't need an 85%
market share to be sucessful. Nobody will ever have that kind of strangle
hold again. If OS/2 can hit 40% market share, it will be wildly sucessful
and MS can huff & puff all it likes. At 20% market share, OS/2 will be
more than self-sustaining and ISV's will make tons of $$$. (Go Brad!)
At 15% market share, OS/2 becomes attractive to ISV's with the foresight
to see the holes in the MS long term strategy. OS/2 will always be the smart
choice for corporate use due to it's superior interoperability in Warp
Connect.
Hang on to your seat, Gabe. 1996 is going to be a fun year.
Phil "Guido" Cava TeamOS/2
Help, PC!
Let us help you achieve Warp Speed today!
email at: pcg...@helppc.com
**** If at first you _do_ suceed, try not to look surprised.
Kiyo Design, Inc.
>shelves in typical software stores) consumer applications. (If all Lotus
>software were free from now on, I don't think they could get as much
>marketshare as MS has currently.) Perhaps IBM has more, but I doubt they
>are common. Meanwhile, MS has over 100 applications, most of which are
>common. I don't think IBM has much ammo for this war.
Careful how you count these 'applications'. Is Bruce Ardwick's FS one of
them? Probably. Does it offset Jonathan Sack's 123? Nope.
There are entire organizations out there that *live* in Lotus Notes. The
Federal Express/Lotus TV ads don't reveal the entire story. White collar
work is 'pushing paper', Lotus Notes, Lan Server, SNA/SDLC, DB2/2 (DB2/400,
DB2/ESA, DB2/CMS) manage enterprise wide and inter-enterprise virtual
paper.
And what does Microsoft have? A darn-good spreadsheet *with* fonts, and
just about the best single user, 'clicker' data filer! Not much competiion
for an industrial strength, relational DBMS running on an MVS parallel
sysplex.
It takes a lot of Office95 sales to match one MVS 5.2.2 license. Blue's
problem isn't a lack of ammo; it's deciding whether to use the nuclear
bomb (MVS), a fuel-air explosive (OS/400), a carpet bomb (RS/6000 - AIX),
a vulcan (SP2), or a tomahawk (OS/2).
If anything, Blue has too many solutions. And you know what's really strange,
they all work! Years ago, I decided not to have anything to do with the
System 3, System 32-34-36-38, AS/400 family but I keep running into these
darn things. They're everywhere. Quietly and inexpensively humming away,
getting the job done, never breaking down. I mention them because this
one family of machines has lots more, tons more applications than MS.
And most people don't know anything about them....
Cory Hamasaki - OS/2, MVS Internals, C, PL/I, M.S.CSci GWU92
Kiyo Design, Inc OS/2 ONLY Software Retail Store
11 Annapolis St. Warp Aps, Consultants Registry
Annapolis, Md 21401 TeamOS/2, OS/2 CD-Roms
(410) 280-1942 OS/2 Software on Demo Computer
deng mei
am always sympathetic for it because it is an excellent system but still
fail to gain its right status in the market.
I think IBM should keep a consistant market policy: just make the user
interface more beautiful, and prepare more native apps (What did IBM buy
Lotus for?!) and try to win the war.
I hope the rumor is not true, the bottomline for their decision is that,
OS/2 is a better system than windows 31/95/NT. The disappointing Win95
provides a good chance.
Steve Withers
>Gabriel N. Schaffer writes:
>
>> MS is being more successful by
>> focusing their efforts on one OS, rather than spreading their resources
>> thinly across a dozen of them.
But MS has US$5 Billion in the bank......surely they would not be 'thin' on
any platform they CHOSE to compete on...................
>Fluff or fact ? Either way what you say is damning for MS.
>MS can't port OLE lest MS get defocused. Okay OLE stinks.
Yep.
>Or MS can port but will not becuase they want to lock you into MS OS and
>technology. It stinks again.
Yep...
>> For MS to support other operating systems,
>> it would cost far more than they are currently losing in sales do to not
>> supporting them.
Uh.....I don't think even Microsoft know the answer to that quesiton. Let's
say you run a corner store. How do you assess the $ losses through people
passing your door - but not coming in? How many were on their way to the
dentist or the bank and never intended to come in? What would they have
bought if they had come in? A chocolate bar? Or a loaf of bread and
a litre of milk?
.............
>Let MS drop MS DOS. IBM PC DOS will sell quite well. Let MS
>ignore the WFWG browser market as they once said they would. IBM
>announced a Browser for WFWG and days later MS announced they would
>make a browser for win3.1.
Yep......That's it in a nutshell.
Steve Withers
>
...........
>I hope the rumor is not true, the bottomline for their decision is that,
>OS/2 is a better system than windows 31/95/NT. The disappointing Win95
>provides a good chance.
>
>md...@julian.uwo.ca
I have been thinking about this latest rumour. Why now?
There are several obvious reasons for the timing - like the falling
MS stock price. The reluctance of many to use Win95 - and to hold fire on
NT as well.
But there may be other reasons. Like a big deal in the offing and someone
is trying to swing it their way? Or a BIG OEM about to preload OS/2 - and
someone is trying to scare them off?
I'm sure there are other highly speculative reasons as to why anyone would
want to spread lies (FUD is too gentle a word for this) about OS/2.
Anyone have any other suggestions?
ela...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
>But there may be other reasons. Like a big deal in the offing and someone
>is trying to swing it their way? Or a BIG OEM about to preload OS/2 - and
>someone is trying to scare them off?
>
>Anyone have any other suggestions?
===========
Microsoft stated a month or so ago that they were disappointed with
OEM's who weren't preloading Win 95 to the 50% level as stated in
most MS contracts.
MS most likely wants to avoid confronting OEM's directly as a "do it,
or lose your contract (or get sued)" stance would not go over well
and could well lose MS some of their existing preloaders.
MS faces a real problem with Win 95 when it if preceived as anything
other than a "simple upgrade" to DOS/Windows. Current DOS/Windows
owners already own their own programs and may not be interested in
spending yet again for new programs that do essentially what they
already have (i.e. DOS/Windows Office is virtually identical to Win 95
Office). This means the largest market for Win 95 programs is the
person who has just bought their first computer. A first time computer
buyer is usually reeling from the initial cost and isn't going to be in
a rush to spend yet another chunk for new programs. If these folks
have DOS/Windows programs at work (very likely), the logical
route is migrate the work programs home.
Only if business adopts Win 95 will MS see application sales increase.
Even then, upgrading isn't guaranteed. The "site" on campus with
25 NT machines (as with most NT machines on campus BTW) is still
using DOS/Windows programs and they have no plans to upgrade
to Win 95 versions.
I've said this before, but I suspect that MS would have way more
Win 95 users if they had simply used the name Windows 3.2 and
claimed it was an update. The name change and marketing of
Win 95 was designed to create the preception that Win 95 was
"revolutionary," when in fact, MS would have sold more if they'd
taken a low-key "evolutionary" approach.
Microsofts hype worked, they did create a "revolutionary" image
for the unknowns, which promptly scared them away (the
technologists already know Win 95 is just another DOS/Windows
hack).
Eric Larson
ela...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Steve Withers
> I don't think IBM has much ammo for this war.
I disagree. IBM has more than 100 OS/2 applications. But they
are targeted at business and leverage IBM's corss-platform
suppot and applications.
This is something that Microsoft can't match - they have CHOSEN to
be proprietary in their approach. Many companies won't touch a
vendor who places their own aims above those of the customer.
Customers want to choices - not just of apps - but of vendors, too.
IBM has spent the past 4 years going cross-platform and followining
industry standard.
Microsoft does Windows.
IBM has lots of ammo. Don't worry.
Kris Kwilas
>Anyone have any other suggestions?
I am not sure too much should be read into the latest gloom and doom predictions
for OS/2. The people who have been parroting this news for years have actually
come to believe it. Of course, the same can be said for "our" side of the issue,
but OS/2 is still around. ;-)
Stanley Sidlov
) writes:
:>
:>In article <4d93d0$h...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
:>Kris Kwilas <kwi...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
:>>In <4d80jo$1j...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, sbw...@ibm.net (Steve Withers) writes:
:>>>Anyone have any other suggestions?
:>>
:>>I am not sure too much should be read into the latest gloom and doom predictions
:>>for OS/2. The people who have been parroting this news for years have actually
:>>come to believe it. Of course, the same can be said for "our" side of the issue,
:>>but OS/2 is still around. ;-)
:>>
:>>Kris
:>
:>Kris, I've been waiting for somebody to point out one point about this
:>(highly probable) FUD: 'Next Monday' is January 15, the Martin Luther
:>King holiday here in the U.S.
:>
:>Would any IBM'er care to verify whether or not this date is a holiday for
:>IBM employees? If it is a holiday, that meeting's going to be awfully
:>quiet from all sides of the table...
:>
:>Charlie
:>
Not only that Charlie,
Since the PCWeek issue is received by many people and posted on-line on the
friday before Jan 8, most people felt that it was scheduled to be during the
Blizzard that had Armonk and NYC socked in.
John Soyring (IBM VP/PSP) has already said that no such meeting was planned.
Stan
==========================================================================
| "Windows NT: too hard. |\| Imagine me saying something equally |
| Windows 95: too soft. |\| clever here. - Stan |
| OS/2 Warp: just right." |\| |
| W. Zachmann, Canopus Research |\| (Email gets to me faster) |
==========================================================================
Robert Wong
Kiyo Design, Inc. <hama...@capaccess.org> wrote:
>In <4d4fa3$l...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, gn...@po.CWRU.Edu (Gabriel N. Schaffer) writes:
>>
>>shelves in typical software stores) consumer applications. (If all Lotus
>>software were free from now on, I don't think they could get as much
>>marketshare as MS has currently.) Perhaps IBM has more, but I doubt they
>>are common. Meanwhile, MS has over 100 applications, most of which are
>Careful how you count these 'applications'. Is Bruce Ardwick's FS one of
>them? Probably. Does it offset Jonathan Sack's 123? Nope.
>
>There are entire organizations out there that *live* in Lotus Notes. The
>Federal Express/Lotus TV ads don't reveal the entire story. White collar
>work is 'pushing paper', Lotus Notes, Lan Server, SNA/SDLC, DB2/2 (DB2/400,
>DB2/ESA, DB2/CMS) manage enterprise wide and inter-enterprise virtual
>paper.
>
>And what does Microsoft have? A darn-good spreadsheet *with* fonts, and
>just about the best single user, 'clicker' data filer! Not much competiion
>for an industrial strength, relational DBMS running on an MVS parallel
>sysplex.
>
>It takes a lot of Office95 sales to match one MVS 5.2.2 license. Blue's
>problem isn't a lack of ammo; it's deciding whether to use the nuclear
>bomb (MVS), a fuel-air explosive (OS/400), a carpet bomb (RS/6000 - AIX),
>a vulcan (SP2), or a tomahawk (OS/2).
>
Hmmmm. If Microsoft uses it's operating system to leverage it's application
software, how is it different than IBM using the operating system to sell
it's hardware based solutions. Can I get OS/370 or MVS or CICS or VM to
run on my PC? or a DEC alpha? or a workstation? Remember the proprietary
SNA? What operating system does SPARC runs under ? Solaris, and SOlaris
is available for the Intel PCs too..
I guess what I'm saying is Microsoft doesn't make hardware, it's a
software company and they are doing things that are done regularly
at other companies, leveraging operating system with application softfware.
The line is blurred...
----
IBM is trying to get mainframe sales up again, with all this netcrentric(sp?)
idea that Lou Gernster is saying during Comdex. They are always trying to
sell hardware to big customers, which I can't buy a ES 3090 for my home use.
--
Robert Wong RPI Alumni 85' (e-mail : won...@rpi.edu)
Opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official or unofficial views of anyone else.
Robert Wong
Wayne J. Hyde <w...@rock.cis.ufl.edu> wrote:
>
>Here is a paragraph from "Rumor Central" on PCWeek:
>
>------
>And here's one sure to get the OS/2 ever-faithful fired up. At a
>top-level IBM meeting next Monday, Lou G.'s lieutenants will try to
>make a case -- yet again -- for killing OS/2, claims one of Spence's
>Big Blue tipsters. But Gerstner doesn't want to throw in the towel,
>the tipster claimed, even though OS/2 hasn't been selling much since
>October. The contrarians, spearheaded by John M. Thompson, sources
>say, are trying to tell Lou that IBM could make more money by joining
>with Microsoft rather than fighting Redmond and by throwing IBM's
>hardware weight behind Win 95 and NT. Lou reportedly wants to fight
>the good fight -- but for how long?
>
>Flames can be sent to Spencer, not me.
>
>Wayne Hyde | Network Manager | http://www.cis.ufl.edu/~wjh
>3461-423 SW 2nd Ave | Fla Cooperative Fish & | Off the keyboard, through
>Gainesville, FL 32607 | Wildlife Research Unit | the router, over the bridge,
>(904) 372-3602 | (904) 392-1861 | nothing but net!
I think Spence been smoking again and forgetting to inhale. I don't know
where he/she been getting rumors like this. I heard the one about IBM
announcing Windows 95 support for OS/2 Merlin at Comdex and I knew that was
wrong.
c.groark
Jonathan Barry
>In <4d4fa3$l...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, gn...@po.CWRU.Edu (Gabriel N. Schaffer) writes:
>>
>>.... Seriously now, IBM has around a half-dozen common (on
>>shelves in typical software stores) consumer applications. (If all Lotus
>>software were free from now on, I don't think they could get as much
>>marketshare as MS has currently.) Perhaps IBM has more, but I doubt they
>>are common. Meanwhile, MS has over 100 applications, most of which are
>>common. I don't think IBM has much ammo for this war.
>Careful how you count these 'applications'. Is Bruce Ardwick's FS one of
>them? Probably. Does it offset Jonathan Sack's 123? Nope.
>There are entire organizations out there that *live* in Lotus Notes. The
>Federal Express/Lotus TV ads don't reveal the entire story. White collar
>work is 'pushing paper', Lotus Notes, Lan Server, SNA/SDLC, DB2/2 (DB2/400,
>DB2/ESA, DB2/CMS) manage enterprise wide and inter-enterprise virtual
>paper.
>And what does Microsoft have? A darn-good spreadsheet *with* fonts, and
>just about the best single user, 'clicker' data filer! Not much competiion
>for an industrial strength, relational DBMS running on an MVS parallel
>sysplex.
>It takes a lot of Office95 sales to match one MVS 5.2.2 license. Blue's
>problem isn't a lack of ammo; it's deciding whether to use the nuclear
>bomb (MVS), a fuel-air explosive (OS/400), a carpet bomb (RS/6000 - AIX),
>a vulcan (SP2), or a tomahawk (OS/2).
>If anything, Blue has too many solutions. And you know what's really strange,
>they all work! Years ago, I decided not to have anything to do with the
>System 3, System 32-34-36-38, AS/400 family but I keep running into these
>darn things. They're everywhere. Quietly and inexpensively humming away,
>getting the job done, never breaking down. I mention them because this
>one family of machines has lots more, tons more applications than MS.
>And most people don't know anything about them....
>Cory Hamasaki - OS/2, MVS Internals, C, PL/I, M.S.CSci GWU92
>Kiyo Design, Inc OS/2 ONLY Software Retail Store
>11 Annapolis St. Warp Aps, Consultants Registry
>Annapolis, Md 21401 TeamOS/2, OS/2 CD-Roms
>(410) 280-1942 OS/2 Software on Demo Computer
An selling mainframe TCP/IP, have you seen the price of those
suckers. We run lots of mainframe apps and the licence fees IBM gets
would make many a Software house wish they could generate that kind of
revenue....
I think IBM is more like a country that makes computers and software,
than a company.
rj friedman
O) writes:
¯
¯"Journalists say a thing they know isn't true, in the hope that if
¯they keep on saying it long enough it will be true." - Arnold Bennet, 1867-1931
Sounds like the MS Department of Propoganda took some lessons from good ol'
Arnold.
¯Leo Comitale
ÉÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍËÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ»
º[RJ] º º
ºrj friedman º Team ABW º
ºTaipei, Taiwan º r...@tpts1.seed.net.tw º
ÈÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÊÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍͼ
John F. Ratti, Sr.
Yes. Get a PC System S/390. See
http://www.austin.ibm.com/developer/library/dsnews/26may95/390serv.html
I've seen this product, and it works.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John F. Ratti, Sr. Team OS/2 Member finger ra...@jax.jaxnet.com
The positions and opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of
ALLTEL Information Services, Inc., nor of any other person or entity.
COPYRIGHT 1996 BY JOHN F. RATTI, SR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IAN YOUNG
[quote about IMMINENT DEATH OF OS/2]
Well... if IBM decides to kill OS/2.. I hope they do this:
Don't kill it. Sell it. Hell, give it away. Make the source
publicly available, both i386 and PPC.
Go Linux. That'd frob Microsoft big time. A robust
client/server OS that sells for the cost of the CD-ROM
/with source!/
Imagine that. Sell Warp for Windows FREE!
freakishly cunning, if you ask me.
---
Ian G. Bull Young ||I think Bill Gates is an odiferous, know- |
iyo...@alpha.wright.edu ||nothing bozo, and MSN can quote my opinion,|
"The guy who tries to be ||acknowledging that it is just my opinion |
funny, but everbody laughs at ||and not slander nor libel, as is my right. |
Kiyo Design, Inc.
>In article <4d4n5d$2a...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
>Kiyo Design, Inc. <hama...@capaccess.org> wrote:
/* a bunch of free association just tearing up Microsoft */
>
>Hmmmm. If Microsoft uses it's operating system to leverage it's application
>software, how is it different than IBM using the operating system to sell
>it's hardware based solutions. Can I get OS/370 or MVS or CICS or VM to
>run on my PC? or a DEC alpha? or a workstation? Remember the proprietary
>SNA? What operating system does SPARC runs under ? Solaris, and SOlaris
>is available for the Intel PCs too..
MVS, VM, CICS on a PC? Absolutely! I run MVS/370 with VTAM and JES2 and
TSO on a Pentium 90 in my living room. I run VM/CMS on an XT also.
Take a look at: http://www.funsoft.com for the *future* of computing.
I caution you though, you have to understand the word 'Enterprise' to
appreciate what's there.
"Remember the proprietary SNA?" What does that mean? Do you think it's
gone? It's not. SNA runs the world. Yes, here and there, there are
remnants of that OLDER protocol, TCP/IP, but the newer technology, SNA/SDLC,
moves more of the more important data.
>
>I guess what I'm saying is Microsoft doesn't make hardware, it's a
>software company and they are doing things that are done regularly
>at other companies, leveraging operating system with application softfware.
>The line is blurred...
>
>----
>IBM is trying to get mainframe sales up again, with all this netcrentric(sp?)
>idea that Lou Gernster is saying during Comdex. They are always trying to
>sell hardware to big customers, which I can't buy a ES 3090 for my home use.
>
Let's get the terminology straight, 3090's are 8+ year old, water cooled
'frames. A big one was the 3090 600 E for Enterprise. The ES9000 family
includes water and air cooled and rack mounted systems. A rack mounted ES9000
is just slightly larger (in terms of MIPS) than my FSI OPEN/370.
For the professional 'frame systems developer, a home mainframe is very
affordable. I've got one, lots of other people have them.
Also let's set the sales issue straight. IBM makes more money off 'Frame
hardware and software than Microsoft makes in total. Yes, IBM is
not eager to sell you MVS and the Enterprise version of DB2 but that's
because personal mainframes are a small market compared to mainframe
systems that support thousands of users. If you call them, you
can get an IBM customer number and you can purchase MVS.
>--
>Robert Wong RPI Alumni 85' (e-mail : won...@rpi.edu)
>Opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
>and do not reflect the official or unofficial views of anyone else.
COMITALE LEO
Kris Kwilas <kwi...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>I am not sure too much should be read into the latest gloom and doom predictions
>for OS/2. The people who have been parroting this news for years have actually
>come to believe it. Of course, the same can be said for "our" side of the issue,
>but OS/2 is still around. ;-)
"Journalists say a thing they know isn't true, in the hope that if
they keep on saying it long enough it will be true." - Arnold Bennet, 1867-1931
--
Leo Comitale
UofT CPE 9T6+PEY
Christopher Robato
Barry) writes:
:>
:>kiy...@ibm.net (Kiyo Design, Inc.) wrote:
:>
:>>In <4d4fa3$l...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, gn...@po.CWRU.Edu (Gabriel N. Schaffer) writes:
:>>>
:>>>.... Seriously now, IBM has around a half-dozen common (on
:>>>shelves in typical software stores) consumer applications. (If all Lotus
:>>>software were free from now on, I don't think they could get as much
:>>>marketshare as MS has currently.) Perhaps IBM has more, but I doubt they
:>>>are common. Meanwhile, MS has over 100 applications, most of which are
:>>>common. I don't think IBM has much ammo for this war.
To: Gabriel
IBM makes about 11 billion alone in software sales for mainframes, another 10
billion of software sales and services for AS/400s, plus an unspecified
billion for PSP and RS/6000. The biggest money making application of all
time in terms of $$$ isn't Windows, it's the DB2 family.
Have you seen the IBM software catalogs? They probably have close to a
thousand over all.
:>>Careful how you count these 'applications'. Is Bruce Ardwick's FS one of
:>>them? Probably. Does it offset Jonathan Sack's 123? Nope.
:>
:>>There are entire organizations out there that *live* in Lotus Notes. The
:>>Federal Express/Lotus TV ads don't reveal the entire story. White collar
:>>work is 'pushing paper', Lotus Notes, Lan Server, SNA/SDLC, DB2/2 (DB2/400,
:>>DB2/ESA, DB2/CMS) manage enterprise wide and inter-enterprise virtual
:>>paper.
DB2's are really into three distinct families.
The first is the real DB2's which are on the mainframes---MVS, VM, VSE, etc.
The second is the downsized DB2's. The original is DB2/2 for OS/2 and it
branched out into a family that includes versions for NT, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX
and another one slated for Digital Unix.
The third is DB2/400, which really isn't DB2, but rather the AS/400's own
integrated database dressed up with all the DB2 trappings and functionality,
so that for client software it appears as a true "DB2".
Using the latest versions, a whole organization running DB2/MVS, DB2/400,
DB2/6000, and DB2/2, you can synchronously update every server from the
mainframe down to a PC server with Lanserver on a remote branch. And also up
the scale. And every RS/6000 or AS/400 in between. If I update a price on
an item in the corporate HQ mainframe, every branch would reflect that update
in seconds. A purchase done in an OS/2 based POS on a branch, would trigger
changes to the inventory base up to the mainframe in HQ, reflecting an
addition to that item's overall, corporate wide monthly sales figure.
:>
:>>And what does Microsoft have? A darn-good spreadsheet *with* fonts, and
:>>just about the best single user, 'clicker' data filer! Not much competiion
:>>for an industrial strength, relational DBMS running on an MVS parallel
:>>sysplex.
:>
:>>It takes a lot of Office95 sales to match one MVS 5.2.2 license. Blue's
:>>problem isn't a lack of ammo; it's deciding whether to use the nuclear
:>>bomb (MVS), a fuel-air explosive (OS/400), a carpet bomb (RS/6000 - AIX),
:>>a vulcan (SP2), or a tomahawk (OS/2).
:>
:>>If anything, Blue has too many solutions. And you know what's really strange,
:>>they all work! Years ago, I decided not to have anything to do with the
:>>System 3, System 32-34-36-38, AS/400 family but I keep running into these
:>>darn things. They're everywhere. Quietly and inexpensively humming away,
:>>getting the job done, never breaking down. I mention them because this
:>>one family of machines has lots more, tons more applications than MS.
:>>And most people don't know anything about them....
:>
The AS/400 has an estimated 25,000 applications, probably 30,000 by now.
That's probably 30x more than Win32.
The System 32 application done in the seventies, can be ported and run on a
1996 RISC AS/400 with minimal to no change. In fact, the RISC AS/400 will do
dynamic on-the-site recompilation of existing AS/400 CISC apps to RISC
literally overnight. Just load the tape with the LIC (licensed software)
that consists of AS/400 CISC binaries with observability and come back the
next day.
Now that's what you call porting.
As for reliability, there is an estimated 200,000 System 32,34,36 and 38s
running with an average of a decade in run time. Quite interestingly many of
these machines never even crashed once during that time. These machines are
still putting around, even thumbing their noses to IBM itself, who is
hungrily impatiently waiting for these machines to give up their ghost and
their owners to upgrade to a sleek RS/6000 or a black menacing AS/400. The
market for these 200,000 sites can be worth more than 20 billion alone.
Cory, maybe it's time to add SPSS and OS/400 to your resume. But then of
course, the IBM midrange is a culture on to itself quite distinctive of the
mainframe culture. One speaks Cobol, the other speaks RPG. One watches it
through 3270 terminals, the other through 5250 terminals. Mainframers speak
of Coaxial cable, midrangers speak of Twinaxial cable. OS/400 itself, with
its powerful object oriented architecture and paradigm, is a dramatic culture
shock to anyone used to more traditional architectures like MVS, VM, or even
Unix. It's as different from other IBM operating systems as can be, that's
hard to imagine they all come from the same company.
:>>Cory Hamasaki - OS/2, MVS Internals, C, PL/I, M.S.CSci GWU92
:>>Kiyo Design, Inc OS/2 ONLY Software Retail Store
:>>11 Annapolis St. Warp Aps, Consultants Registry
:>>Annapolis, Md 21401 TeamOS/2, OS/2 CD-Roms
:>>(410) 280-1942 OS/2 Software on Demo Computer
:>
:> An selling mainframe TCP/IP, have you seen the price of those
:>suckers. We run lots of mainframe apps and the licence fees IBM gets
:>would make many a Software house wish they could generate that kind of
:>revenue....
Quality and Performance, of course, doesn't come cheap.
:>
:> I think IBM is more like a country that makes computers and software,
:>than a company.
:>
True very true.
Sometimes, when a country gets real big, it's hard to control one part from
the other.
Wayne J. Hyde
> [quote about IMMINENT DEATH OF OS/2]
> Well... if IBM decides to kill OS/2.. I hope they do this:
I seriously doubt IBM will kill OS/2 entirely. They may kill the
portable (PPC) version of OS/2 (or put it on hold indefinately as the
trade reports claim). Killing OS/2 entirely will do more damage to
IBM than good. They have too many projects based on OS/2. Besides,
the corporations that use OS/2 would surely jump ship to a competitor.
> Don't kill it. Sell it. Hell, give it away. Make the source publicly
> available, both i386 and PPC.
IBM needs to either sell the project, spin it off, or kick some
serious butt within the corporation (IBM) to get all parts supporting
the OS. It was really funny to see advertisements for IBM's PC
servers a while ago -- the machines were running NT!
> Go Linux. That'd frob Microsoft big time. A robust client/server OS
> that sells for the cost of the CD-ROM /with source!/
Linux is nice, but unix definately isn't for everyone. I doubt linux
has a big marketshare beyond the internet/academic arenas.
> Imagine that. Sell Warp for Windows FREE!
IBM gave OS/2 for Windows away for a while last year.
> freakishly cunning, if you ask me.
I doubt IBM has the balls to give Warp away for an extended period of
time.
Joseph Coughlan
> In <4d7nsa$n...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>, deng mei <md...@julian.uwo.ca> writes:
> >
> ............
>
> >I hope the rumor is not true, the bottomline for their decision is that,
> >OS/2 is a better system than windows 31/95/NT. The disappointing Win95
> >provides a good chance.
> >
> >md...@julian.uwo.ca
>
> I have been thinking about this latest rumour. Why now?
>
> There are several obvious reasons for the timing - like the falling
> MS stock price. The reluctance of many to use Win95 - and to hold fire on
> NT as well.
>
> But there may be other reasons. Like a big deal in the offing and someone
> is trying to swing it their way? Or a BIG OEM about to preload OS/2 - and
> someone is trying to scare them off?
Distributed OLE is MS's Corporate disaster. MS promised it and will fail
to deliver on time or even in 1996 (IMHO), killing and delaying many
projects and careers that wwhere planning on a timely deliverly of D-OLE.
MS missed NT 4.0's BETA and has code so unstable it's alpha at best.
Since D-OLE is the cornerstone of MS's Intranet hype it's painfully obvious
that MSs solutions are both late and incompatible with the industry.
OS/2 is the best platfrom for massive OpenDoc development and thus MS must
convince people to wait for D-OLE rather than choosing OpenDoc and OS/2.
MS has to convince people that waiting for D-OLE is worth waiting for closed,
non-compatible standard. If OS/2 is dead then MS has a chance.
IBM's shipping WARP SERVER, Merlin and Smartsuite/2 by mid 1996 will be
the watershed event for MSs OLE based dominance.
Kiyo Design, Inc.
>In message <4d8eal$o...@kettle.magna.com.au> - c...@magna.com.au (Jonathan
>Barry) writes:
>:>
>:>kiy...@ibm.net (Kiyo Design, Inc.) wrote:
>:>
>:>>In <4d4fa3$l...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, gn...@po.CWRU.Edu (Gabriel N. Schaffer) writes:
>:>>>
>:>>>.... Seriously now, IBM has around a half-dozen common (on
>:>>>shelves in typical software stores) consumer applications. (If all Lotus
>:>>>software were free from now on, I don't think they could get as much
>:>>>marketshare as MS has currently.) Perhaps IBM has more, but I doubt they
>:>>>are common. Meanwhile, MS has over 100 applications, most of which are
>:>>>common. I don't think IBM has much ammo for this war.
>:>
/* discussion on DB2 and other IBM miracles, deleted */
>
>Cory, maybe it's time to add SPSS and OS/400 to your resume.
Nope, there isn't enough time in the day. I respect the AS/400, aka
'Future System', the true Object Oriented system, the first commercial
hosting of a relation DBMS, and all the other remarkable breakthroughs.
Computing is too big, and as Dirty Harry says, "a man's got to
know his limits". I'll swim in the MVS ocean and dip my toe in the
OS/2 pool but I don't have to wallow in the Windows swamp.
I will reiterate and rephrase your point; it's a scream that MS, Win-kids
think that Windows and Windows apps are 'something'. I guess they've
never seen an AS/400 (an especially evil, Darth Vader-looking computer)
run an entire organization on packaged software.
Window's apps are things like, "Christmas Newsletter Maker with
paper". AS/400 apps are things like, "Automate an entire steel mill
including shipping, ordering, payroll, shift scheduling, management
reports, pension plan, OSHA compliance, and oxygen mix adjustment".
>
>Rgds,
>
>Chris
cro...@kuentos.guam.net
>Computing is too big, and as Dirty Harry says, "a man's got to
>know his limits". I'll swim in the MVS ocean and dip my toe in the
>OS/2 pool but I don't have to wallow in the Windows swamp.
True, true very true.
>Window's apps are things like, "Christmas Newsletter Maker with
>paper". AS/400 apps are things like, "Automate an entire steel mill
>including shipping, ordering, payroll, shift scheduling, management
>reports, pension plan, OSHA compliance, and oxygen mix adjustment".
Be careful what you say, Cory. Many of these Windows people may not even
know what OSHA stands for.
They might think it has something to do with computers :-)
Rgds,
Chris
Rei Hino/Sailor Mars Ami Mizuno/Sailor Mercury Minako Aino/Sailor
Venus Makoto Kino/Sailor Jupiter Haruka Tenoh/Sailor
Uranus Michiru Kaioh/Sailor Neptune Setsuna Meioh/Sailor Pluto
Usagi Tsukino/Sailor Moon Hotaeru Tomoe/Sailor Saturn
Chiusagi Tsukino/Sailor Chibimoon *****cro...@kuentos.guam.net*****
Jim Carson
>Be careful what you say, Cory. Many of these Windows people may not even
>know what OSHA stands for.
>
Give me a break, Win95 users, of all people, certainly know that OSHA
is a computer term that means:
"Oh shit, hung again."
Gabriel N. Schaffer
In a previous article, cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Christopher Robato) says:
>:>>In <4d4fa3$l...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, gn...@po.CWRU.Edu (Gabriel N. Schaffer) writes:
>:>>>.... Seriously now, IBM has around a half-dozen common (on
>:>>>shelves in typical software stores) consumer applications. (If all Lotus
>:>>>software were free from now on, I don't think they could get as much
>:>>>marketshare as MS has currently.) Perhaps IBM has more, but I doubt they
>:>>>are common. Meanwhile, MS has over 100 applications, most of which are
>:>>>common. I don't think IBM has much ammo for this war.
>
>To: Gabriel
Gee, I feel special. :)
>IBM makes about 11 billion alone in software sales for mainframes, another 10
>billion of software sales and services for AS/400s, plus an unspecified
>billion for PSP and RS/6000. The biggest money making application of all
>time in terms of $$$ isn't Windows, it's the DB2 family.
Trust me, Chris, I understand the magnitude of IBM's large systems. Maybe
you were confused by some missing context. Joe was talking about IBM
waging a price war with MS in order to gain marketshare. What everybody
seems to have lost track of is that mainframe, midrange, and workstation
software is not useful ammunition in such a war. In fact, neither is
vertical software for PCs.
MS only has to worry about IBM stealing marketshare in markets where MS
already *has* a share! If IBM started making all their mainframe software
free, MS would barely notice. Indeed, the only market where IBM can
effectively wage a price war is in the consumer software market. The
problem is that, aside from what they got in the Lotus deal, IBM has maybe
a few offerings for this war.
Remember, the idea behind this war is that IBM reduces the price of their
software in order to gain market share and so that MS will be forced to
reduce their prices to the point where MS can no longer afford to do
business in some markets.
I don't think this is very realistic because IBM just doesn't have that
much software. Can anybody name IBM consumer software other than OS/2 and
what they got with Lotus?
Meanwhile, Gateway 2000 gives away over a dozen MS apps with their family
PCs. How can IBM do better than that? Keep in mind that marketshare that
IBM *already* has is completely irrelevant -- the only thing that's
important is how much they can *gain*.
--
/~~~~ / /~~~ / /~~/~~ gn...@po.cwru.edu
/ ___ __ /_ __ (__ __ /_ __ _/__/__ _http://www.gabe.com/
/ / ___/ / ) /__) ) / / ) ___/ / / /__) /__)
/____/ /__/ (__/ (___ ___/ (__ / / /__/ / / (___ / \__
Stephen Sinnott
> An selling mainframe TCP/IP, have you seen the price of those
>suckers. We run lots of mainframe apps and the licence fees IBM gets
>would make many a Software house wish they could generate that kind of
>revenue....
> I think IBM is more like a country that makes computers and software,
>than a company.
LOL! Best description I've heard in a while... When you think about
it, it really makes sense... after all, IBM did what, $70-80 Billion
last year? How much did Guatamala do? Cuba? <grin>
-Steve Sinnott
Nap...@ibm.net
"Hey! I found how to stabilize Windows 95! Just add 'Win_95_bugs=OFF' to the msdos.sys file!"
Kiyo Design, Inc.
>In <4d652n$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, kwi...@uiuc.edu (Kris Kwilas) writes:
>>In <4d4n5d$2a...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, kiy...@ibm.net (Kiyo Design, Inc.) writes:
>>>Blue's problem isn't a lack of ammo; it's deciding whether to use the nuclear
>>>bomb (MVS), a fuel-air explosive (OS/400), a carpet bomb (RS/6000 - AIX),
>>>a vulcan (SP2), or a tomahawk (OS/2).
>
>
>
>
The SP2 family is the scalable parallel supercomputer that IBM
built out of existing technology.
Yes, VM as phasers, not bad; I have the VM-Wave poster, "the Wave of
the Future". OS/2 could also be a smart bomb dropped by a 'stealth'.
Or maybe, a Stinger. Lets a solitary foot soldier terrorize a MIG.
In the same vein, Win31 is a black power rifle. WinNT is a Silkworm, and
Win95 is a Scud. Much hype, not very effective.
Win95 could also be that Russian automatic granade launcher, not a bad idea
but the implementation is so poor that it occasionally blows up the
crew serving it.
>
>-----
>Jeffery Swagger
>via IAK for OS/2 Warp!
[Jeffery Swagger]
>In <4d4n5d$2a...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, kiy...@ibm.net (Kiyo Design, Inc.) writes:
>>Blue's problem isn't a lack of ammo; it's deciding whether to use the nuclear
>>bomb (MVS), a fuel-air explosive (OS/400), a carpet bomb (RS/6000 - AIX),
>>a vulcan (SP2), or a tomahawk (OS/2).
What the heck is SP2? Also, you forgot phasers (VM/ESA) and light artillery (VSE/ESA).
>
>That is a comment worthy of saving. ;-)
>
>Kris
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>Kris Kwilas kwi...@uiuc.edu
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>Author of the Highly Unofficial IBM OS/2 Beta FAQ(12/31/95)
>Available from http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~kwilas/
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>Brought to you by the letters O and S, and the number 2.
>
Gerald Meazell
>Anyone have any other suggestions?
>
Wordstar and Lotus 2.2. After that, the technology ran away
so quickly you couldn't keep up. For the last several years,
you've been retyping Microsoft and Novell press releases and
pretending you're doing your job. Now IBM comes along and
muddies the water.........
Gerald F. Meazell
Dallas, Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
"He is at Gethsemane." - Judas Iscariot, 33 A.D.
"I am loyal to the United States." - Benedict Arnold, 1776
"OS/2 will be the platform of the 90's." - Bill Gates, 1989
Joseph Coughlan
>
> In a previous article, jo...@gaia.arc.nasa.gov (Joseph Coughlan) says:
> >> Wayne J. Hyde wrote:
> >Since Lou's OS/2 is winning marketshare I say for as long as he's
> >making marketshare on MS Windows' expense.
>
> Do you have any recent evidence of this? The only evidence I've seen was
> from when Warp came out, but that was before Win95 shipped.
IBM's Web Page has John Thompson's speach wher he cites numbers,
dates and sources.
And since win95's shipped you would dare to say that Win95's taken market
share from OS/2 ? No. It's the opposite.
Gabe, all Win95's done is split the WFWG market up into three smaller
but aggregately no larger pieces of the MS PC OS pie. More problems
for MS.
When faced with positive OS/2 market share news (or bad MS NT news)
MS advocates consistanly refer to trends too recent to appear in the
latest marketing data.
> >I read on line that MS stock dove to 80 today. MS's stock price is
> >part of the engine that fuels their growth. IBM can start a price
> >war on OS/2 and Applications to take cash out of MS's war chest and
>
> Do you really think that would be a viable option? MS has over $5B sitting
> in the bank.
Not only is it viable for IBM to launch a pricve war but it's probably
going to happen.
BTW $5B is peanuts given the growth plans and internet software giveaways
MS has they cannot afford to "spend that money" keeping MS Office
marketshare.
> MS could stop selling products for a year and still remain
> solvent.
Irrelevant. Once IBM launches a price war MS's stock drops. IBM stays
level since they have less total revenue from PC apps and OS/2.
> MS could decide "OK, everything's free this year" without having
> to worry about going bankrupt.
No. MS stock would drop to 10. They'd face massive defections and
lose all momemtum.
> I don't think
> IBM could win such a "war" unless it started _paying_ people to use OS/2.
Since OS/2 has gained marketshare at it's present price, your assertion
is obviously false.
> And applications? Seriously now, IBM has around a half-dozen common (on
> shelves in typical software stores) consumer applications.
IBM has applications. IBM is the largest software seller on planet earth.
IBM'S INTERNET ACCESS KIT for windows is a very good product at was
price cut from the market average $79 to $24. See the price cutting ?
See IBM Advantis ? It's what MSN is supposed to be in 1998. It's in
every IBM access kit and even MAC net access kits.
IBM's Anti-Virus apps supports Windows, DOS and OS/2. See the cross
platfrom support ?
> (If all Lotus
> software were free from now on, I don't think they could get as much
> marketshare as MS has currently.) Perhaps IBM has more, but I doubt they
> are common. Meanwhile, MS has over 100 applications, most of which are
> common. I don't think IBM has much ammo for this war.
WP has more marketshare than MS. It's not just marketshare for
apps. It's current sales and upgrade revenue that matters.
IBM has LOTUS apps and LOTUS NOTES. MS has MS OFFICE and vapor.
IBM's already cut NOTES pricing and shipped v4.0. They have the
dominate product, a new release and establish channels into
corporations. What's to figure ?
Keith Wood
kiy...@ibm.net (Kiyo Design, Inc.) wrote:
[In <changi0.9m.28Nwpd$0...@jeffos2.randomc.com>, jef...@randomc.com [Jeffery Swagger] writes:
[>In <4d652n$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, kwi...@uiuc.edu (Kris Kwilas) writes:
[>>In <4d4n5d$2a...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, kiy...@ibm.net (Kiyo Design, Inc.) writes:
[>>>Blue's problem isn't a lack of ammo; it's deciding whether to use the nuclear
[>>>bomb (MVS), a fuel-air explosive (OS/400), a carpet bomb (RS/6000 - AIX),
[>>>a vulcan (SP2), or a tomahawk (OS/2).
[Yes, VM as phasers, not bad; I have the VM-Wave poster, "the Wave of
[the Future". OS/2 could also be a smart bomb dropped by a 'stealth'.
[Or maybe, a Stinger. Lets a solitary foot soldier terrorize a MIG.
[
[In the same vein, Win31 is a black power rifle.
Nope.
A black powder rifle is powerful, simple and reliable. Win31 is an M-16 --
lightweight, fragile, complicated, underpowered and prone to seizure at the
slightest excuse.
[WinNT is a Silkworm,
WinNT is an M-60 LMG. More powerful than Win31 but not much more accurate nor
reliable. Anybody with any choice chooses something better.
[and Win95 is a Scud. Much hype, not very effective.
Win95 is one of those "Collectors' Armory" things -- it LOOKS like an operating
system, it FEELS like an operating system, and it HANDLES like an operating
system, but it cannot be made to feed or use live applications.
--
===============================================================
Keith Wood TV-18 News anchor
Host/Producer, The Computer Program, FLYING TIME!, and Infinity Focus.
Gunsite (Orange) alumnus, Team OS/2, Parrothead, N7JUZ, AZ0237 but not a
number (I'm a FREE MAN!), creator of FIRE TEAM and HERO SEEKER
===============================================================
Robert Aboud
Sch:>I don't think this is very realistic because IBM just doesn't have that
:>much software. Can anybody name IBM consumer software other than OS/2 and
:>what they got with Lotus?
DB2/2
Visual Age
C++
Voice Type Dicatation
All American College Football
Emergency Room
Jungle Book
Magic Canvas
Pro League Baseball
Rapid Assualt
Family Fun Pack
IBM Anti Virus
Internet Connect
Time and Place
To name few....
<---------------------- Brag Sheet --------------------------------->
Robert Aboud Member Team OS/2 Since 1991
OS/2 BESTeam member OS/2 Champions Member
A+ Certified Technician
Gabriel N. Schaffer
In a previous article, jo...@gaia.arc.nasa.gov (Joseph Coughlan) says:
>Gabriel N. Schaffer writes:
>> In a previous article, jo...@gaia.arc.nasa.gov (Joseph Coughlan) says:
>> >> Wayne J. Hyde wrote:
>> >Since Lou's OS/2 is winning marketshare I say for as long as he's
>> >making marketshare on MS Windows' expense.
>>
>> Do you have any recent evidence of this? The only evidence I've seen was
>> from when Warp came out, but that was before Win95 shipped.
>
>IBM's Web Page has John Thompson's speach wher he cites numbers,
>dates and sources.
I found this: http://www.austin.ibm.com/pspinfo/nwsplans.html
It says virtually nothing relevant.
>And since win95's shipped you would dare to say that Win95's taken market
>share from OS/2 ? No. It's the opposite.
Really? So you are saying that if Win95 had not shipped then OS/2's
marketshare would be no higher? I think not.
>Gabe, all Win95's done is split the WFWG market up into three smaller
>but aggregately no larger pieces of the MS PC OS pie. More problems
>for MS.
Problems? Hardly. I don't think MS minds making money off software they
have to do virtually no development on. Maybe you have some inside
knowledge of these problems that I don't. Please share them with the rest
of us.
>When faced with positive OS/2 market share news (or bad MS NT news)
>MS advocates consistanly refer to trends too recent to appear in the
>latest marketing data.
Quite frankly, I haven't heard any good news for OS/2 since 1H95. Feel
free to post URLs for anything I might have missed.
>> >I read on line that MS stock dove to 80 today. MS's stock price is
>> >part of the engine that fuels their growth. IBM can start a price
>> >war on OS/2 and Applications to take cash out of MS's war chest and
>>
>> Do you really think that would be a viable option? MS has over $5B sitting
>> in the bank.
>
>Not only is it viable for IBM to launch a pricve war but it's probably
>going to happen.
A price war from IBM? Not likely -- certainly not "probable".
>BTW $5B is peanuts given the growth plans and internet software giveaways
Actually, it's over $6B now (I think IBM has only $7.7B, even though they
have 10 times the revenue of MS). Keeping in mind that distribution for
Internet software is essentially free, they only need to pay the employees
on the IExplorer team. Let's say that's 200 people (that's way too high)
times $30K/year, for a total of $6M, or .1% of their liquid assets. In
other words, we're talking maybe one or two weeks' interest on their $6B.
That still leaves another 50 weeks' of interest to spend without depleting
any of their assets.
>MS has they cannot afford to "spend that money" keeping MS Office
>marketshare.
Are you kidding? They don't have to "spend" any of that money. They could
sell Office at cost and break even.
>> MS could stop selling products for a year and still remain
>> solvent.
>
>Irrelevant. Once IBM launches a price war MS's stock drops. IBM stays
>level since they have less total revenue from PC apps and OS/2.
I don't see that happening. If I saw "Microsoft announces drastic price
cuts to ensure increased market share," I can't imagine I would want to
sell all my MS stock instantaneously.
>> MS could decide "OK, everything's free this year" without having
>> to worry about going bankrupt.
>
>No. MS stock would drop to 10. They'd face massive defections and
>lose all momemtum.
Yeah, but the stock wouldn't drop to 10. It would probably double -- look
at Netscape, the world's most over-valued shareware company.
>> I don't think
>> IBM could win such a "war" unless it started _paying_ people to use OS/2.
>
>Since OS/2 has gained marketshare at it's present price, your assertion
>is obviously false.
My point was that most people who want OS/2 are willing to pay for it. I
don't think there is a significant number of people who want OS/2 but are
waiting to get it free.
>> And applications? Seriously now, IBM has around a half-dozen common (on
>> shelves in typical software stores) consumer applications.
>
>IBM has applications. IBM is the largest software seller on planet earth.
I know that is true. However, in the _PC_ software market, which is the
ONLY one of rellevance in this discussion, MS beats IBM by a factor of 5
(it would be higher if not for Lotus). Excel alone is a bigger business
than all of Lotus.
>> (If all Lotus
>> software were free from now on, I don't think they could get as much
>> marketshare as MS has currently.) Perhaps IBM has more, but I doubt they
>> are common. Meanwhile, MS has over 100 applications, most of which are
>> common. I don't think IBM has much ammo for this war.
>
>WP has more marketshare than MS. It's not just marketshare for
>apps. It's current sales and upgrade revenue that matters.
WP? WordPerfect? I don't see the connection, unless IBM buys that too.
>IBM has LOTUS apps and LOTUS NOTES. MS has MS OFFICE and vapor.
Your point? You do have one, right?
>IBM's already cut NOTES pricing and shipped v4.0. They have the
Wow, that's exciting. Sure, it helps IBM (probably?), but it doesn't hurt
MS very much.
se...@sfu.ca
>In message <4dfnmi$o...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu> - gn...@po.CWRU.Edu (Gabriel N.
>Sch:>I don't think this is very realistic because IBM just doesn't have that
>:>much software. Can anybody name IBM consumer software other than OS/2 and
>:>what they got with Lotus?
>
>DB2/2
>Visual Age
>C++
>Voice Type Dicatation
>All American College Football
>Emergency Room
>Jungle Book
>Magic Canvas
>Pro League Baseball
>Rapid Assualt
>Family Fun Pack
>IBM Anti Virus
>Internet Connect
>Time and Place
APL2/2 (as much "consumer" software as DB2/2 and C++)
>Robert Aboud Member Team OS/2 Since 1991
se...@sfu.ca Andrew Seary TeamOS2 since Nov'95 TeamAPL2 since '88
Jeremy Kerr
At the risk of posting a boring "Here's one more thing!" note, I will add
"PC-DOS" to the list - hardly a trivial consumer product.
se...@sfu.ca
Right! And so we must also add (with PC-DOS version 7):
REXX
Definitely not a _trivial_ consumer product.
se...@sfu.ca Andrew Seary TeamOS2 TeamAPL2
Rich Perna
> add "PC-DOS" to the list - hardly a trivial consumer product.
You've got to be kidding. I hate DOS, but if there's a winner, MS-DOS
6.22 is the best of them all. I've played with PC-DOS 7 on a couple
different configurations, but would never actually be responsible for
putting that horrible mess on someone's system. I don't know if there
was ever a version 6, but IBM DOS 5.0 took up sufficiently more RAM to
run than the competing version of MS-DOS did at the time. This is
nothing I've read, mind you, it's all from my experiences. The upper
memory management software, the editor, and just about all the 'add-ons'
in PC-DOS are inferior to the MS-DOS 6.22 versions. The only high point
in PC-DOS 7 is REXX, which I thought was cool of IBM to include.
Rich
Keith Wood
Rich Perna <per...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
[> At the risk of posting a boring "Here's one more thing!" note, I will
[
[You've got to be kidding. I hate DOS, but if there's a winner, MS-DOS
[6.22 is the best of them all.
You're easily pleased. MS-DOS 6 differs from MS-DOS 5 primarily by the
addition of a feature which trashes your data. While both MS 5 and MS 6 were
reactions to DR DOS 5 and DR DOS 6, neither was up to the level.
If I had to run a 16-bit OS, it would be DR DOS.
pcg...@helppc.com
|| At the risk of posting a boring "Here's one more thing!" note, I will
|| add "PC-DOS" to the list - hardly a trivial consumer product.
FUD alert! Read the next paragraph with your hands on your wallet...
|You've got to be kidding. I hate DOS, but if there's a winner, MS-DOS
|6.22 is the best of them all. I've played with PC-DOS 7 on a couple
|different configurations, but would never actually be responsible for
|putting that horrible mess on someone's system. I don't know if there
|was ever a version 6, but IBM DOS 5.0 took up sufficiently more RAM to
|run than the competing version of MS-DOS did at the time. This is
|nothing I've read, mind you, it's all from my experiences. The upper
|memory management software, the editor, and just about all the 'add-ons'
|in PC-DOS are inferior to the MS-DOS 6.22 versions. The only high point
|in PC-DOS 7 is REXX, which I thought was cool of IBM to include.
|
|Rich
El Wrongo, Rich! MS DOS 6.22 is only here because the previous versions
were filled with bugs and/or stolen software from Stac Electronics. The
underlying code in MS DOS 6.x is licensed _by_ Microsoft _from_ IBM; so,
I don't think you're going to making much of a case for any great degree
of difference - except that IBM does not ship stolen software...
The memory management in both IBM & MS DOS is _exactly_ the same, himem.sys
and emm386.exe, what differs is the interface to setting up the software:
RAMboost from IBM or MemMaker from MS. In my experience, RAMboost seems
to eek out just a tad more free memory below 640k than MemMaker; but, I
can do better than either product by hand so it hardly matters - commercial
products like QEMM386 yield more free memory still.
The editors included with both are a wash, but I prefer IBM's E family
as the implementation is much the same across PC DOS, OS/2, etc. Does
MS even _have_ a version of EDIT for NT or WinShell95? A native version,
not just the ability to run the MS DOS one if you've got it?
The add-ons in MS DOS & PC DOS are so similar in function as to make
any differences irrelevant. IMO, IBM AntiVirus is far superior to the
MS offering. Does MS even give you an AntiVirus tool with DOS? I know
they do with WinShell for Workgroups; but, I don't think I've seen one
with DOS or Win 3.1. Another advantage of IBM A/V is that it too is
available on other platforms - using pretty much the same UI. Very Handy.
What else is there? Backup software? PC DOS ships with a version of
Central Point Backup - MS DOS ships with a pared down Norton. Can't
hardly tell the difference between them; and, the full commercial
packages are preferable anyway; so, again, no advantage either way.
Now REXX, _there_ is a difference. No wimpy BASIC from IBM. With REXX
in IBM PC DOS you get the most powerful procedural language available,
a language implemented across all of IBM's major platforms - it's not
a 'Lite' version. I've been running Personal REXX from Quercus Systems
for years & years (back when you bought thru Mansfield) and I wouldn't
give it up for anything. Too bad IBM didn't just license Personal REXX;
but, for those of you who haven't tried REXX, run (don't walk) to the
nearest place where you can pick up PC DOS 7 - you'll get REXX power
at a reasonable price _and_ a damn nice version of DOS for free!
Phil "Guido" Cava TeamOS/2
Help, PC!
Let us help you achieve Warp Speed today!
email at: pcg...@helppc.com
**** If at first you _do_ suceed, try not to look surprised.
Kim Sommer
: In <310294...@river.it.gvsu.edu>, Rich Perna
: || At the risk of posting a boring "Here's one more thing!" note, I will
: || add "PC-DOS" to the list - hardly a trivial consumer product.
: FUD alert! Read the next paragraph with your hands on your wallet...
: |You've got to be kidding. I hate DOS, but if there's a winner, MS-DOS
: |6.22 is the best of them all. I've played with PC-DOS 7 on a couple
: |different configurations, but would never actually be responsible for
: |putting that horrible mess on someone's system. I don't know if there
[snip]
: El Wrongo, Rich! MS DOS 6.22 is only here because the previous versions
: were filled with bugs and/or stolen software from Stac Electronics. The
: underlying code in MS DOS 6.x is licensed _by_ Microsoft _from_ IBM; so,
: I don't think you're going to making much of a case for any great degree
: of difference - except that IBM does not ship stolen software...
: The memory management in both IBM & MS DOS is _exactly_ the same, himem.sys
: and emm386.exe, what differs is the interface to setting up the software:
: RAMboost from IBM or MemMaker from MS. In my experience, RAMboost seems
: to eek out just a tad more free memory below 640k than MemMaker; but, I
[snip]
: The add-ons in MS DOS & PC DOS are so similar in function as to make
: any differences irrelevant. IMO, IBM AntiVirus is far superior to the
: MS offering. Does MS even give you an AntiVirus tool with DOS? I know
: they do with WinShell for Workgroups; but, I don't think I've seen one
: with DOS or Win 3.1. Another advantage of IBM A/V is that it too is
: available on other platforms - using pretty much the same UI. Very Handy.
: What else is there? Backup software? PC DOS ships with a version of
: Central Point Backup - MS DOS ships with a pared down Norton. Can't
: hardly tell the difference between them; and, the full commercial
: packages are preferable anyway; so, again, no advantage either way.
I've configured MS-DOS 6.22 and PC-DOS 6.3 at work and PC-DOS 7.0 on my
dad's Thinkpad 365. PC-DOS 6.3 & 7.0 are just better than 6.22 in
implementation and features. Using ramboost instead of memmaker is just
easier. If there is a change in the config or autoexec files, ramboost
will reboot to accomodate the changes. If you don't like the changes, you
can go back to the previous setup ornot load ramboost at all.
I don't use stacker or doublecrash. No comment on either.
IBM's AV is not as pretty as the crippled Central Point version that MS
packages but it is better. In fact, when MS sent out DOS 6.22, the virus
signature list was several months out of date. Even their updates are late.
IBM did include a full version of CP backup. IT will work with QIC-80
and SCSI tape units. At work, when we got our Thinkpad 755's we hooked
them up to a portable 4GB scsi tape unit and CP backup found the drives
no problem. MS' solution limits you to floppies.
I've found PC-DOS to be feature rich and administration friendly.
But.... I've got MS-DOS 6.0 full version and the 6.2 & 6.22 update
packages in the original shrink-wrap. Waiting for the Smithsonian to
set up a display on 20th Century Dinsoaurs. :-)
Kim
--
Kim A. Sommer - kaso...@intersource.com
-or- kas...@dice.nwscc.sea06.navy.mil
//Team-OS/2, B5, aikido, things that go zoom//
Steve Withers
Rich Perna <per...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>> At the risk of posting a boring "Here's one more thing!" note, I will
>> add "PC-DOS" to the list - hardly a trivial consumer product.
>
>6.22 is the best of them all. I've played with PC-DOS 7 on a couple
>different configurations, but would never actually be responsible for
>putting that horrible mess on someone's system. I don't know if there
>run than the competing version of MS-DOS did at the time. This is
>nothing I've read, mind you, it's all from my experiences. The upper
>memory management software, the editor, and just about all the 'add-ons'
>in PC-DOS are inferior to the MS-DOS 6.22 versions. The only high point
>in PC-DOS 7 is REXX, which I thought was cool of IBM to include.
>
>Rich
I use PC DOS 7.0 on my DOS/Windows partition and I must disagree.
PC DOS 7.0 is better than MS DOS 6.22 was on this system. I won't offer
any supporting evidence as you didn't, either.
Next.
--
********************************************************
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand
steve....@ibm.net / swit...@vnet.ibm.com
Canadian since '58 / Kiwi since '87 / OS2 since '92
Life just keeps getting better!
********************************************************
Paul G. Stout
Withers)
writes:
:>
:>I use PC DOS 7.0 on my DOS/Windows partition and I must disagree.
:>
:>PC DOS 7.0 is better than MS DOS 6.22 was on this system. I won't
offer
:>any supporting evidence as you didn't, either.
:>
:>Next.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there PC rag reviews that showed PC
DOS 7.0 to be faster than MS DOS 6.0/6.22?
If my memory hasn't gone completely south on me I'm pretty sure I read
reviews last year saying exactly that. I also seem to recall review
comments, as Phil touched upon, that PC DOS 7.0 was worth it just
because of the addition of REXX to the package.
-------------
Paul G. Stout
coa...@cris.com
Joseph Coughlan
>
> In a previous article, jo...@gaia.arc.nasa.gov (Joseph Coughlan) says:
> >Gabriel N. Schaffer writes:
> >> In a previous article, jo...@gaia.arc.nasa.gov (Joseph Coughlan) says:
> >> >> Wayne J. Hyde wrote:
>
> >> >Since Lou's OS/2 is winning marketshare I say for as long as he's
> >> >making marketshare on MS Windows' expense.
> >>
> >> Do you have any recent evidence of this? The only evidence I've seen was
> >> from when Warp came out, but that was before Win95 shipped.
> >
> >IBM's Web Page has John Thompson's speach wher he cites numbers,
> >dates and sources.
>
> I found this: http://www.austin.ibm.com/pspinfo/nwsplans.html
> It says virtually nothing relevant.
He listed numbers and data sources. Which isn't relevant? the
data or the citations ? Is the fact IBM announced 1 million copies
of WARP sold in DEC 1995 relevant ? John Soyring posted the news
on COOA. Do a search for the Exec's anme and read.
> >And since win95's shipped you would dare to say that Win95's taken market
> >share from OS/2 ? No. It's the opposite.
>
> Really? So you are saying that if Win95 had not shipped then OS/2's
> marketshare would be no higher? I think not.
If WIn95 had not shipped OS/2 markret share would be LOWER.
! million sales of WARP in Dec are, by IBM's accounts, due to
Win95 being rejected AFTER being tried by users and users buying OS/2
WARP. What is your explanation ?
...
> Problems? Hardly. I don't think MS minds making money off software they
> have to do virtually no development on. Maybe you have some inside
> knowledge of these problems that I don't. Please share them with the rest
> of us.
MS split it's OS base into WFWG, Win95, BoB and NT. I count four
systems, IBM has OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2. Only one.
You can figure who has greater development costs.
> Quite frankly, I haven't heard any good news for OS/2 since 1H95. Feel
> free to post URLs for anything I might have missed.
I did. Quite to my surprise you think data and citations are irrelevant.
I also suggest you read John Sorying's post.
> A price war from IBM? Not likely -- certainly not "probable".
A price war as in the one that IBM began with SMALLTALK.
I live with an -x sales person from ParcPlace. IBM's killing them
with price cutting. So bad that Digitalk and Parcplace merged and
IBM's still killing them.
MS is next. IBM wants and told the public that they will have 25%
of the suite market as their next short term goal. They are price
cutting SMARTSUITE preloads this very minute. AST is adopting
smartsuite. IBM PC Co. is also.
> I don't see that happening. If I saw "Microsoft announces drastic price
> cuts to ensure increased market share," I can't imagine I would want to
> sell all my MS stock instantaneously.
When IBM price cuts EVERY market MS is in then what will you do?
What heppend to SPC stock when MS shipped MS OFFICE ? Bail early
or pose more.
> I know that is true. However, in the _PC_ software market, which is the
> ONLY one of rellevance in this discussion, MS beats IBM by a factor of 5
> (it would be higher if not for Lotus). Excel alone is a bigger business
> than all of Lotus.
Excel is NOT doing bigger business than LOTUS. You are nuts to even think
so.
> >IBM has LOTUS apps and LOTUS NOTES. MS has MS OFFICE and vapor.
>
> Your point? You do have one, right?
Of course. It's reflected in IBM's stock.
Sad you missed it.
Who's got shipping and proven groupware soltuion?
> >IBM's already cut NOTES pricing and shipped v4.0. They have the
>
> Wow, that's exciting. Sure, it helps IBM (probably?), but it doesn't hurt
> MS very much.
IBM's levaraging NOTES to sell SMARTSUITE, OS/2 and promote
IBM standards. That hurts MS -- is MS building NOTES into CAIRO ?
David LeBlanc
> MS split it's OS base into WFWG, Win95, BoB and NT. I count four
> systems, IBM has OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2. Only one.
> You can figure who has greater development costs.
I think you have forgotten that IBM makes several other fine OS's -
OS/400, AIX, and MVS, as well as DOS. With OS/2, that makes 5. Have I
forgotten any others?
--
David LeBlanc dleb...@mindspring.com
<sig under construction>
Happily running NT and Linux
Dr. Joseph Coughlan
>Joseph Coughlan wrote:
>
>> MS split it's OS base into WFWG, Win95, BoB and NT. I count four
>> systems, IBM has OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2. Only one.
>> You can figure who has greater development costs.
>
>I think you have forgotten that IBM makes several other fine OS's -
>OS/400, AIX, and MVS, as well as DOS. With OS/2, that makes 5. Have I
>forgotten any others?
AS/400? AIX? MVS ?
MS users have to decide on Win95, NT or stick with WFWG. OS/2
shops face no such choice on the server or client side, high
end or low end, desktop to laptop.
There is no AS/400, MVS, AIX or OS/2 delima for OS/2 shops.
WFWG has split into WFWG, WIN95 and NT. I count three off the
Windows API. OS/2 has one API and it runs on the older OS/2 2.11
and it's replacement WARP. OS development costs in the
WFG-NT-Win95 market are higher for MS and wil be sfor some time.
MS has to keep these three OSs going while IBM has lower costs.
IBM is not in product transition to 32-bit. They made that transition
in 1992 with OS/2 2.0. Today is when it pays off for their customers
who invested in 32-bit tools and apps.
FYI AS/400 is a 15 billion dollar business.
David LeBlanc
>
> In <31084E3E...@mindspring.com>, David LeBlanc <dleb...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >Joseph Coughlan wrote:
> >
> >> MS split it's OS base into WFWG, Win95, BoB and NT. I count four
> >> systems, IBM has OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2. Only one.
> >> You can figure who has greater development costs.
> >I think you have forgotten that IBM makes several other fine OS's -
> >OS/400, AIX, and MVS, as well as DOS. With OS/2, that makes 5. Have I
> >forgotten any others?
> AS/400? AIX? MVS ?
> MS users have to decide on Win95, NT or stick with WFWG. OS/2
> shops face no such choice on the server or client side, high
> end or low end, desktop to laptop.
> There is no AS/400, MVS, AIX or OS/2 delima for OS/2 shops.
wouldn't be faced with deciding between an AS/400, AIX, or OS/2-SMP? Or even
OS/2-PPC?
Then at the high end, you have some overlap between AIX, AS/400 and
mainframes. Not that this is bad, but it does contradict what you said.
> WFWG has split into WFWG, WIN95 and NT. I count three off the
> Windows API. OS/2 has one API and it runs on the older OS/2 2.11
> and it's replacement WARP. OS development costs in the
> WFG-NT-Win95 market are higher for MS and wil be sfor some time.
MS seems to be quite profitable. Also, I think neither Win95 nor NT are
one-size-fits-all. Choices are good.
> MS has to keep these three OSs going while IBM has lower costs.
> IBM is not in product transition to 32-bit. They made that transition
> in 1992 with OS/2 2.0. Today is when it pays off for their customers
> who invested in 32-bit tools and apps.
Is that why MS had a higher net/revenue ratio?
> FYI AS/400 is a 15 billion dollar business.
Indeed. From what Chris has said, it sounds like a very impressive tool.
Kris Kwilas
>OS/2's userbase may not be split into separate OS's (aside from Warp,
>Warp Connect, Warp Server, fullpack-versions), but IBM still spends
>development dollars on each of the above OSs. You make it seem like
>OS/2 is IBM's only operating system.
I think this is obscuring the point. Warp, Warp Connect, Warp Server, etc.
all share a common base. This isn't a situation where they are developing
two(I'll leave out Windows 3.1) internally different OSes like Windows 95
and Windows NT.
As for OS/2 being IBM's only operating system, it is their major PC platform
OS. I don't feel that PCDOS is relevant in this context. AIX is a also a different
story.
>OS/2 shops must decide between one of the versions of OS/2 that is
>available. Some OS/2 shops have not upgraded to OS/2 Warp, so IBM
>must still support OS/2 2.x.
And the problem with this is? Unlike Microsoft, IBM is not attempting to
force customers to move before they are ready. Do you scrap the platform
you are running your multimillion dollar customer service package on and
immediately move to the "latest and greatest?" Not if you are careful.
>There is an OS/2 2.x, Warp, Warp Connect dilemma for OS/2 shops.
Not really. If you are a large corporation that has decided(for whatever reason)
not to move to Warp, you get OS/2 2.x. For a SOHO customer without a network
who wants Internet access, get Warp. Corporate customers who are ready
to deploy a Warp flavor get Warp Connect. In fact, with IBM's focus on
"network-centric" computing, I would expect to see all future versions of
OS/2 in a "Connect" flavor.
>You forget that OS/2 users run Windows apps, which means IBM spends
>resources ensuring that OS/2 can run these applications. IBM supports
>the OS/2 API and the Win16 and Win32 APIs.
First, how much do you think maintaining the Win16 WinOS/2 support in
OS/2 involves for IBM? My guess is not much. As for Win32(via DAPIE) this
has already begun to be implemented as part of the OpenDoc package and
the latest FixPak.
>FUD. You have no proof that the development costs for WfWg, Win95,
>and NT combined are larger than what IBM spends on OS/2 development.
And nobody outside IBM has official figures on what IBM spends on OS/2
development.
>Irrelevant. How much revenue does OS/2 bring in each year for IBM?
Nobody outside of IBM knows. However, the question to ask is how much
OS/2 and related applications and services bring in to IBM each year? Let's
face it, Microsoft has what, close to 100 PC products? Aside from their OSes
and Office, are these applications that corporate customers go and say "Give
me 500 of those"? Does an IS department purchase 1000 copies of Bob or
Microsoft Dogs(an actual product, from what I hear) for their PC's? Nope.
Kris
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kris Kwilas kwi...@uiuc.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------
Author of the Highly Unofficial IBM OS/2 Beta FAQ(1/21/96)
Kiyo Design, Inc.
>Joseph Coughlan wrote:
>
>> MS split it's OS base into WFWG, Win95, BoB and NT. I count four
>> systems, IBM has OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2. Only one.
>> You can figure who has greater development costs.
>
>I think you have forgotten that IBM makes several other fine OS's -
>OS/400, AIX, and MVS, as well as DOS. With OS/2, that makes 5. Have I
>forgotten any others?
>
>
For different platforms, that's why IBM is five times the size of
Microsoft.
I recall a chilling discussion several years ago about the feasibility
of porting OS/2 to the S/370. It could be done and would simplify
the maintenance of the source code base. Of course, MVS has already
been ported to the PC, once by IBM using the P/370/390 microchannel
card, once by FSI using a software based emulator (see:
Perhaps Dr. Joe's point is that Bob and NT are aimed at the same
target market, the Intel microprocessor. Since you are apparently
running NT as a desktop machine and could easily be running Bob, you
should 'appreciate' this perspective.
Wayne J. Hyde
(Dr. Joseph Coughlan) writes:
> In <31084E3E...@mindspring.com>, David LeBlanc
> <dleb...@mindspring.com> writes:
>> Joseph Coughlan wrote:
>>> MS split it's OS base into WFWG, Win95, BoB and NT. I count four
>>> systems, IBM has OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2. Only one. You
>>> can figure who has greater development costs.
>> I think you have forgotten that IBM makes several other fine OS's
>> - OS/400, AIX, and MVS, as well as DOS. With OS/2, that makes 5.
>> Have I forgotten any others?
> AS/400? AIX? MVS ?
OS/2's userbase may not be split into separate OS's (aside from Warp,
Warp Connect, Warp Server, fullpack-versions), but IBM still spends
development dollars on each of the above OSs. You make it seem like
OS/2 is IBM's only operating system.
> MS users have to decide on Win95, NT or stick with WFWG. OS/2 shops
> face no such choice on the server or client side, high end or low
> end, desktop to laptop.
OS/2 shops must decide between one of the versions of OS/2 that is
available. Some OS/2 shops have not upgraded to OS/2 Warp, so IBM
must still support OS/2 2.x.
> There is no AS/400, MVS, AIX or OS/2 delima for OS/2 shops.
There is an OS/2 2.x, Warp, Warp Connect dilemma for OS/2 shops.
> WFWG has split into WFWG, WIN95 and NT. I count three off the
> Windows API. OS/2 has one API and it runs on the older OS/2 2.11
> and it's replacement WARP.
You forget that OS/2 users run Windows apps, which means IBM spends
resources ensuring that OS/2 can run these applications. IBM supports
the OS/2 API and the Win16 and Win32 APIs.
> OS development costs in the WFG-NT-Win95
> market are higher for MS and wil be sfor some time.
FUD. You have no proof that the development costs for WfWg, Win95,
and NT combined are larger than what IBM spends on OS/2 development.
> MS has to keep
> these three OSs going while IBM has lower costs.
FUD. You have no evidence that IBM has lower costs.
> IBM is not in product transition to 32-bit. They made that
> transition in 1992 with OS/2 2.0.
The transition in 1992 from 1.x to 2.0 was not a full transition to a
32-bit operating system. The API was 32-bit, but the product was
still a 16/32-bit hybrid.
> Today is when it pays off for their customers who invested in 32-bit
> tools and apps.
Why do you think MS developed NT?
> FYI AS/400 is a 15 billion dollar business.
Irrelevant. How much revenue does OS/2 bring in each year for IBM?
--
Wayne Hyde | Network Manager | http://www.cis.ufl.edu/~wjh
3461-423 SW 2nd Ave | Fla Cooperative Fish & | Off the keyboard, through
Gainesville, FL 32607 | Wildlife Research Unit | the router, over the bridge,
(904) 372-3602 | (904) 392-1861 | nothing but net!
Al Rudderham
>In <31084E3E...@mindspring.com>, David LeBlanc <dleb...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>Joseph Coughlan wrote:
>>
>>> MS split it's OS base into WFWG, Win95, BoB and NT. I count four
>>> systems, IBM has OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2. Only one.
>>> You can figure who has greater development costs.
>>
>>I think you have forgotten that IBM makes several other fine OS's -
>>OS/400, AIX, and MVS, as well as DOS. With OS/2, that makes 5. Have I
>>forgotten any others?
>
>AS/400? AIX? MVS ?
>
>MS users have to decide on Win95, NT or stick with WFWG. OS/2
>shops face no such choice on the server or client side, high
>end or low end, desktop to laptop.
Of course part of the reason OS/2 users "face no choice" is because
OS/2 PPC (which was a one time touted as the portable follow on to
OS/2) is either: 1) delayed, 2) on hold, or 3) cancelled. After
beating the drum for so long about OS/2 PPC, IBM is strangely silent
on the topic these days.
I'm glad I have a choice.
>There is no AS/400, MVS, AIX or OS/2 delima for OS/2 shops.
>
>WFWG has split into WFWG, WIN95 and NT. I count three off the
>Windows API. OS/2 has one API and it runs on the older OS/2 2.11
>and it's replacement WARP. OS development costs in the
>WFG-NT-Win95 market are higher for MS and wil be sfor some time.
>MS has to keep these three OSs going while IBM has lower costs.
>IBM is not in product transition to 32-bit. They made that transition
>in 1992 with OS/2 2.0. Today is when it pays off for their customers
>who invested in 32-bit tools and apps.
>
Gabriel N. Schaffer
In a previous article, jo...@ibm.net (Dr. Joseph Coughlan) says:
>MS users have to decide on Win95, NT or stick with WFWG. OS/2
>shops face no such choice on the server or client side, high
>end or low end, desktop to laptop.
So what you're saying is that MS gives its customers an abundance of
choices, while IBM locks its customers into proproietary solutions.
No wonder OS/2 is doing so well (or so you claim) -- all of those IBM shops
out there aren't even given a choice!
cro...@kuentos.guam.net
>>>> systems, IBM has OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2. Only one. You
>>>> can figure who has greater development costs.
>>> I think you have forgotten that IBM makes several other fine OS's
>>> - OS/400, AIX, and MVS, as well as DOS. With OS/2, that makes 5.
>>> Have I forgotten any others?
>
>> AS/400? AIX? MVS ?
>
>Warp Connect, Warp Server, fullpack-versions), but IBM still spends
>development dollars on each of the above OSs. You make it seem like
>OS/2 is IBM's only operating system.
>
You know the problem with you, Wayne? You can't distinguish what are also obviously, hardware platforms. Does MVS run on a PC? Does VM run on a PC? Does OS/400 run on a PC? Does AIX run on a PC? (okay---it used to, not anymore.)
MS has NT, Win3.1, DOS and Windows 95 running on the same PC platform. NT runs on RISC machines as we know, but they are only a tiny fraction of the sales, and also overlap with the more powerful Intel offerings.
IBM only has OS/2, and variations of such. Variations should not really count---all come from the same code base and remarkably stable and 'fixed' API. MS has two to three operating systems of significantly different architectures. And it's got different APIs and notably there are telling variations even in one API. Just how many variations of Win32s and Win32 has there been?
All from one company. And you got a mess bigger than the whole Unix industry put together.
Note: IBM has mainframes. That's the one of two platform where it has multiple OSes---VM, MVS or VSE. (The monicker will soon change to OS/390). The PC only has PC-DOS and OS/2, and both are non competiting. AIX is gone from the PC platform for partly that reason it. AIX runs on in RS/6000 boxes, but not in PPC equiped AS/400 boxes. Likewise, OS/400 does not run in RS/6000 boxes. In short IBM got different platforms to match for different OSes. That's a big difference.
Rgds,
Chris
Rei Hino/Sailor Mars Ami Mizuno/Sailor Mercury Minako Aino/Sailor
Venus Makoto Kino/Sailor Jupiter Haruka Tenoh/Sailor
Uranus Michiru Kaioh/Sailor Neptune Setsuna Meioh/Sailor Pluto
Usagi Tsukino/Sailor Moon Hotaeru Tomoe/Sailor Saturn
Chiusagi Tsukino/Sailor Chibimoon *****cro...@kuentos.guam.net*****
Ben Davis
-> Subject: Re: Rumor mill from PCWeek
->
-> In <31084E3E...@mindspring.com>, David LeBlanc
-> <dleb...@mindspring.com> writes:
-> >Joseph Coughlan wrote:
-> >
-> >> MS split it's OS base into WFWG, Win95, BoB and NT. I count four
-> >> systems, IBM has OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2. Only one.
-> >> You can figure who has greater development costs.
-> >
-> >I think you have forgotten that IBM makes several other fine OS's -
-> >OS/400, AIX, and MVS, as well as DOS. With OS/2, that makes 5. Hav
-> >
-> >
-> >--
-> >David LeBlanc dleb...@mindspring.com
-> ><sig under construction>
-> >Happily running NT and Linux
->
-> For different platforms, that's why IBM is five times the size of
-> Microsoft.
->
-> I recall a chilling discussion several years ago about the feasibilit
-> of porting OS/2 to the S/370. It could be done and would simplify
-> the maintenance of the source code base. Of course, MVS has already
-> been ported to the PC, once by IBM using the P/370/390 microchannel
-> card, once by FSI using a software based emulator (see:
->
-> http://www.funsoft.com
->
-> Perhaps Dr. Joe's point is that Bob and NT are aimed at the same
-> target market, the Intel microprocessor. Since you are apparently
-> running NT as a desktop machine and could easily be running Bob, you
-> should 'appreciate' this perspective.
->
-> Cory Hamasaki - OS/2, MVS Internals, C, PL/I, M.S.CSci GWU92
-> Kiyo Design, Inc OS/2 ONLY Software Retail Store
-> 11 Annapolis St. Warp Aps, Consultants Registry
-> Annapolis, Md 21401 TeamOS/2, OS/2 CD-Roms
-> (410) 280-1942 OS/2 Software on Demo Computer
->
You know, I was just commenting on this in another newsgroup (OS/2
Misc, I think) but why are there so many Windows NT advocates here
in the OS/2 Newsgroups. I counted 17-19 posts in the other conference
areas and they all had to do with Windows NT. Most often, OS/2
wasn't even mentioned in the body of their message.
I've got to be honest here and say that NT is not a big seller
in my software outlet (Milpitas, CA - Software & Stuff). More
often than not, if I sell two copies of NT, one will be returned.
Windows 95 has a 7-10 ratio of return but I don't see that for
Warp or Warp Connect at all. With NT it's resource requirements
and poor system performance and somehow most users are convinced
they can get by with 16 megs of RAM. Same with Windows 95 but
these folks are and can be quit vocal when they return the
product. Ben (Davis)
Nick Marc
-> Subject: Re: Rumor mill from PCWeek
->
->
->
-> >MS users have to decide on Win95, NT or stick with WFWG. OS/2
-> >shops face no such choice on the server or client side, high
-> >end or low end, desktop to laptop.
->
-> So what you're saying is that MS gives its customers an abundance of
-> choices, while IBM locks its customers into proproietary solutions.
->
-> No wonder OS/2 is doing so well (or so you claim) -- all of those IBM
-> out there aren't even given a choice!
What he's saying and what you are determined NOT to read is the fact
that IBM gives customers a solid security 32bit operating system while
Microsoft screws the hell out of every person buying any one of their
products. How can you miss that? Windows dirty?
Nick Marc, Office Manager
Chauvet & Company
kiy...@ibm.net
>You know, I was just commenting on this in another newsgroup (OS/2
>Misc, I think) but why are there so many Windows NT advocates here
>in the OS/2 Newsgroups. I counted 17-19 posts in the other conference
>areas and they all had to do with Windows NT. Most often, OS/2
>wasn't even mentioned in the body of their message.
>
>I've got to be honest here and say that NT is not a big seller
>in my software outlet (Milpitas, CA - Software & Stuff). More
Do you own/operate a software store in Milpitas? I get out to the Valley
a couple times a year and visit Frys and the other places, "Weird Stuff"
is fun. I'll probably be out in a couple months; maybe we can
compare notes? One of our favorite lunch places is the Armenian Gourmet;
I think it's in Sunnyvale but all those places look the same to me,
I work with some guys who have a heavy-duty R&D lab in Fremont,
where they do all kinds of neat, tech-no-nerd stuff. Their
web page is at: http://www.funsoft.com They love their toys and
their latest one is a 2 CPU IBM 4381.
>often than not, if I sell two copies of NT, one will be returned.
>Windows 95 has a 7-10 ratio of return but I don't see that for
>Warp or Warp Connect at all. With NT it's resource requirements
>and poor system performance and somehow most users are convinced
>they can get by with 16 megs of RAM. Same with Windows 95 but
>these folks are and can be quit vocal when they return the
>product. Ben (Davis)
Are you saying that if you sell 10 copies of Winnie Ninny-Fie, 7 copies
come back?????? If so, that confirms what Bill OConner is always
saying. Kiyo is OS/2 only so I don't have first hand experience with
the Windows market. Please reiterate the statistics so that there
can be absolutely no doubt. Use simple words so that the windows
FUD Meisters can understand you.
Cory Hamasaki - I run MVS in the home office in my living room on
a FUNSOFT personal-sized S/370 mainframe. It is more powerful than
the water cooled S/370 model 168 that I first ran MVS on.
Kiyo Design, Inc. OS/2 Software Retail Store
11 Annapolis St. (410) 280-1942
Annapolis, Md 21401 Tues-Sat 11-5
Mark Nixon
alru...@hookup.net (Al Rudderham) wrote:
>
>Of course part of the reason OS/2 users "face no choice" is because
>OS/2 PPC (which was a one time touted as the portable follow on to
>OS/2) is either: 1) delayed, 2) on hold, or 3) cancelled. After
>beating the drum for so long about OS/2 PPC, IBM is strangely silent
>on the topic these days.
>
WARP for the PPC has been available since the end of December.
--
Mark Nixon
----
Un montrealais living in Denmark
Internet: man...@ibm.net
Fidonet :2:234/9...@fidonet.org
Wayne J. Hyde
writes:
>> Of course part of the reason OS/2 users "face no choice" is
>> because OS/2 PPC (which was a one time touted as the portable
>> follow on to OS/2) is either: 1) delayed, 2) on hold, or 3)
>> cancelled. After beating the drum for so long about OS/2 PPC, IBM
>> is strangely silent on the topic these days.
> WARP for the PPC has been available since the end of December.
I have called IBM three times in January asking for OS/2 for the PPC.
(We have an RS/6000 42T). All three times I was told that it was not
available.
Kris Kwilas
>(We have an RS/6000 42T). All three times I was told that it was not
>available.
According to the information I have, you need to go through an IBM
marketing rep. I have documented a procedure in the FAQ in my sig.
Steve Withers
gn...@po.CWRU.Edu (Gabriel N. Schaffer) wrote:
>
>In a previous article, jo...@ibm.net (Dr. Joseph Coughlan) says:
>
>>MS users have to decide on Win95, NT or stick with WFWG. OS/2
>
Where does the word 'proprietary' suddenly spring from?
Let's try it this way:
IBM gives your companies IT department one, solid OS to support. Microsoft
gives them three. But this is a bogus argument anyway.
>No wonder OS/2 is doing so well (or so you claim) -- all of those IBM shops
>out there aren't even given a choice!
IBM gives them the option of lowering their support costs. They have other
chioces - of course - should they decide not to take up this option.
tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu
> I have called IBM three times in January asking for OS/2 for the PPC.
> (We have an RS/6000 42T). All three times I was told that it was not
> available.
Maybe it isn't available for the RS/6000 42T. Or maybe you're talking
to the wrong person.
===============================================================================
From: kwi...@uiuc.edu (Kris Kwilas)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.beta,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,uiuc.org.os2ug
Subject: IBM PSP 1996 Product Development Plans
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Date: 26 Jan 1996 22:47:49 GMT
Message-ID: <4eblml$l...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: kwi...@uiuc.edu (Kris Kwilas)
Some additional background on some of John Soyring's recent comments.
Followups to c.o.o.advocacy.
---------------------
PSP Announces 1996 Product Development Plans
January 25, 1996
In remarks to PSP employees on Monday, General Manager John W. Thompson
outlined an extensive product development strategy for enhancing and broadening
the OS/2 Warp family of client and server software. He also announced that for
the rest of 1996, PSP will focus all of its marketing and development on
X86-based products.
With the January delivery of the PowerPC edition of OS/2 Warp, which is
available to customers through their IBM sales representatives,
===============================================================================
Note the last line, Wayne.
Wayne J. Hyde
writes:
> Wayne J. Hyde writes:
>> I have called IBM three times in January asking for OS/2 for the
>> PPC. (We have an RS/6000 42T). All three times I was told that it
>> was not available.
> Maybe it isn't available for the RS/6000 42T. Or maybe you're
> talking to the wrong person.
They said it was only available in beta form. I never got to tell
them what type of machine I had beyond an IBM PowerPC machine.
> ---------------------
> PSP Announces 1996 Product Development Plans January 25, 1996
> In remarks to PSP employees on Monday, General Manager John
> W. Thompson outlined an extensive product development strategy for
> enhancing and broadening the OS/2 Warp family of client and server
> software. He also announced that for the rest of 1996, PSP will
> focus all of its marketing and development on X86-based products.
> With the January delivery of the PowerPC edition of OS/2 Warp, which
> is available to customers through their IBM sales representatives,
> Note the last line, Wayne.
Yes, you should note it also -- You have stated that OS/2 PPC was
released in December 1995, which contradicts this report from IBM.
The report also states that IBM will focus their resources on the
Intel version of OS/2. It seems that IBM isn't going to put much into
their OS/2 PPC effort in 1996. "For the rest of 1996, PSP will focus
all of its marketing and development on X86 products." Not very good
news for the OS/2 PPC folks. No marketing? No development? Not
good.
tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu
>>> I have called IBM three times in January asking for OS/2 for the
>>> PPC. (We have an RS/6000 42T). All three times I was told that it
>>> was not available.
>> Maybe it isn't available for the RS/6000 42T. Or maybe you're
>> talking to the wrong person.
> They said it was only available in beta form.
Soyring called it a release, Wayne. Thompson called it a delivery,
Wayne.
> I never got to tell
> them what type of machine I had beyond an IBM PowerPC machine.
And they didn't ask?
>> ---------------------
>>
>> PSP Announces 1996 Product Development Plans January 25, 1996
>>
>> In remarks to PSP employees on Monday, General Manager John
>> W. Thompson outlined an extensive product development strategy for
>> enhancing and broadening the OS/2 Warp family of client and server
>> software. He also announced that for the rest of 1996, PSP will
>> focus all of its marketing and development on X86-based products.
>>
>> With the January delivery of the PowerPC edition of OS/2 Warp, which
>> is available to customers through their IBM sales representatives,
>>
>> ---------------------
>>
>> Note the last line, Wayne.
> Yes, you should note it also -- You have stated that OS/2 PPC was
> released in December 1995, which contradicts this report from IBM.
No, Wayne, I haven't stated it. I said I read rumors about a
December release.
I also have Soyring's posting in this very newsgroup that refers
to a late December release, Wayne.
> The report also states that IBM will focus their resources on the
> Intel version of OS/2.
Because the PPC version was just released, Wayne.
> It seems that IBM isn't going to put much into
> their OS/2 PPC effort in 1996.
Because the PPC version was just released, Wayne.
> "For the rest of 1996, PSP will focus
> all of its marketing and development on X86 products." Not very good
> news for the OS/2 PPC folks. No marketing? No development? Not
> good.
Still trying to spread FUD, I see. Despite contradictions posted in
this very newsgroup by IBM officials, you chose to post FUD from
PC Week. Read what Soyring said, Wayne.
===============================================================================
From: soyring@
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Supports OS/2 for PPC, Warp for PC now the focus (WSJ 1/26/96)
Date: 26 Jan 1996 17:01:36 GMT
Message-ID: <4eb1dg$1p...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>
References: <4e9v45$g...@cet.cet.com>
Reply-To: soy...@austin.vnet.ibm.com
In no way is the work on the PowerPC version of OS/2 Warp
terminated. All we said to writers at the Wall Street Journal
(as well as to other members of the media) is what we described
to IBM employees earlier this week.
What we said is that our development focus in 1996 will be on
enhancing OS/2 Warp as both a client operating system (the
MERLIN project) and as a server operating system (the OS/2 Warp
Server projects) on the Intel and Intel-compatible platforms. We
are not planning additional releases of the OS/2 Warp family on the
PowerPC platform during 1996 -- as we *just* released in
late December 1995 the OS/2 Warp (PowerPC Edition) product.
During 1996 and beyond, we plan to grow our market share for OS/2
Warp both as a client operating system and as a server operating
system on x86 PC's. And we will be doing this aggressively.
We have just not announced future releases on the PowerPC
platform.
In no way should our announcement imply that we are backing away
from the PowerPC.
John
===============================================================================
I suggest you read the final sentence, Wayne, and then try to tell me
again that it doesn't look good.
I also suggest you read the line about the late December 1995 release,
Wayne.
Finally, I suggest you give up the FUD attack, Wayne.
Wayne J. Hyde
writes:
> Wayne J. Hyde writes:
>>>> I have called IBM three times in January asking for OS/2 for the
>>>> PPC. (We have an RS/6000 42T). All three times I was told that
>>>> it was not available.
>>> Maybe it isn't available for the RS/6000 42T. Or maybe you're
>>> talking to the wrong person.
>> They said it was only available in beta form.
> Soyring called it a release, Wayne. Thompson called it a delivery,
> Wayne.
IBM sales representatives had no information of OS/2 Warp Connect
(PowerPC Edition) in their computers aside from a beta version. The
latest call I made was last week.
>> I never got to tell them what type of machine I had beyond an IBM
>> PowerPC machine.
> And they didn't ask?
They told me they found a beta version, which I wasn't interested in.
>>> ---------------------
>>>
>>> PSP Announces 1996 Product Development Plans January 25, 1996
>>>
>>> In remarks to PSP employees on Monday, General Manager John
>>> W. Thompson outlined an extensive product development strategy for
>>> enhancing and broadening the OS/2 Warp family of client and server
>>> software. He also announced that for the rest of 1996, PSP will
>>> focus all of its marketing and development on X86-based products.
>>>
>>> With the January delivery of the PowerPC edition of OS/2 Warp,
>>> which is available to customers through their IBM sales
>>> representatives,
>>>
>>> ---------------------
>>>
>>> Note the last line, Wayne.
>> Yes, you should note it also -- You have stated that OS/2 PPC was
>> released in December 1995, which contradicts this report from IBM.
> No, Wayne, I haven't stated it. I said I read rumors about a
> December release.
In an attempt to argue that IBM released OS/2 in 1995 as planned.
> I also have Soyring's posting in this very newsgroup that refers to
> a late December release, Wayne.
This post refers to a January delivery.
>> The report also states that IBM will focus their resources on the
>> Intel version of OS/2.
> Because the PPC version was just released, Wayne.
So they are going to cease all development and marketing on the PPC
version? Illogical.
>> It seems that IBM isn't going to put much into their OS/2 PPC
>> effort in 1996.
> Because the PPC version was just released, Wayne.
Illogical. Why would IBM not put any resources into MARKETING of a
newly released OS? Is the product so good that they don't need to use
any resources on further development? No bug fixes? IBM said it, not
me.
>> "For the rest of 1996, PSP will focus all of its marketing and
>> development on X86 products." Not very good news for the OS/2 PPC
>> folks. No marketing? No development? Not good.
> Still trying to spread FUD, I see. Despite contradictions posted in
> this very newsgroup by IBM officials, you chose to post FUD from PC
> Week. Read what Soyring said, Wayne.
Ha! The quote was from the above IBM statement. "PSP will focus
_ALL_ of its marketing and development on X86 products." No marketing
and no further development for a YEAR.
> John
> =======================================================================
>
> I suggest you read the final sentence, Wayne, and then try to tell
> me again that it doesn't look good.
I suggest you go read the previous release where they state that ALL
development and marketing resources in 1996 will be used on X86
products. Not good for the PPC camp.
> I also suggest you read the line about the late December 1995
> release, Wayne.
I also suggest you read the previous statement about a January
shipment.
> Finally, I suggest you give up the FUD attack, Wayne.
My statement isn't FUD. It is the truth according to the first quoted
press release.
Chris Bailey
: Joseph Coughlan wrote:
: > MS split it's OS base into WFWG, Win95, BoB and NT. I count four
: > systems, IBM has OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2. Only one.
: > You can figure who has greater development costs.
: I think you have forgotten that IBM makes several other fine OS's -
: OS/400, AIX, and MVS, as well as DOS. With OS/2, that makes 5. Have I
: forgotten any others?
How's about OS/390, the new operating system to replace on system
390 class machines and VM?
: --
: David LeBlanc dleb...@mindspring.com
: <sig under construction>
: Happily running NT and Linux
== cba...@peritus.com ==
Dmitry V. Irtegov
>In article <4e9rpt$1r...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> jo...@ibm.net
>(Dr. Joseph Coughlan) writes:
>>> Joseph Coughlan wrote:
>>>> MS split it's OS base into WFWG, Win95, BoB and NT. I count four
>>>> systems, IBM has OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2. Only one. You
>>>> can figure who has greater development costs.
>>> I think you have forgotten that IBM makes several other fine OS's
>>> - OS/400, AIX, and MVS, as well as DOS. With OS/2, that makes 5.
>>> Have I forgotten any others?
>> AS/400? AIX? MVS ?
>OS/2's userbase may not be split into separate OS's (aside from Warp,
>Warp Connect, Warp Server, fullpack-versions), but IBM still spends
>development dollars on each of the above OSs. You make it seem like
>OS/2 is IBM's only operating system.
>> MS users have to decide on Win95, NT or stick with WFWG. OS/2 shops
>> face no such choice on the server or client side, high end or low
>> end, desktop to laptop.
>OS/2 shops must decide between one of the versions of OS/2 that is
>available. Some OS/2 shops have not upgraded to OS/2 Warp, so IBM
>must still support OS/2 2.x.
Big part of 2.x and 3.x codebase is common. Even several major bugs were
inherited: for example, not recognizing more than 500 Mb RAM on EISA
motherboards (APAR to FixPack 10) :).
>> There is no AS/400, MVS, AIX or OS/2 delima for OS/2 shops.
>There is an OS/2 2.x, Warp, Warp Connect dilemma for OS/2 shops.
First, you named three alternatives, thence it isn't _di_lemma.
As you write it, it is _tri_lemma :).
Second, Warp and Warp Connect aren't two different products.
They are two different packaging of _one_ product: OS/2 v 3.0.
Thence users actually have only two choices: OS/2 2.x and OS/2 v 3.x.
(so you were right - it's a _di_lemma!).
And choosing between them isn't tough, because practically all OS/2
applications and virtually all system utils support both versions
flawlessly. Even block device drivers are the same.
>> WFWG has split into WFWG, WIN95 and NT. I count three off the
>> Windows API. OS/2 has one API and it runs on the older OS/2 2.11
>> and it's replacement WARP.
>You forget that OS/2 users run Windows apps, which means IBM spends
>resources ensuring that OS/2 can run these applications. IBM supports
>the OS/2 API and the Win16 and Win32 APIs.
But they do it with single OS :).
>> OS development costs in the WFG-NT-Win95
>> market are higher for MS and wil be sfor some time.
>FUD. You have no proof that the development costs for WfWg, Win95,
>and NT combined are larger than what IBM spends on OS/2 development.
I can beleive that supporting OS/2 and Win-OS/2 is roughly equal to
supporting NT and Win 3.x. Adding Win Last Year to the picture changes
the balance to the favor of IBM. Anyway, since real costs are commercial
secrets, we'll never know for sure.
>The transition in 1992 from 1.x to 2.0 was not a full transition to a
>32-bit operating system. The API was 32-bit, but the product was
>still a 16/32-bit hybrid.
So what? Transition to 32 bit involves 2 big steps:
1. Changing the OS.
2. Changing the apps.
Notice that second step is much tougher. IBM changed the API to 32 bit,
thus allowing the consumers to upgrade their apps, i.e. to make tough step.
If underlying OS works and doesn't have performance hits, who cares is
it 16, 32, 24, 3.14159, whatever number of bits under the hood?
On other hand, Win LY in many configurations has big performance hits
and stability problems due to 16/32 bit hybridness (should we say
bastardness? :).
>> Today is when it pays off for their customers who invested in 32-bit
>> tools and apps.
>Why do you think MS developed NT?
But why don't they stick to NT? Why they took the trouble to develop and
hype Windows Last Year?
>> FYI AS/400 is a 15 billion dollar business.
>Irrelevant. How much revenue does OS/2 bring in each year for IBM?
I've seen several networks where OS/2 is used as front end to AS/400
boxes running DB2. Actually, seeing one was a main reason why I installed
OS/2 first time - I was *impressed*.
Looks like OS/2 front end produces measurable increase in AS/400 business.
As such, OS/2 might bring big indirect profit even being non-profitable
on its own merit. If you produce cars, should car radios be separate
profitable business?
--
Cheers,
Fat Brother.
*
* When people make sweeping statements about "MS Crapware" or some
* such nonsense, it's almost directly related to trying to run those
* applications under Windows...
* Sang K. Choe, hardcore MS advocate.
Bill Oconnor
tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu wrote:
>Wayne J. Hyde writes:
[snip]
>> "For the rest of 1996, PSP will focus
>> all of its marketing and development on X86 products." Not very good
>> news for the OS/2 PPC folks. No marketing? No development? Not
>> good.
>Still trying to spread FUD, I see. Despite contradictions posted in
>this very newsgroup by IBM officials, you chose to post FUD from
>PC Week. Read what Soyring said, Wayne.
>======================================================================
>From: soyring@
>In no way is the work on the PowerPC version of OS/2 Warp
>terminated. All we said to writers at the Wall Street Journal
>(as well as to other members of the media) is what we described
>to IBM employees earlier this week.
>What we said is that our development focus in 1996 will be on
>enhancing OS/2 Warp as both a client operating system (the
>MERLIN project) and as a server operating system (the OS/2 Warp
>Server projects) on the Intel and Intel-compatible platforms. We
>are not planning additional releases of the OS/2 Warp family on the
>PowerPC platform during 1996 -- as we *just* released in
>late December 1995 the OS/2 Warp (PowerPC Edition) product.
>During 1996 and beyond, we plan to grow our market share for OS/2
>Warp both as a client operating system and as a server operating
>system on x86 PC's. And we will be doing this aggressively.
>We have just not announced future releases on the PowerPC
>platform.
>In no way should our announcement imply that we are backing away
>from the PowerPC.
>John
>======================================================================
>I suggest you read the final sentence, Wayne, and then try to tell me
>again that it doesn't look good.
Wayne should be able to do that.
>I also suggest you read the line about the late December 1995 release,
>Wayne.
Wayne should be able to do that.
>Finally, I suggest you give up the FUD attack, Wayne.
Wayne simple can't do that! His livlihood would be in jeopardy
if he did.
Dave, you're simply asking too much from Whine on that last one.
--
Bill OConnor
* When the NEWS is bad! -- SHOOT the messenger! *
David LeBlanc
> But this is a bogus argument anyway.
I'll agree with this 100%
cro...@kuentos.guam.net
>
>Chris, what has happened to your formatting. Double-spaced and
>hundreds of characters wide?
>
My editor is decieving me. My Newsreader can call on another editor or word
processor.
I have changed to another editor. I hope this one is readable.
Steven Gavette
>
>Wayne J. Hyde writes:
>
>> I have called IBM three times in January asking for OS/2 for the PPC.
>> (We have an RS/6000 42T). All three times I was told that it was not
>> available.
>
>Maybe it isn't available for the RS/6000 42T. Or maybe you're talking
>to the wrong person.
>
Models 830 and 850 PPC systems. The versions are 32 MB systems and IDE only,
NO SCSI. The software is being sold "AS-IS", ie, NO TECH SUPPORT. They do
have a 30 day return policy (good thing). An operating system that works on
specific versions of 2 systems, and no support. Now that's a killer OS.
Steve
tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu
>>>>> I have called IBM three times in January asking for OS/2 for the
>>>>> PPC. (We have an RS/6000 42T). All three times I was told that
>>>>> it was not available.
>>>> Maybe it isn't available for the RS/6000 42T. Or maybe you're
>>>> talking to the wrong person.
>>> They said it was only available in beta form.
>> Soyring called it a release, Wayne. Thompson called it a delivery,
>> Wayne.
> IBM sales representatives had no information of OS/2 Warp Connect
> (PowerPC Edition) in their computers aside from a beta version. The
> latest call I made was last week.
To whom, Wayne? Soyring called it OS/2 Warp (PowerPC Edition), not
Warp Connect (despite Timbol's prediction about what it would be called).
>>> I never got to tell them what type of machine I had beyond an IBM
>>> PowerPC machine.
>> And they didn't ask?
> They told me they found a beta version, which I wasn't interested in.
Who is "they", Wayne? Are you talking to the right people? Are you
talking to anyone at all? John Heater seems to have it. He must know
something you don't.
>>>> ---------------------
>>>>
>>>> PSP Announces 1996 Product Development Plans January 25, 1996
>>>>
>>>> In remarks to PSP employees on Monday, General Manager John
>>>> W. Thompson outlined an extensive product development strategy for
>>>> enhancing and broadening the OS/2 Warp family of client and server
>>>> software. He also announced that for the rest of 1996, PSP will
>>>> focus all of its marketing and development on X86-based products.
>>>>
>>>> With the January delivery of the PowerPC edition of OS/2 Warp,
>>>> which is available to customers through their IBM sales
>>>> representatives,
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------
>>>>
>>>> Note the last line, Wayne.
>>> Yes, you should note it also -- You have stated that OS/2 PPC was
>>> released in December 1995, which contradicts this report from IBM.
>> No, Wayne, I haven't stated it. I said I read rumors about a
>> December release.
> In an attempt to argue that IBM released OS/2 in 1995 as planned.
Wrong. It was to show that Jim Frost ought to be surprised.
>> I also have Soyring's posting in this very newsgroup that refers to
>> a late December release, Wayne.
> This post refers to a January delivery.
Balderdash, Wayne. Need I repost it?
===============================================================================
John
===============================================================================
Gee, look Wayne: "late December 1995" fourteen lines up, just like it
was the first time I reproduced it. Having reading comprehension
problems *again*?
>>> The report also states that IBM will focus their resources on the
>>> Intel version of OS/2.
>> Because the PPC version was just released, Wayne.
> So they are going to cease all development and marketing on the PPC
> version?
No, Wayne; IBM didn't say that.
> Illogical.
You're the illogical one, jumping to that conclusion despite what IBM
wrote about it.
>>> It seems that IBM isn't going to put much into their OS/2 PPC
>>> effort in 1996.
>> Because the PPC version was just released, Wayne.
> Illogical.
What's illogical about it Wayne? OS/2-Intel went 15 months between
versions. Why should OS/2 PPC undergo any major change in the next
12 months?
> Why would IBM not put any resources into MARKETING of a
> newly released OS?
Who said they weren't, Wayne?
> Is the product so good that they don't need to use
> any resources on further development?
Who said they weren't, Wayne?
> No bug fixes?
Who said there wouldn't be any, Wayne?
> IBM said it, not me.
Oh? IBM said they intend to allocate the resources to support it,
Wayne. Where are you getting your FUD?
>>> "For the rest of 1996, PSP will focus all of its marketing and
>>> development on X86 products." Not very good news for the OS/2 PPC
>>> folks. No marketing? No development? Not good.
>> Still trying to spread FUD, I see. Despite contradictions posted in
>> this very newsgroup by IBM officials, you chose to post FUD from PC
>> Week. Read what Soyring said, Wayne.
> Ha! The quote was from the above IBM statement. "PSP will focus
> _ALL_ of its marketing and development on X86 products." No marketing
> and no further development for a YEAR.
Let's take another look at the IBM statement, Wayne.
] With the January delivery of the PowerPC edition of OS/2 Warp, which is
] available to customers through their IBM sales representatives, PSP will
] focus resources on X86 products, to maximize sales volumes and leverage
] OS/2's momentum.
Gee, Wayne, sounds different, doesn't it?
Having trouble understanding simple English, Wayne? Soyring said
that they are not backing away from the PowerPC.
>> I also suggest you read the line about the late December 1995
>> release, Wayne.
> I also suggest you read the previous statement about a January
> shipment.
If you release something on, for example, December 31, it stands to
reason that shipment might not start until, for example, January 1.
>> Finally, I suggest you give up the FUD attack, Wayne.
> My statement isn't FUD.
Balderdash, Wayne. See below.
> It is the truth according to the first quoted press release.
No press release says "Not good for the PPC camp.", Wayne. That's
*strictly* your FUD.
Jay Urbanski
>You know the problem with you, Wayne? You can't distinguish what are also obviously, hardware platforms. Does MVS run on a PC? Does VM run on a PC? Does OS/400 run on a PC? Does AIX run on a PC? (okay---it used to, not anymore.)
>
>MS has NT, Win3.1, DOS and Windows 95 running on the same PC platform. NT runs on RISC machines as we know, but they are only a tiny fraction of the sales, and also overlap with the more powerful Intel offerings.
>
>IBM only has OS/2, and variations of such. Variations should not really count---all come from the same code base and remarkably stable and 'fixed' API. MS has two to three operating systems of significantly different architectures. And it's got different APIs and notably there are telling variations even in one API. Just how many variations of Win32s and Win32 has there been?
>
>All from one company. And you got a mess bigger than the whole Unix industry put together.
>
>Note: IBM has mainframes. That's the one of two platform where it has multiple OSes---VM, MVS or VSE. (The monicker will soon change to OS/390). The PC only has PC-DOS and OS/2, and both are non competiting. AIX is gone from the PC platform for partly that reason it. AIX runs on in RS/6000 boxes, but not in PPC equiped AS/400 boxes. Likewise, OS/400 does not run in RS/6000 boxes. In short IBM got different platforms to match for different OSes. That's a big difference.
>
>Rgds,
>
>Chris
Chris, what has happened to your formatting. Double-spaced and
hundreds of characters wide?
luc...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Joseph Coughlan <jo...@gaia.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>I love choise but you guys just do not understand. Your so called choice is
>a choise as to WHICH COMPROMISE you choose to have. NT, win95 or WFWG.
It's amazing: you keep saying it over and over, despite having been shown
over and over that you got your facts all wrong.
What if you got 4mb ram?
Yeah, I know - you'll _still_ advocate os/2 over WFW, no matter how badly
it runs in 4mb.
Win95? What if you have 8mb ram and need to run some win32 apps?
You'll _still_ advocate putting os/2 on the box and going and buying
os/2 versions of the apps, or running the win16 ones.
Now, what if you need security, or an OS to run on your RISC box?
You _still_ try to tell us that os/2 + whatever 3rd-pary security stuff you
can find is going to be a better solution then having all the stuff you
need in the box on one CD.
Yeah, RISC is dead, and you don't need security.
All just to avoid buying an MS product.
>Who wants that choice? I guess Windows advocates do. Why ? I do not know.
So the only choice looks like os/2.
No, you don't know.
There's lots you don't know.
>OS/2 is more compatible
compatable with what?
>than Win95 and NT, faster than both and has MORE apps.
No.
Not faster than both. This has been shown to be BS over and over again
here - you _still_ say this, even after having been shown to be wrong
on this point _repeatedly_.
>Wfwg is fast, single tasking, and on lower RAM amounts. It's networking
>is bad and so is it's stability.
>
>Pick you poision.
The one promoting choice is _not_ you.
-Lucien S
-Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very
Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Proud Member of
TTTTTTT EEEEEEE A MM MM NN N TTTTTTT
T EEEEE A A M M M M ==== N N N T
T EEEEEEE A A M M M N NN T
Joseph Coughlan
> In article <4e9rpt$1r...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> jo...@ibm.net
> (Dr. Joseph Coughlan) writes:
> > In <31084E3E...@mindspring.com>, David LeBlanc
> > <dleb...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >> Joseph Coughlan wrote:
> > AS/400? AIX? MVS ?
>
> OS/2's userbase may not be split into separate OS's (aside from Warp,
> Warp Connect, Warp Server, fullpack-versions), but IBM still spends
> development dollars on each of the above OSs. You make it seem like
> OS/2 is IBM's only operating system.
OS/2 is IBM's only 32-bit PC OS. The implementations you refer to are
*packagings* of the same core OS. Let's not confuse superior marketing,
putting one product at several price points.
MVS and AS/400 are different markets, ones in which MS isn't involved.
BTW AS/400 is a 15 billion $ business so why *pretend* that
the OS is 1) a resource drain and 2) replaceable by OS/2.
It's *painfully* clear that MS has S P L I T it's customer based into
4 camps of varying size. WDFWG, BOB, NT and Win95. MS is dividing a
pie into smaller parts.
If you want a client OS MS has 3, WFWG, Win95 and NT. Problem is
none are good at doing what OS/2 can do in one version/instance.
Each runs the same Suite yet each is unqiue in it's implmentation
of the API.
> > MS users have to decide on Win95, NT or stick with WFWG. OS/2 shops
> > face no such choice on the server or client side, high end or low
> > end, desktop to laptop.
>
> OS/2 shops must decide between one of the versions of OS/2 that is
> available. Some OS/2 shops have not upgraded to OS/2 Warp, so IBM
> must still support OS/2 2.x.
> > There is no AS/400, MVS, AIX or OS/2 delima for OS/2 shops.
>
> There is an OS/2 2.x, Warp, Warp Connect dilemma for OS/2 shops.
Try to fabrictae a problem or situation where a person would have
to cose between WARP connect and WARP. The whole difference between
WARP and WARP Connect is packaging. It's the same OS, a far cry
from Win95 and NT.
..and OS/2 2.1 is fully compatible with WARP apps. The choice there
is if you already have OS/2 2.1 and need additional copies you can get
them and NOT BE FORCED into buying WARP. It's a seamless upgrade to
WARP, you can't name one OS/2 2.1 app that breaks under WARP.
You're becoming dense to try to make a losing argument seem reasonable.
> > WFWG has split into WFWG, WIN95 and NT. I count three off the
> > Windows API. OS/2 has one API and it runs on the older OS/2 2.11
> > and it's replacement WARP.
>
> You forget that OS/2 users run Windows apps, which means IBM spends
> resources ensuring that OS/2 can run these applications. IBM supports
> the OS/2 API and the Win16 and Win32 APIs.
>
> > OS development costs in the WFG-NT-Win95
> > market are higher for MS and wil be sfor some time.
>
> FUD. You have no proof that the development costs for WfWg, Win95,
> and NT combined are larger than what IBM spends on OS/2 development.
FUD ? B.S. We have three different OSs manned by three different teams
devleoping API support for three UNIQUE iplementatiosn of Win32.
What sort of proof do you need ? Just how STUPID are you going to
pretend you've become to argue this point?
> > MS has to keep
> > these three OSs going while IBM has lower costs.
>
> FUD. You have no evidence that IBM has lower costs.
FUD ? What's FUD ? IBM has one version of OS/2 WARP that
competes against 3 versions of MS windows in the same market.
> > IBM is not in product transition to 32-bit. They made that
> > transition in 1992 with OS/2 2.0.
>
> The transition in 1992 from 1.x to 2.0 was not a full transition to a
> 32-bit operating system. The API was 32-bit, but the product was
> still a 16/32-bit hybrid.
Stupid. Just plain stupid.
OS/2 2.0 implemented IBM's 32-bit OS, WPS and SOM.
What you refer to is a highly irrelevant and technical issue as to
how IBM chose to support that 32-bit environment and UI.
>
> > Today is when it pays off for their customers who invested in 32-bit
> > tools and apps.
>
> Why do you think MS developed NT?
NT, the OS with the PROGMAN UI and OLE 2.0 as the so called Object model.
You make me laugh.
> > FYI AS/400 is a 15 billion dollar business.
>
> Irrelevant. How much revenue does OS/2 bring in each year for IBM?
WHen is 15 billion $$$ irrelevant to your comment that IBM's got some
burden developing the AS/400 OS. I just proven it's no burden unless you
wish to insist that AS/400 cost > 15 billion to develop.
As for OS/2 revenue. I don't know the exact amounts. Is it above NT's
revenue? IBM's shipped 10 times as many so I suppose it is. Basic math.
yet NT's got a potential market smaller than OS/2's potential market --
that's why MS has Win95 and WFWG.
Joseph Coughlan
> In article <4eb23g$e...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
> gn...@po.CWRU.Edu (Gabriel N. Schaffer) wrote:
> >
> >In a previous article, jo...@ibm.net (Dr. Joseph Coughlan) says:
> >
> >>MS users have to decide on Win95, NT or stick with WFWG. OS/2
> >>shops face no such choice on the server or client side, high
> >>end or low end, desktop to laptop.
> >
> >So what you're saying is that MS gives its customers an abundance of
> >choices, while IBM locks its customers into proproietary solutions.
>
> Where does the word 'proprietary' suddenly spring from?
>
> Let's try it this way:
>
> IBM gives your companies IT department one, solid OS to support. Microsoft
> gives them three. But this is a bogus argument anyway.
MS advocates are saying some bizzare things nowadays. It's all taken from
the pages of "1984" closed is open, compromises is choice, success is death.
Anyone thing OLE is more open than OpenDoc? C I Labs is an independent
lab for OpenDoc. Lot's off luck selling OLE as the next OO technology
in 1996.
> >No wonder OS/2 is doing so well (or so you claim) -- all of those IBM shops
> >out there aren't even given a choice!
>
> IBM gives them the option of lowering their support costs. They have other
> chioces - of course - should they decide not to take up this option.
The comment to which you responded was silly and ineffective Steve.
MS has two compromised OS's and thus MS offers it's users a choice as to
which compromsie they will have to live with. Welcome to "1984".
We'll see MS position and reposition Win95 and NT against one another
all of 1996.
Users will tell us that repostioning is good because they now have a
choice. Sad. I think a fool and his/her money are soon parted.
Joseph Coughlan
> Dr. Joseph Coughlan wrote:
> >
> > In <31084E3E...@mindspring.com>, David LeBlanc <dleb...@mindspring.com> writes:
> > >Joseph Coughlan wrote:
> > >
> > >> MS split it's OS base into WFWG, Win95, BoB and NT. I count four
> > >> systems, IBM has OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2 and OS/2. Only one.
> > >> You can figure who has greater development costs.
>
> > >I think you have forgotten that IBM makes several other fine OS's -
> > >OS/400, AIX, and MVS, as well as DOS. With OS/2, that makes 5. Have I
> > >forgotten any others?
>
> > AS/400? AIX? MVS ?
>
> > MS users have to decide on Win95, NT or stick with WFWG. OS/2
> > shops face no such choice on the server or client side, high
> > end or low end, desktop to laptop.
>
> > There is no AS/400, MVS, AIX or OS/2 delima for OS/2 shops.
>
> No? You mean if I had a DB2 database which was outgrowing my LAN Server, I
> wouldn't be faced with deciding between an AS/400, AIX, or OS/2-SMP? Or even
> OS/2-PPC?
If you run WFWG you have to decide on NT or WIn95. MS own PR is
in conflict with itself and changes on a weekly basis -- depending on
how MS wants to respond to criticsm.
As for you faked DB/2 problem. It's a different animal and a silly
example. If you have Lan Server on a 486-25 then get Lan Server
installed on a PPro. Likewise if you have a problem on AS/400 then
upgrade the AS/400 system. OS/2 preemptively multitasks and HPFS386
-- wich is what Lan Server uses, has a dynamic cache and scales on
faster hardware. Keep the same software and get more hardware.
Can't say the same for Win95. PPro isn't a good fit at all.
> Then at the high end, you have some overlap between AIX, AS/400 and
> mainframes. Not that this is bad, but it does contradict what you said.
Not a contradiction at all. You had to change the market inorder to
make your example. I'm speakcing to thewindows market. MS split it
up and PC Week Labs director even wrote a column this week verifying my
observation. He essentially made my point. Look.
> > WFWG has split into WFWG, WIN95 and NT. I count three off the
> > Windows API. OS/2 has one API and it runs on the older OS/2 2.11
> > and it's replacement WARP. OS development costs in the
> > WFG-NT-Win95 market are higher for MS and wil be sfor some time.
>
> MS seems to be quite profitable. Also, I think neither Win95 nor NT are
> one-size-fits-all. Choices are good.
It's not a choice -- it's a compromise. Neither does 100% of what a person
wants. As for MS profitability -- the expenses of co development are only
now beginning to press on MS. Wait until 1997.
> > MS has to keep these three OSs going while IBM has lower costs.
> > IBM is not in product transition to 32-bit. They made that transition
> > in 1992 with OS/2 2.0. Today is when it pays off for their customers
> > who invested in 32-bit tools and apps.
>
> Is that why MS had a higher net/revenue ratio?
On sales of what Dave? Win32 apps? No. Preloads. A dying part of
MS's business and one IBM's begun to attack with SAMRTSUITE 96.
AST amoung others is prelaoding SMARTSUITE. Price Wars are now
beginning.
Win95 sales are low, NT 4,0 is an unknown and Network OLE isn't
in BETA. OpenDoc's technical superioroity is well known and IMHO
1996 is when MS begins to slow.
> > FYI AS/400 is a 15 billion dollar business.
>
> Indeed. From what Chris has said, it sounds like a very impressive tool.
It's also an example of how IBM can be late into a market and still
win a lion's share. AS/400, Mainframes, and *OS/2* are all examples of
how IBM persists and wins market share. I think they'll be back to
the #1 spot in corporate computing in 1999.
WARP Lan Server Vs. NT will be the battle that I'm most interested
in seeing.
Joseph Coughlan
> jo...@ibm.net (Dr. Joseph Coughlan) wrote:
>
> >In <31084E3E...@mindspring.com>, David LeBlanc <dleb...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >>Joseph Coughlan wrote:
> >>
>
> >AS/400? AIX? MVS ?
> >
> >MS users have to decide on Win95, NT or stick with WFWG. OS/2
> >shops face no such choice on the server or client side, high
> >end or low end, desktop to laptop.
>
> Of course part of the reason OS/2 users "face no choice" is because
> OS/2 PPC (which was a one time touted as the portable follow on to
> OS/2) is either: 1) delayed, 2) on hold, or 3) cancelled. After
> beating the drum for so long about OS/2 PPC, IBM is strangely silent
> on the topic these days.
>
> I'm glad I have a choice.
I love choise but you guys just do not understand. Your so called choice is
a choise as to WHICH COMPROMISE you choose to have. NT, win95 or WFWG.
Who wants that choice? I guess Windows advocates do. Why ? I do not know.
OS/2 is more compatible than Win95 and NT, faster than both and has MORE apps.
Joseph Coughlan
> In <WJH.96Ja...@native.cis.ufl.edu>, w...@native.cis.ufl.edu (Wayne J. Hyde) writes:
I think the real issue is whether the PC OS market is splintering
or if MS's technical problems with a WFWG replacemnt OS is an
artificial splintering of their customer base.
IBM's pretty convinced that PC DOS and OS/2 are the only two OS's
they'll need to support in this market. OS/2 PPC is *still* OS/2
intel's upgrade past the Merlin refresh.
> >OS/2's userbase may not be split into separate OS's (aside from Warp,
> >Warp Connect, Warp Server, fullpack-versions), but IBM still spends
> >development dollars on each of the above OSs. You make it seem like
> >OS/2 is IBM's only operating system.
>
> I think this is obscuring the point. Warp, Warp Connect, Warp Server, etc.
> all share a common base. This isn't a situation where they are developing
> two(I'll leave out Windows 3.1) internally different OSes like Windows 95
> and Windows NT.
The compatability issues developing for Win32 intel are quite complex.
OS/2 development isn't as challenging.
> >FUD. You have no proof that the development costs for WfWg, Win95,
> >and NT combined are larger than what IBM spends on OS/2 development.
>
> And nobody outside IBM has official figures on what IBM spends on OS/2
> development.
Nor do we know what MS spends on Windows NT, BOB, WFWG and Win95
development. We don't even know how many MS ships. We do know that
MS has more OSs under development and that these are in competition with
one another.
Edmond
>David LeBlanc writes:
>
>Win95 sales are low, NT 4,0 is an unknown and Network OLE isn't
>in BETA. OpenDoc's technical superioroity is well known and IMHO
>1996 is when MS begins to slow.
>
D-OLE has been out for more than a week.
>WARP Lan Server Vs. NT will be the battle that I'm most interested
>in seeing.
How do you compare them? With what criteria, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Edmond Underwood
E-mail: unde...@Colorado.Edu
Bench32 1.10 beta 3 for Windows NT
Bench32 1.07 for Windows 95
http://www.rmii.com/~underwoe/bench32.html.
tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu
>> Wayne J. Hyde writes:
>>> I have called IBM three times in January asking for OS/2 for the PPC.
>>> (We have an RS/6000 42T). All three times I was told that it was not
>>> available.
>> Maybe it isn't available for the RS/6000 42T. Or maybe you're talking
>> to the wrong person.
> According to IBM Direct, OS/2 PPC is available only for specific versions of
> Models 830 and 850 PPC systems.
Amazing that Wayne is having such trouble getting answers to his questions,
no? Makes you wonder whether he's really tried, or if he's making it up.
> The versions are 32 MB systems and IDE only, NO SCSI. The software is
> being sold "AS-IS", ie, NO TECH SUPPORT.
Is that your own personal interpretation of what "as is" means?
> They do
> have a 30 day return policy (good thing). An operating system that works on
> specific versions of 2 systems, and no support. Now that's a killer OS.
But Soyring said IBM intends to allocate the resources to support the
product. Contradicts what you just said, no?
Wayne J. Hyde
writes:
> Steven Gavette writes:
>>> Wayne J. Hyde writes:
>>>> I have called IBM three times in January asking for OS/2 for the
>>>> PPC. (We have an RS/6000 42T). All three times I was told that
>>>> it was not available.
>>> Maybe it isn't available for the RS/6000 42T. Or maybe you're
>>> talking to the wrong person.
>> According to IBM Direct, OS/2 PPC is available only for specific
>> versions of Models 830 and 850 PPC systems.
> Amazing that Wayne is having such trouble getting answers to his
> questions, no? Makes you wonder whether he's really tried, or if
> he's making it up.
I called IBM yesterday. I talked to a sales rep who put me on hold
while he checked with some other people about OS/2 PPC. He knew I was
looking for the PowerPC version. He told me that there was only a
beta version available for the PowerPC platform. It makes you wonder
how easy it is to get the damned product since I've called four times
now and have got the same answer: "only a beta is available." Perhaps
the "release" IBM made (called a Developers release by some) is the
beta they are telling me about.
>> The versions are 32 MB systems and IDE only, NO SCSI. The software
>> is being sold "AS-IS", ie, NO TECH SUPPORT.
> Is that your own personal interpretation of what "as is" means?
What do you think "as is" means, Dave.
>> They do have a 30 day return policy (good thing). An operating
>> system that works on specific versions of 2 systems, and no
>> support. Now that's a killer OS.
> But Soyring said IBM intends to allocate the resources to support
> the product. Contradicts what you just said, no?
The IBM announcement stated that IBM was going to spend ALL resources
(marketing and development) in 1996 on X86 versions of OS/2.
Contradicts what you just said, no?
--
Robert Wong
Microsoft has different OSes for different applications, DOS/Windows,
Windows 95 and NT. NT is the high end and runs on multiple platforms
like Alpha, which DEC has boasted as it's biggest profit quarters
in years due to Alpha server and workstation sales. I think they mentioned
NT in there somewhere.
Where is portable OS/2? When the PowerPC Common Hardware Reference
Platform comes out, will there be an OS/2? I would think it's embrassing,
since Apple will have a MacOS, Sun have Solaris, HP has HP-Unix, if
IBM doesn't have something. Oh, it has AIX. I'm not sure if the home
user is ready for AIX. When you move to different platforms, like
Intel to Alpha, the software has to be re-compiled in Win32 API,
and it has binary emulation.
Isn't this the same thing we are complaing about Microsoft, move to a
different OS and you might lose some legacy application. Same thing
with Portable OS/2 if that shows up. Things change and if you don't
want to change, go and buy a 386/33 8meg of RAM and declare OS/2 the
best operating system in the world.
--
Robert Wong RPI Alumni 85' (e-mail : won...@rpi.edu)
Opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official or unofficial views of anyone else.
Joseph Coughlan
Read it and weep....or will you place an order for OS/2 PPC ?
----------------------------------------------------------
soyring@
Re: OS/2 Warp is Alive and Well!!!
30 Jan 1996 18:30:06 GMT IBM Personal Software Products
Newsgroups:
comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy
References:
<4ek3f9$h...@peabody.colorado.edu>
In <4ek3f9$h...@peabody.colorado.edu>, rsm...@psych.colorado.edu (Roderick W. Smith) writes:
>[That said, OS/2 for PowerPC is still, AFAIK, beta software, and so could
>easily not materialize or materialize late or get poor support; nothing's
>certain in this life. But then, the same applies to future x86 versions of
>OS/2, future versions of Windows, etc.]
>
> --Rod Smith
> RSM...@PSYCH.COLORADO.EDU
Wrong. OS/2 Warp (PowerPC Edition) is a commercial product. It has successfully
completed both IBM internal testing as well as beta testing. This product is sold
and supported by IBM as a commercial product -- *not* as a beta test product.
The product is targeted at a small market segment defined by what we described
publicly in June 1995 as Super Client users. These are users that want to develop
applications that exploit the floating point processing advantages of the PowerPC
chip and for those who want to exploit the "Sensory Suite" of functions included
in the product's software. These software functions emulate DSP's that normally
would cost several hundred dollars each. The Sensory Suite includes emulation of
MPEG decompression, MIDI sound synthesis, speech recognition, voice over data
multiplexing for use with standard modems, and more.
John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next FUD topic Wyane... How about OS.2 isn't 32-bit.
Or how about reading PC Mag's stunning conclusions about NT/AS
and it's NTFS bottleneck.