OS/2 2.0 GA release date...
David Feustel
>Well folks, the 2.0 GA release date of March 31st approaches. Does anyone
>have the inside scoop regarding IBMs ability to actually make this date?
>Seems to me like there'll need to be another beta release, with a corresponding
>2-3 month delay before things are ready to roll. Comments?
I've been using 6.304e for about 10 days after having real problems
getting it installed. The problems were solved by diskcopying all the
diskettes. I have discovered a few minor problems, but on balance, I'm
already totally sold on 6.304e. I'm gradually trying out more and more
features of the product, and my main desire at this point is for a 20"
monitor with 1600x1200 screen so I could have many full screen windows
simultaneously visible as is possible with Unix workstations.
--
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
=== NBC News: GE's Advertising And Public Relations Agency ===
Frank Fuchs
>Well folks, the 2.0 GA release date of March 31st approaches. Does anyone
>have the inside scoop regarding IBMs ability to actually make this date?
>Seems to me like there'll need to be another beta release, with a corresponding
>2-3 month delay before things are ready to roll. Comments?
>
Current release is 6.307C. Golden master diskettes at 25th.
-- Frank
--
Frank Fuchs (Foxware Systemhaus GmbH), fea...@fealon.stgt.sub.org
-- Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in! --
Chris Boaro
Timothy F. Sipples
>Current release is 6.307C. Golden master diskettes at 25th.
How does 6.307C look, Frank, or is mum the word?
--
Timothy F. Sipples Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
si...@ellis.uchicago.edu List, available via anonymous ftp from
Dept. of Economics 128.123.35.151, directory pub/os2/faq, or via
Univ. of Chicago 60637 netmail from LIST...@BLEKUL11.BITNET.
John A. Weeks III
> have the inside scoop regarding IBMs ability to actually make this date?
It will be right down to the wire, and probably at least one piece will be
missing, and it will be slow shipping at first, but they will make the date.
I need to verify some software on the golden version before we can ship, and
my contact tells me that I can probably expect the golden drivers about the
sametime that they show up in the stores.
> Seems to me like there'll need to be another beta release, with a
> corresponding 2-3 month delay before things are ready to roll. Comments?
I had that feeling also. IBM can still do this by shipping slowly at
first, then releasing an update disk in 1-2 months. That way they can
also fix any unexpected things that are bound to show up.
-john-
--
=============================================================================
John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 jo...@newave.mn.org
NeWave Communications, Ltd. ...uunet!umn-cs!kksys!tcnet!newave!john
Heeren Pathak
>
> I had that feeling also. IBM can still do this by shipping slowly at
> first, then releasing an update disk in 1-2 months. That way they can
> also fix any unexpected things that are bound to show up.
>
I really hope they don't ship slowly. IBM has been very quiet about OS/2
already and if they don't get the word and product out agressively,
Windows 3.1 may have enough time to seriously damage, if not kill OS/2.
Yes, I know all the arguements about how OS/2 is a superior product, etc..
and I agree with them fully. But the fact remains that OS/2 has had
extremely negative publicity and IBM is going to have to overcome this. If
they don't get the word out, people will make the investment in Win 3.1
and they will be very reluctant to spend even more money on a unknown
product.
A idea for IBM:
How about a heavily (free????) upgrade to OS/2 for those who bought
Win 3.1? Such an offer might make people try OS/2 and right now
marketshare is much more important than short term profits.
--Heeren
Steve Umbehocker
>A idea for IBM:
>How about a heavily (free????) upgrade to OS/2 for those who bought
>Win 3.1? Such an offer might make people try OS/2 and right now
>marketshare is much more important than short term profits.
>
>--Heeren
Bad idea, if I was undecided about getting Win. v3.1 or OS/2 v2.0 and
IBM offered a free upgrade to v2.0 by buying Win v3.1, then I would
naturally buy Win. v3.1 and get a free copy of OS/2, this will still
give Microsoft money and IBM would get nothing, except maybe a user.
What IBM should do is sell OS/2 v2.0 for $39 instead of the $50 that's
rumored.
Peter Binder
Stanley T.H. Chow
>How about a heavily (free????) upgrade to OS/2 for those who bought
>Win 3.1? Such an offer might make people try OS/2 and right now
>marketshare is much more important than short term profits.
Actually, this is a very poor idea. If I was offered this, I would
go out and buy Win 3.1 since I would then get OS/2 free.
A better plan is to have (almost free) upgrade from Win 3.0 but
require the same proof-of-ownership as Microsoft's upgrade to
Win 3.1. This is more likely to *move* people from Win to OS/2
--
Stanley Chow InterNet: sc...@BNR.CA
Bell Northern Research UUCP: ..!uunet!bnrgate!bqneh3!schow
(613) 763-2831
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
Heeren Pathak
>
> Bad idea, if I was undecided about getting Win. v3.1 or OS/2 v2.0 and
> IBM offered a free upgrade to v2.0 by buying Win v3.1, then I would
> naturally buy Win. v3.1 and get a free copy of OS/2, this will still
> give Microsoft money and IBM would get nothing, except maybe a user.
> What IBM should do is sell OS/2 v2.0 for $39 instead of the $50 that's
> rumored.
>
I would argue that for now, gain a potential long term user is MUCH more
important for OS/2 than worrying about MS getting some extra money. IBM
needs to be very agressive in their marketing since it is obvious that
Microsoft is pushing Win 3.1 quite hard.
People are very reluctant to make a switch to a new product when:
A) The product already has many negative "reviews".
B) MS (a company they "trust") is "promising" a similiar solution
in a few months.
Much of the public (and press) is extremely distrustful of IBM and OS/2 and
this will be a barrier that has to be overcome. People need to be given
an incentive to try OS/2 out.
By providing an extremely cheap mechanism to switch (it doesn't have to
be free), IBM provides this incentive. A different slant to offering it
would be to offer the software for free as a "trial" copy. The "trial"
copy would contain little to no paper docs and one will not be able to
get a discount on future software upgrades since one doesn't own
the software.
If people like the product and plan on buying future versions of it, they
can go out and buy it "real" version. Once again, this provides a no risk
mechanism for people to try the product out. I have heard rumors that
IBM will provides a 30 money back offer with OS/2 but this still forces
people to buy the package (i.e. investing money upfront). I suspect a lot
of people will say why bother.
--Heeren
Frank Fuchs
>In article <1992Mar21.1...@nadia.stgt.sub.org> fea...@nadia.stgt.sub.org (Frank Fuchs) writes:
>>Current release is 6.307C. Golden master diskettes at 25th.
>
>How does 6.307C look, Frank, or is mum the word?
>--
>Timothy F. Sipples Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
Current release now 6.307D. Not too bad, but not my GA.
Now for the shock (to all the 'naive'):
Whoever believes in a stable 2.0 GA out next week (or so) - a friend in Boca
nearly 'died' of laughter, when I tried to recheck the date for 'golden
master'.
I think IBM will ship some '3-4' releases just to say they did it.
Any sane person, who now uses 6.304E can't believe a stable GA comes out this
week. I don't say that IBM isn't doing a great job.
I just say that NO-ONE can possibly do this.
Give them another 2-4 weeks, that's my opinion.
I prefer to wait for a 'May GA' which I can recommend to ALL my customers.
I'm absolutely sure that IBM can deliver a stable, well performing 2.0
- in May.
My $.02
Robert Cain
standing at the urinal if it starts moving out. I'll bet there's lots
of us out here that don't slip our deadlines. Ever. (sarcasm)
--
Bob Cain rc...@netcom.com 408-358-2007
"There are some strings. They're just not attached."
Victoria Roberts
Max Cray
> Bad idea, if I was undecided about getting Win. v3.1 or OS/2 v2.0 and
> IBM offered a free upgrade to v2.0 by buying Win v3.1, then I would
> naturally buy Win. v3.1 and get a free copy of OS/2, this will still
> give Microsoft money and IBM would get nothing, except maybe a user.
> What IBM should do is sell OS/2 v2.0 for $39 instead of the $50 that's
> rumored.
Yea, save $11. That should sway alot of poeple. Seriously though, if you
price it too low poeple might not think its valuable. $99 is a great deal.
If they price it at $50 great, but not nessessary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-= Max Cray =-
Net: underg%m...@uunet.uu.net Support
UUCP: ...!uunet!underg!max Free
Data: The Underground Computing Foundation BBS Software
401-847-2603 -=- 9600 baud (v.32) (w/src)
CI$: 76334,2203
Christian Vandendorpe
>
>Yea, save $11. That should sway alot of poeple. Seriously though, if you
>price it too low poeple might not think its valuable. $99 is a great deal.
>If they price it at $50 great, but not nessessary.
>
I dont agree with you, I think the price is a major factor. I know for
myself that I would rather spend $50 than $99. I think people in general
would also be more attracted to OS/2 if the price was low. Just think that
you can get OEM DOS 5.0 for $55 canadian, if OS/2 was around that then people
would buy it instead of DOS without even thinking about it.
Christian
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
= vand...@qucis.queensu.ca | "I only know that I know nothing" =
= vand...@qucdn.queensu.ca | - Myself =
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dru Nelson
>I dont agree with you, I think the price is a major factor. I know for
>myself that I would rather spend $50 than $99. I think people in general
>would also be more attracted to OS/2 if the price was low. Just think that
>you can get OEM DOS 5.0 for $55 canadian, if OS/2 was around that then people
>would buy it instead of DOS without even thinking about it.
>Christian
I disagree. OS/2 is a heck of an operating system. I chose it for
it's $100 price tag; with that price, it blows the doors off of any
other OS available.
My reasoning:
Ever since I can remember I wanted my own Unix box. This never
happened. I wanted a real 32 bit runner with all of the utils
and a decent GUI.
Only recently has a version of Unix become available: the new
BSD ports. However, they still cost too much ($500) and they
only run X; I personally believe that X programming is difficult
and takes a lot of time.
NeXTStep 486 came out, BUT, it costs $2500 for the development
environment. It has one of the most beautiful designs
available, BUT I can't afford it.
*** OS/2 has PM and Windows 3.0! It uses the machine in full 32 bit
mode and has a beautiful kernel that can handle Threads. I can
run all of my DOS apps, PM apps, and Windows 3.0 apps at the same
time! Programs for BSD are available in OS/2. I can use GNU C
for lightweight programming. There will be well defined
interfaces for supporting new devices. It just looks like
a solid OS that can handle many tasks well and really use
486 chip the way it was meant to be used.
Fifty dollars would be great, but for what I am getting, I am
not complaining one bit. I am just looking at it for
development, but I'm sure some solid new programs will make old
things seem easy. I intend to do my data collection in the
background and do whatever I please in the front (with much
less worry of losing a packet). I know that this will do
what I want now for much, much less.
For Example: Lets say IBM or some company decides to build a FAX
receiver. OS/2 has defined multi-tasking, windowing, and port control.
It wouldn't be too difficult to build a little program similar
to the print manager that receives FAX documents and stores them
in compressed files. A user could then notice a difference in
the icon and check for FAX's received. I would also bet that such
a thing in Windows would seriously affect the performance of Windows
3.X/DOS 5.0 and difficult under the many different window managers
of X windows.
Michael Harris
> For Example: Lets say IBM or some company decides to build a FAX
> receiver. OS/2 has defined multi-tasking, windowing, and port control.
> It wouldn't be too difficult to build a little program similar
> to the print manager that receives FAX documents and stores them
> in compressed files. A user could then notice a difference in
> the icon and check for FAX's received. I would also bet that such
> a thing in Windows would seriously affect the performance of Windows
> 3.X/DOS 5.0 and difficult under the many different window managers
> of X windows.
Such a product already exists for PM. It is called FAX/PM. You install a new
"printer" which is connected to FAX/PM. What you draw on that printer becomes
a Fax. It does handle incoming faxes. There is also a Windows version.
Please note that this post is purely informational and is not an endorsement
of FAX/PM.
______________________________________________________________________________
Michael Harris - har...@catt.ncsu.edu or har...@carvm3.vnet.ibm.com
Vice-President, Computer and Technologies Theme Program, NC State University
(My opinions are my own and do not represent those of NCSU or IBM Corporation)
Brett J. Vickers
> I disagree. OS/2 is a heck of an operating system. I chose it for
>it's $100 price tag; with that price, it blows the doors off of any
>other OS available.
You know that. I know that. But does Joe "Windows User" Blow know that?
Probably not. The more expensive it is, the more you make it undesirable
to people who might otherwise have taken a chance with OS/2 2.0.
The $50 price is great. $40 would be even better. But $100 edges
on being too expensive for an operating system that's received so
much negative press in the past.
--
bvic...@ics.uci.edu | "Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there
br...@ucippro.bitnet | is the danger of oppression." - James Madison
RICHARD DAVID ASPINALL
>
>I dont agree with you, I think the price is a major factor. I know for
>myself that I would rather spend $50 than $99. I think people in general
>would also be more attracted to OS/2 if the price was low. Just think that
>you can get OEM DOS 5.0 for $55 canadian, if OS/2 was around that then people
>would buy it instead of DOS without even thinking about it.
>
>Christian
>
in Toronto (Where Bill Gates Officially announced Excel 4.0 !) and his
point of view was that IBM would not make any money selling OS/2 for $50.
In fact, he said, they had already spent ONE MILLION DOLLARS A DAY developing
OS/2 v2.
I could kind of see the point about low price (OS/2 does ship with
over 20 HD disks (right?)...but as Bart would say: "HI Karumba !!!"
Does this guy know WHAT he's talking about. I'm sure that IBM spent
significant $$$ on OS/2 ....but a Million a DAY ????
BTW he was unmovable on pricing (ie $ 149 to upgrade from DOS )
I hate to say it but if it's over $50 I will not be buying!
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| David Aspinall |SPECIAL OFFER : Free BBQ given away with every |
| cs91...@ariel.yorku.ca | other message !!!!! |
+------------------------------------* see other messsage *---------------+
John W. Linville
> BTW he was unmovable on pricing (ie $ 149 to upgrade from DOS )
>I hate to say it but if it's over $50 I will not be buying!
Then, if it is over $50, you'll be missing out.
John W. Linville
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| John W. Linville Amateur radio: KD4KHC |
| #include "std_disclaimer.h" E-mail: linv...@catt.ncsu.edu |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHAFFTER, RODNEY FRANK, JR
cs91...@ariel.yorku.ca (RICHARD DAVID ASPINALL) writes...
>Does this guy know WHAT he's talking about. I'm sure that IBM spent
>significant $$$ on OS/2 ....but a Million a DAY ????
I read in an earlier post, as well as in PC Week, I belive, that
IBM has spent about $1.5 BILLION(!!!) on OS/2 development. I presume that
this vast amount must include all spending since 1.0 was anounced, but
that is a lot of cash to be made up!
Rod Schaffter |
Laboratory for Molecular Structure and Bonding |
Texas A&M University Dept. of Chemistry |
Bitnet: SCHAFFTER@TAMLMSB |
INTERNET: SCHA...@LMSBVX.TAMU.EDU |
"Standard Disclaimer, etc." |
robert cook
This is really stupid of you, what software can you buy for fifty dollars.
Shareware? Most of asks for thirty-five, and thats just for the utilities.
Any WordProcessor, Spreadsheet, or Database will cost $250+. Windows
versions usually cost ~$500. Windows NT will cost >$500. NeXTstep 486
will cost $999. DOS itself cost $195. Windows cost $179. Why are
you complaining about OS/2 costing only $149. It is the best deal offered
for software in a long time.
--
Robert Kelley Cook rc...@darwin.cc.nd.edu
Univ. of Notre Dame
Physics Dept. If you think these are ND opinions, speak to the pope!
Douglas A. Bell
In a previous article, rfs...@zeus.tamu.edu (SCHAFFTER, RODNEY FRANK, JR) says:
> I read in an earlier post, as well as in PC Week, I belive, that
>IBM has spent about $1.5 BILLION(!!!) on OS/2 development. I presume that
>this vast amount must include all spending since 1.0 was anounced, but
>that is a lot of cash to be made up!
>
I really don't think IBM has any illusion of making 1.5 billion dollars
on OS/2. Most of this money is considered 'sunk' at this point.
1.x was a disaster for ibm, and they will never recover that money,
but if they can build on it and make os2 2.0 and make more money
than it cost to make 2.0 by itself, then they will have more money
than if they didn't make os2 2.0 at all.
This is basic micro economics.
Douglas Bell-
--
RICHARD DAVID ASPINALL
>In article <1992Mar28.0...@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca>, cs91...@ariel.yorku.ca (RICHARD DAVID ASPINALL) writes:
>|> In article <1992Mar26....@qucis.queensu.ca> vand...@qucis.queensu.ca (Christian Vandendorpe) writes:
>|> >
>|> >I dont agree with you, I think the price is a major factor. I know for
>|> >myself that I would rather spend $50 than $99. I think people in general
>|> >would also be more attracted to OS/2 if the price was low. Just think that
>|> >you can get OEM DOS 5.0 for $55 canadian, if OS/2 was around that then
>|> >people would buy it instead of DOS without even thinking about it.
>|> >
>|> >Christian
>|>
>|> I hate to say it but if it's over $50 I will not be buying!
>This is really stupid of you, what software can you buy for fifty dollars.
>Shareware? Most of asks for thirty-five, and thats just for the utilities.
>Any WordProcessor, Spreadsheet, or Database will cost $250+. Windows
>versions usually cost ~$500. Windows NT will cost >$500. NeXTstep 486
>will cost $999. DOS itself cost $195. Windows cost $179. Why are
>you complaining about OS/2 costing only $149. It is the best deal offered
>for software in a long time.
>
I realize that this is not IBM's problem, but I shelled out for
DOS 5, and Windows (from version 2.0 up) and I'm a little tired of it.
OS/2 may be a fantastic OS but it is also the underdog. All I'm saying is
that IBM must give me an incentive to move and (performance aside) price
is what I'm looking for.
I hope I'm wrong but the way I see it is that if IBM does not
quickly reach some level of critical mass OS/2 may fissle. In the short
term a $50 OS/2 would cost IBM ... BUT if they can get me HOOKED now they
could probably hold me for years.
Also as this IBM rep pointed out to me, OS/2 is not nearly as SEXY
an windows is. (Debatable!) Ultimately OS/2 must get wide acceptance in
short order or I'm going to spend my $50 on Win 3.1.
Robert Cain
are offering the world the usability of a Macintosh plus a lot more for
a lot less. This will open up new markets. Like the home, at last.
This also provides IBM with a real platform for their invisable but
profitable high end applications for transaction processing, banking,
reservation systems, trading, etc. where they traditionally dominate.
(Thanks to Timothy S. for pointing this out to me). DOS just didn't hack
it.
They don't need to make any money on OS/2 itself. It is an enabler.
Wen-Chun Ni
>
> I realize that this is not IBM's problem, but I shelled out for
>DOS 5, and Windows (from version 2.0 up) and I'm a little tired of it.
>OS/2 may be a fantastic OS but it is also the underdog. All I'm saying is
>that IBM must give me an incentive to move and (performance aside) price
>is what I'm looking for.
> I hope I'm wrong but the way I see it is that if IBM does not
>quickly reach some level of critical mass OS/2 may fissle. In the short
>term a $50 OS/2 would cost IBM ... BUT if they can get me HOOKED now they
>could probably hold me for years.
> Also as this IBM rep pointed out to me, OS/2 is not nearly as SEXY
>an windows is. (Debatable!) Ultimately OS/2 must get wide acceptance in
>short order or I'm going to spend my $50 on Win 3.1.
Fine, go ahead with Windows 3.1, and enjoy everything 64K segment
brings if you are a programmer. I am tired of listening to such
whining on the the price of OS/2 2.0. If you think the price is
outrageous, you should get what you pay for. Maybe a more sexy
GUI arouse you more, but we want a DECENT OS. I've never heard
that somebody plays his/her PC in bed ;->
Wen-Chun
Peter Gahbler
> Yea, save $11. That should sway alot of poeple. Seriously though, if you
> price it too low poeple might not think its valuable. $99 is a great deal.
> If they price it at $50 great, but not nessessary.
I think you all overseas don't know how lucky you are. In Germany
I have to pay about 240$ for OS/2 2.0. Of course there is an
update offer... but only from _PC_-DOS or OS/2 1.x. No update from
MS-DOS or Windows :-((.
Bye
Peter
--
Peter Gahbler UUCP: pe...@pgeck.sub.org
Richard-Vosgerau-Str.3 FIDO: Peter Gahbler, 2:242/300.10
D-2330 Eckernfoerde voice: +49 4351 86249
I HAVE TO PAY FOR INCOMING TRAFFIC. DON'T SEND MAIL, BINARIES OR SOURCES
EXCEEDING 20 KB WITHOUT MY PREVIOUS AGREEMENT!!!!!
Timothy F. Sipples
>Fine, go ahead with Windows 3.1, and enjoy everything 64K segment
>brings if you are a programmer. I am tired of listening to such
>whining on the the price of OS/2 2.0. If you think the price is
>outrageous, you should get what you pay for. Maybe a more sexy
>GUI arouse you more, but we want a DECENT OS. I've never heard
>that somebody plays his/her PC in bed ;->
Before we argue over what might be a moot point, why don't we wait for
the pricing information on the 31st?
Also, what's sexier than the Workplace Shell?
--
Timothy F. Sipples Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
Christian Vandendorpe
>brings if you are a programmer. I am tired of listening to such
>whining on the the price of OS/2 2.0. If you think the price is
>outrageous, you should get what you pay for. Maybe a more sexy
>GUI arouse you more, but we want a DECENT OS. I've never heard
>that somebody plays his/her PC in bed ;->
>
>
>
>Wen-Chun
I am tired of hearing people like you saying that they are tired of
hearing complaints. Be a bit more constructive next time since I think
the point made here is quite valid. I agree $149 (actually a lot more
if you happen to live in Canada like me) is an ok price, but that is
only if you have not had to shell out money already to buy DOS and Windows
(yes, windows was the only alternative until OS/2 v2.0 started becoming
a reality).
The "general" public will not buy OS/2 if it is too expensive, and then all
the programmers of the world can write programs for this amazing OS, but
there wont be anybody to buy those great programs. Programmers and
knowledgeable people will buy OS/2 for the set price because they know
they are buying value, but normal, everyday people will not, and then
OS/2 will NOT make it.
Christian
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
= vand...@qucis.queensu.ca | "I only know that I know nothing" =
= vand...@qucdn.queensu.ca | - Socrates =
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan J. E. T. Noyles
>
>>|> >
>>|> >I dont agree with you, I think the price is a major factor.
>
> I realize that this is not IBM's problem, but I shelled out for
>DOS 5, and Windows (from version 2.0 up) and I'm a little tired of it.
[flame on...focus nozzle...]
>OS/2 may be a fantastic OS but it is also the underdog. All I'm saying is
>that IBM must give me an incentive to move and (performance aside) price
>is what I'm looking for.
Somewhere along the line, this turned into a bitch session. A perfect way to
tell is when people start saying irrational things, like our friend David here.
1) IBM doesn't have to GIVE you anything. OS/2 is well suited for the
personal computing arena. This fact is evident to people who are in the
business of leading the industry. It will, in a manner depending on the
sophistication and economic stature of the individual, become evident to
the entities (people, companies, et cetera) that the leaders make their
profits from.
2) If you are so blind to the importance of performance in personal computing,
why do you even use one? Why don't you just content yourself with a pencil
and paper? We can also sell you some papyrus reeds, if you prefer...
3) Have you ever used OS/2? Considering your inclination towards comparing
it to DOS or DOSdows (the DOS/windows combo, y'know?), I seriously doubt
that you have. I'm almost 100% sure, considering how you're bitching
about the current price. Where were you, computatively speaking, when it
was a poodle (expensive, useless dog w/attitude)?
4) *****NEWSFLASH*****
OS/2 is available for a limited time at $49.95. It's been advertised in
this very arena for the past two weeks. I liked the deal so much I
complemented my standard edition with an extended edition at $99, and I'm
partially unemployed (You can't imagine the creative financing I
performed to swing THAT deal!)
WHERE WERE YOU? Have you spent so much time bitching about $50 that you
failed to see that you price was matched and beat by a nickel? Dave, I'm
ashamed of you...
> I hope I'm wrong but the way I see it is that if IBM does not
>quickly reach some level of critical mass OS/2 may fi[zz]le.
You are wrong, Dave. But it's not your fault. The PC industry has grown so
large so quickly that it is almost expected for its individual participants
to believe that the computing world revolves around them. Lucky for the rest
of the world that this is a fallacy. People like us have to constantly be on
the lookout for symptoms of big-headedness like this, or we'll wind up with
dirt in our faces because we've fallen over from the weight of our infected
craniums!
Don't you understand that you are parroting some marketeer's drivel? There
*is* no set time for OS/2 to take off on it's voyage to the stars. It will
not fizzle, as did the PCjr, for several critical reasons.
The PCjr was seen as a failure almost immediately. To this day, you can't
find an upgraded version of it. They are probably the cheapest machines on
the market, unless the Sinclair has made a quiet comeback. This is because
IBM realized it was useless. Contrarily, OS/2 has been integrated with IBM's
philosophy of computing. It is the incarnation of their SAA. This is why
so much money has been invested in its development.
As you will see in the coming months and years. OS/2 will be around as long
as people are using the Intel CPU, unless IBM chooses to develop it into a
different system. As time proceeds, you will see that DOS will go the way of
CP/M. All of the applications (yes, windows is an application. As long as
it depends on DOS, it will remain an application. Regardless of what the
microsoftheads persuade its users to believe) that depend on DOS will be
migrated to OS/2, simply because it is the superior platform.
> BUT if they can get me HOOKED now they
>could probably hold me for years.
You will be "hooked". Make no mistake about it. You will be hooked, or you
will move on to a different machine. You really have no choice in the matter.
Maybe it won't happen this month, or this year. But you will upgrade your
computer. And you will use better applications. And they will be OS/2
applications in the IBM PC/compatible market.
> Also as this IBM rep pointed out to me, OS/2 is not nearly as SEXY
>an windows is.
The (wo)man was a mediocre retread.
> (Debatable!) Ultimately OS/2 must get wide acceptance in
>short order or I'm going to spend my $50 on Win 3.1.
>
Go right ahead! Waste your money! You'll be just as bitchy as you are now,
and more so when you realize that your $50 could have been (down)payment on a
more stable system. And I'll be quite happy watching you grumble and moan as
you fork over your cash to IBM, to rectify YOUR mistake!
---
Racists think the world is flat. [Ralph Alves, 1992] Ju...@Noyles.pha.pa.us
Timothy F. Sipples
>Somewhere along the line, this turned into a bitch session. A perfect way to
>tell is when people start saying irrational things, like our friend David here.
People, please! :-)
The original complaint was not about the capabilities of OS/2 2.0. I
think the only point was the price. Which is a fair point.
Juan is quite right that OS/2 2.0 was "selling" for $49.95 in the
United States (if you followed my advice; too late now since National
Computer Resource has sold out). (Extended Edition is still selling
for $99 -- with free upgrade to OS/2 2.0 with Extended Services/2 1.0
-- in the United States from Advanced Computer Products, telephone
800-FONE-ACP.)
However, THE FINAL PRICING ON OS/2 2.0 HAS NOT YET BEEN SET. Can we
wait until this Tuesday (with the formal announcement) to see what IBM
sets the price to be? Then we can debate the merits of their
decision.
To paraphrase Mr. Serrat, however, it costs IBM $20 per copy in
Microsoft royalties and $30 per copy to manufacture. Additionally, he
adds, IBM will initially sell OS/2 2.0 itself at a loss.
Anyone care to do the math here? :-)
Dru Nelson
Hello,
>The "general" public will not buy OS/2 if it is too expensive, and then all
>the programmers of the world can write programs for this amazing OS, but
>there wont be anybody to buy those great programs. Programmers and
>knowledgeable people will buy OS/2 for the set price because they know
>they are buying value, but normal, everyday people will not, and then
>OS/2 will NOT make it.
>Christian
Who knows what "NORMAL" people will run. I just know of 4 friends,
each in different businesses, who have been approached by IBM with OS/2.
One of these is a Fortune 500 Corporation. ALL are getting 2.0.
I don't claim to know a thing about marketing, but I do know that
when businesses buy your software, they usually buy a lot. I believe
that it is business that provides the most revenue and will cause
OS/2 to make it.
Charles Kincy
>the programmers of the world can write programs for this amazing OS, but
>there wont be anybody to buy those great programs. Programmers and
>knowledgeable people will buy OS/2 for the set price because they know
>they are buying value, but normal, everyday people will not, and then
>OS/2 will NOT make it.
This is a poor attitude, and likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy
if people in-the-know don't help support OS/2. Obviously, you are not
in the know, or you wouldn't have this attitude. =)
GET A WORKING COPY OF OS/2 AND VIEW IT FOR YOURSELF WITHOUT DELAY!! =)
Besides, most ppl will still develop Windows apps, because they have
such a monster install-base, no bones about it. However, since, by
comparison, OS/2 apps require minimal development effort, no one has
anything to lose by developing both. Furthermore, what do you have to
lose by purchasing OS/2? Nothing, because it will run Windows apps.
(Except those apps by certain vendors that start with M that write
code segments to detect the presence of OS/2 and abort...but we're
not mentioning any names....)
CPK
Timothy F. Sipples
> Who knows what "NORMAL" people will run. I just know of 4 friends,
> each in different businesses, who have been approached by IBM with OS/2.
> One of these is a Fortune 500 Corporation. ALL are getting 2.0.
> I don't claim to know a thing about marketing, but I do know that
> when businesses buy your software, they usually buy a lot. I believe
> that it is business that provides the most revenue and will cause
> OS/2 to make it.
I just want to echo this point. It seems IBM is starting to really
get going with OS/2 2.0, and they're already meeting with quite a
receptive audience in medium to large companies.
John Bodnar
> For Example: Lets say IBM or some company decides to build a FAX
> receiver. OS/2 has defined multi-tasking, windowing, and port control.
> It wouldn't be too difficult to build a little program similar
> to the print manager that receives FAX documents and stores them
> in compressed files. A user could then notice a difference in
> the icon and check for FAX's received. I would also bet that such
> a thing in Windows would seriously affect the performance of Windows
> 3.X/DOS 5.0 and difficult under the many different window managers
> of X windows.
Not really. My office has a 33MHz 386 running Windows with Alien Computing's
FAXit software, and when a fax arrives, you here the connect tone from the
modem and it starts receiving. There are no noticeable performance hits.
Sending is a different story since it takes longer to send depending on the
complexity of the document. Printing is hell, though, on our HP IIID with
the HP Postscript cartridge. The damn thing just can't handle bitmaps. If
we shift the IIID to HP mode, things print much more quickly. Ultimately,
though, I would suspect that how well your machine responds with a FAX card
is a function of software. In this respect, FAXit is excellent, though I
can't really vouch for other FAX software.
--
John Bodnar Internet: jbo...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
The University of Texas at Austin UUCP: ....!cs.utexas!ut-ccwf!jbodnar
>> Toscanini on the Inexplicable: "I say is possible one day I am stupid." <<
Bert Moshier
>vand...@qucis.queensu.ca (Christian Vandendorpe) writes:
>
> For Example: Lets say IBM or some company decides to build a FAX
> receiver. OS/2 has defined multi-tasking, windowing, and port control.
> It wouldn't be too difficult to build a little program similar
> to the print manager that receives FAX documents and stores them
> in compressed files. A user could then notice a difference in
> the icon and check for FAX's received. I would also bet that such
> a thing in Windows would seriously affect the performance of Windows
> 3.X/DOS 5.0 and difficult under the many different window managers
> of X windows.
>
BTW, FAX/PM allows my L40SX running OS/2 2.0 (6.304e) to recieve a fax while
I am working.
Bert Moshier
Bert Moshier
How about with every copy of OS/2, IBM gives you a share of IBM stock?
Bert Moshier