Will Zachmann drops OS/2 ??
James_Schmidt
I try not to to be a prognosticator(sp?) of doom but
over on Compuserve Will Zachmann (historically one of the
most pro OS/2 people in the press) in response to the following:
> Many at Microsoft don't believe there is $1 billion to be made
> with OS/2. That's the reason the company has devoted its
> investments elsewhere.
Replied:
Having just returned from a two day conference with IBM's top executives, it
is now clear to me beyond any reasonable doubt that none of them believe it,
either. I was clearly wrong in thinking that Bill Gates made a mistake by
walking away from IBM and from OS/2. Bill was right and I was wrong. Maybe
that's why he's got more spending money than I do now. <g>
<end quote>
IMHO this is a significant statement and change of position relative to OS/2,
IBM and Microsoft by a major OS/2 proponent. ;-(
Don't shoot the messenger. ;-)
James
Jim Lang
Bang.
Hey, I may sound like an Amiga freak, but I still think that OS/2 is the best OS around.
No, I can't compare, feature for feature, with Win31 or Win95. I can say that i...
Wait. Who cares? What OS do you use? Do I care that my school is switching
from Unix to NT? or that Win31 and Win95 can be found on every one of their
machines? Well, sort of. I had to tell one instructor that I would give him a
16-bit Windows version or 32-bit OS/2 version of an assignment, but that I
_would_not_ install Win95 or NT just to write _one_ 32-bit program. He took the
16-bit windows version (with win32s calls).
So if Will Zachmann drops OS/2, fine. I know what I'm running now, and what I
will be running in September. And next year.
Jim Lang
Student (ALWAYS!)
Mathematician (SOON!)
Team-OS/2
#include standard_disclaimer.h
gre...@concentric.net
I concure !
In the approximatly 20 years that I have been running personal computers
I have run several opperating systems: CP/M, OS/9, SK-DOS, DR-DOS,
and Now OS/2. Change is the only constant. I use OS/2 now, I
expect to use OS/2 for several more years. But if or when OS/2 dies
(and I hope it prospers), I will move on to somthing else. Right now
I will use what I feel is the best OS for me right now. I'm not
using OS/2 to make a statement. I'm using it because I like it.
David A. Spake
(James_Schmidt) (schm...@mcs.net) wrote:
<SNIP>
:
: Having just returned from a two day conference with IBM's top executives, it
: is now clear to me beyond any reasonable doubt that none of them believe it,
: either. I was clearly wrong in thinking that Bill Gates made a mistake by
: walking away from IBM and from OS/2. Bill was right and I was wrong. Maybe
: that's why he's got more spending money than I do now. <g>
:
: <end quote>
:
: IMHO this is a significant statement and change of position relative to OS/2,
: IBM and Microsoft by a major OS/2 proponent. ;-(
:
: Don't shoot the messenger. ;-)
:
: James
James,
A lot of long time OS/2 users are getting nervious. IBM keeps back-
sliding on shipping dates for SS/2, and the merlin Beta just wasn't
up to snuff. Not to mention the 'evolution' argument that OS/2
only evolved from Warp and that it doesn't have all that much new
power in it. I mean along the lines of AIQ, or basic utilities like
INI cleaners or DPMS support.
A lot of us see Merlin as the last chance of OS/2. I say that because
given the chance, M$ will have NT on EVERY desktop in two years. Not
just corporate. And although IBM has a great chance with Merlin, we have
seen just how lousy they are at making thier point with OS/2. I mean
hell... they can't even get Lotus to support OpenDoc, much less make
thier consumer hardware division support OS/2.
Bitch at me if you will, but we all know M$ will get NT on
the home users PC in the next two years whether they want it or not.
It's either now or never.
Dave
-----------------------------------------------------------
You have received these words of wisdom from
David A Spake
completely free of charge!
http://www.dialnet.net/~tsm
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moving ahead at Warp Speed
Member Team OS/2
-----------------------------------------------------------
pkre...@op.net
In <4uk96q$4...@news.dialnet.net>, t...@dialnet.net (David A. Spake) writes:
>James,
>
> A lot of long time OS/2 users are getting nervious.
And many more are, like myself, have never been more optimistic
about OS/2's chances.
IBM keeps back-
>sliding on shipping dates for SS/2, and the merlin Beta just wasn't
>up to snuff.
Wring, wrong wrong. Merlin has that sex appeal to attract wider
usage that prior versions just didn't have. Primarily VTD and
integrated Java support.
Not to mention the 'evolution' argument that OS/2
>only evolved from Warp and that it doesn't have all that much new
>power in it. I mean along the lines of AIQ, or basic utilities like
>INI cleaners or DPMS support.
>
> A lot of us see Merlin as the last chance of OS/2.
I don't, IBM doesn't (see John W. Thompson in PCWEEK)
I say that because
>given the chance, M$ will have NT on EVERY desktop in two years. Not
>just corporate. And although IBM has a great chance with Merlin, we have
>seen just how lousy they are at making thier point with OS/2. I mean
>hell... they can't even get Lotus to support OpenDoc, much less make
>thier consumer hardware division support OS/2.
>
> Bitch at me if you will, but we all know M$ will get NT on
>the home users PC in the next two years whether they want it or not.
>It's either now or never.
>
>
>Dave
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
> You have received these words of wisdom from
> David A Spake
> completely free of charge!
> http://www.dialnet.net/~tsm
>-----------------------------------------------------------
> Moving ahead at Warp Speed
> Member Team OS/2
>-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Reilly
pkre...@op.net
Using OS/2 Warp, NR/2
David A. Spake
pkre...@op.net wrote:
: In <4uk96q$4...@news.dialnet.net>, t...@dialnet.net (David A. Spake) writes:
: >James,
: >
: > A lot of long time OS/2 users are getting nervious.
:
: And many more are, like myself, have never been more optimistic
: about OS/2's chances.
I wish I did. I really do. However, Merlin is so far behind in
basic OS fixes that it isn't funny. And IBM has had 2 years from Warp
to get some of these things straightened out! That's what so many of us
mad at. Merlin is something that could easily have come out a
year ago. 2 years for this?!?? Please.
: > IBM keeps back-
: >sliding on shipping dates for SS/2, and the merlin Beta just wasn't
: >up to snuff.
: Wring, wrong wrong. Merlin has that sex appeal to attract wider
: usage that prior versions just didn't have. Primarily VTD and
: integrated Java support.
Wrong on what? Lotus 1-2-3 for OS/2 will be "1st half of 96". That's
from JWT himself. and we have all seen how often WordPro/2 has been
backdated. Hell... we'll be lucky to see the entire SS/2 by NEXT
christmas. AFIK, Approach hasn't even been _started_ on yet.
: > Not to mention the 'evolution' argument that OS/2
: >only evolved from Warp and that it doesn't have all that much new
: >power in it. I mean along the lines of AIQ, or basic utilities like
: >INI cleaners or DPMS support.
: >
: > A lot of us see Merlin as the last chance of OS/2.
:
: I don't, IBM doesn't (see John W. Thompson in PCWEEK)
Yea, right. As if IBM will come out and say "well, OS/2 is over. But
we want you to buy the new version anyway". Please.
Christopher Robato
In message <4uhth7$l...@Nntp1.mcs.net> - <schm...@mcs.net>
(James_Schmidt)10 Aug 1996 11:58:31 GMT writes:
:>
:>I try not to to be a prognosticator(sp?) of doom but
:>over on Compuserve Will Zachmann (historically one of the
:>most pro OS/2 people in the press) in response to the following:
:>
:> > Many at Microsoft don't believe there is $1 billion to be made
:> > with OS/2. That's the reason the company has devoted its
:> > investments elsewhere.
:>
:>Replied:
:>Having just returned from a two day conference with IBM's top executives, it
:>is now clear to me beyond any reasonable doubt that none of them believe it,
:>either. I was clearly wrong in thinking that Bill Gates made a mistake by
:>walking away from IBM and from OS/2. Bill was right and I was wrong. Maybe
:>that's why he's got more spending money than I do now. <g>
:>
:><end quote>
:>
:>IMHO this is a significant statement and change of position relative to OS/2,
:>IBM and Microsoft by a major OS/2 proponent. ;-(
:>
:>Don't shoot the messenger. ;-)
:>
:>James
:>
No flames to you James. Just only my comments and opinions to the
situation.
First of all, I never bought OS/2 because of IBM support. I
always thought IBM's support on OS/2 sucked since day one. Did it
take until now for Zachmann to realize that? Yet I still bought
OS/2 anyway.
Why?
Because of it's inherent qualities. Nothing fits me at the moment
than OS/2. It presents a *balance* of compatibility, reliability,
technology, and performance that for me, Windows 95 and NT has not
yet achieved. We all know the reasons for that without me
repeating it once again. It's like Linux, except that it's got a
plus in the form of fractional support from the world's biggest
company. Sometimes, however, I think they should just turn over
OS/2 to the public domain just as John Dvorak suggested.
So long it fits me best, and others do not, OS/2 sits.
Do you need the entire IBM corporation's ethusiastic support for a
product to be successful? History says not. It's not up for the
IBM board to say it's going to be successful or not. It's up to
the USERs themselves. You only need to go to a user group meeting
to see where the real heart of OS/2 is. Sometimes, it's often the
product that the entire IBM group is enthused that turns out to be
a dramatic failure.
One case is the original PC itself. It never really had
widespread corporate support from the beginning. The parts of the
entire design was sourced outside, because the reality is, it's
easy to source parts for a low budget lack-of-big-support project
like the PC outside of IBM than within and through IBM. That's
why if you read my other post, my local IBM office gets wires from
AT&T and not through formal IBM channels. The final product turns
out to be so un-IBM, at least for the standards of the day. If it
really had genuine IBM support, the PC might have been based on
System 3 mini-architecture, just as the first real desktop micros
IBM ever made, the 5100, 5110 and System 23 Datamaster. It would
have been shades in the line of that unsuccessful, but cultish, TI
home computer, which uses a microprocessor version of its TI 900
mini architecture. The PC would also have been closed, very
closed in terms of architecture.
And when IBM get its entire corporation support on one product,
what happened? The PCjr truly had corporate backing, and so did
the PS/2, returning to closed, crippled solution which forces you
to look for upgrades in increments.
And it's not just the PC itself. This was the situation faced by
the RS/6000 AIX group, which has practically grown to an
autonomous company within IBM itself for the way they run things.
They have a different culture and marketing viewpoint contrary to
the rest of the IBM group. That's why their SPs compete with IBM
S/390s, their servers with AS/400s, their PowerPC is in odds with
the PC group, and their AIX competes with every other IBM OS.
The AS/400 is another cinderalla story. IBM spent billions and a
huge organization to come up with a killer mini that would succeed
the successful System 36, and unify it with the much more powerful
and architecturally advanced System 38. The AS/400 however wasn't
that product; whatever that is, it never got off the ground.
Instead, in a real life legend that beats Tracy Kidder's Soul of a
New Machine, five engineers went to the backroom and designed the
alternative. This dark horse project never had the full corporate
support for years and years, and yet, the AS/400 as it came out,
has been called among other titles, the world's most successful
business computer, the world's most successful midrange computer,
and the computer that saved IBM. And even now, it still never had
that full corporate support, thanks to internal competition with
other IBM groups like the mainframe, the RS/6000, and even the PC
groups, where NT threatens this line.
So what does these products and parables all have in common? Lack
of corporate support but got plenty of customer support. So it's
really up to the end user to make OS/2 successful.
Rgds,
Chris
>>>>** Sailor Moon Joins Team OS/2 **<<<<
FUD covers the city, turning millions into lemmings.
Serena and riends raise their shiny Warp CD ROMs.
"OS/2 Warp Power, Make Up!" The Sailor Team OS/2 girls
crash into the Red Moon palace. With moonlight beaming behind
their silhouettes, Sailor Moon threatens the evil
Queen Beryl Gates and the diabolical Windowsverse forces,
"In the name of I-B-Moon, I shall right FUD and that means you!"
[[[ cro...@kuentos.guam.net ]]]
pkre...@op.net
In <4ulql4$s...@news.dialnet.net>, t...@dialnet.net (David A. Spake) writes:
>pkre...@op.net wrote:
>: In <4uk96q$4...@news.dialnet.net>, t...@dialnet.net (David A. Spake) writes:
>: >James,
>: >
>: > A lot of long time OS/2 users are getting nervious.
>:
>: And many more are, like myself, have never been more optimistic
>: about OS/2's chances.
>
> I wish I did. I really do. However, Merlin is so far behind in
>basic OS fixes that it isn't funny. And IBM has had 2 years from Warp
>to get some of these things straightened out! That's what so many of us
>mad at. Merlin is something that could easily have come out a
>year ago. 2 years for this?!?? Please.
>
>
>: > IBM keeps back-
>: >sliding on shipping dates for SS/2, and the merlin Beta just wasn't
>: >up to snuff.
>: Wring, wrong wrong. Merlin has that sex appeal to attract wider
>: usage that prior versions just didn't have. Primarily VTD and
>: integrated Java support.
>
> Wrong on what? Lotus 1-2-3 for OS/2 will be "1st half of 96". That's
>from JWT himself.
What does this have to do with Merlin. The original poster said
Merlin wasn't up to snuff. I am a beta tester and I have been very
happy with it. What does smartsuite have ANYTHING to do with Merlin?
and we have all seen how often WordPro/2 has been
>backdated. Hell... we'll be lucky to see the entire SS/2 by NEXT
>christmas. AFIK, Approach hasn't even been _started_ on yet.
>
>
>: > Not to mention the 'evolution' argument that OS/2
>: >only evolved from Warp and that it doesn't have all that much new
>: >power in it. I mean along the lines of AIQ, or basic utilities like
>: >INI cleaners or DPMS support.
>: >
>: > A lot of us see Merlin as the last chance of OS/2.
>:
>: I don't, IBM doesn't (see John W. Thompson in PCWEEK)
>
> Yea, right. As if IBM will come out and say "well, OS/2 is over. But
>we want you to buy the new version anyway". Please.
>
>Dave
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
> You have received these words of wisdom from
> David A Spake
> completely free of charge!
> http://www.dialnet.net/~tsm
>-----------------------------------------------------------
> Moving ahead at Warp Speed
> Member Team OS/2
>-----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Spake
pkre...@op.net wrote:
: In <4ulql4$s...@news.dialnet.net>, t...@dialnet.net (David A. Spake) writes:
: >
: >: > IBM keeps back-
: >: >sliding on shipping dates for SS/2, and the merlin Beta just wasn't
: >: >up to snuff.
: >: Wring, wrong wrong. Merlin has that sex appeal to attract wider
: >: usage that prior versions just didn't have. Primarily VTD and
: >: integrated Java support.
: >
: > Wrong on what? Lotus 1-2-3 for OS/2 will be "1st half of 96". That's
: >from JWT himself.
:
: What does this have to do with Merlin. The original poster said
: Merlin wasn't up to snuff. I am a beta tester and I have been very
: happy with it. What does smartsuite have ANYTHING to do with Merlin?
What I was attempting to say was that Merlin is far from having that
'sex appeal' you keep saying it has. What it has is (or at least everything
I've seen in the beta) is a brushed-up Warp interface.
It might have all the power in the world, but if people look at it and
say "yuck" or "god this is hard to use", all the VT in the world won't
save it.
Steve Behman
>I try not to to be a prognosticator(sp?) of doom but
>over on Compuserve Will Zachmann (historically one of the
>most pro OS/2 people in the press) in response to the following:
>
> > Many at Microsoft don't believe there is $1 billion to be made
> > with OS/2. That's the reason the company has devoted its
> > investments elsewhere.
>
>Replied:
>
>Having just returned from a two day conference with IBM's top executives, it
>is now clear to me beyond any reasonable doubt that none of them believe it,
>either. I was clearly wrong in thinking that Bill Gates made a mistake by
>walking away from IBM and from OS/2. Bill was right and I was wrong. Maybe
>that's why he's got more spending money than I do now. <g>
>
><end quote>
>
>IMHO this is a significant statement and change of position relative to OS/2,
>IBM and Microsoft by a major OS/2 proponent. ;-(
>
In support of Will Zachmann's assertion of the ultimate demise of OS/2
the following are my reasons to CEASE Development of Products for OS/2.
OS/2 and NT are BOTH very poorly documented. When you wonder off of the
'beaten path' in either Opsys the vendor provided documentation is
woefully inadequate.
Both the OS/2 and the NT 'developer communities' are extremely generous
and willingly share expertise with others but: The NT community is VERY
MUCH LARGER than is the OS/2 community (at least 10x) and much more has
been written about NT and many more of the 'dark places' have been
probed -- the *SWEET SPOT* (the portions of the Opsys where there is
enough known about the APIs and their side effects to make coding a
reasonable enterprise) is much larger for NT.
Until recently IBM was helpful to developers by providing support for
their adventures beyond the commonplace. A recent change in IBM's
policy transferring that support to a fairly stiff fee based program has
left me (and others) in a bad place. I do not mind paying to get
information in those cases where the vendor has provided me with
adequate information to bail myself out of problems and I am just UNABLE
to use it -- but now they will charge me to fix problems of their
making (bugs, omissions, etc.). I FIND THIS INTOLERABLE!
It is *NOT* because Microsoft is any better, they are not. It is just
very much easier to use their products because of their superior market
position and, concommitantly, the help that you can get from non-MS
sources (quickly and cheaply.)
Is OS/2 dead? Not yet, but with IBM's lack of support for those of us
who (will) make it a real 'Application Platform' (as opposed to a nifty
desktop) it will die. *When you are not #1 you must try harder* IBM
seems to be manifestly unwilling to continue to do so.
For my own company I have (tentatively) decided to use NT as the base
of my next product and am now trying to evaluate how difficult it will
be to convert my current applications (and customers) to the NT
platform. If the latter task is daunting I may be forced to support
OS/2 for some time to come but will only do so reluctantly.
Am I alone? Do any of you folks share my apprehension?
Steve Behman
<s...@pacbell.net>
Joe Kesselman
In <4unop0$o...@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net>, s...@pacbell.net@ (Steve Behman) writes:
>to use it -- but now they will charge me to fix problems of their
>making (bugs, omissions, etc.). I FIND THIS INTOLERABLE!
Nope. If the problem resolves as a genuine OS/2 bug, there's
still no charge for the support.
Note too that there's no charge for electronic support (Usenet,
Prodigy, Compuserve, etc), though admittedly the staff who
are providing advice via these channels are a bit overloaded.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph J. Kesselman http://pages.prodigy.com/keshlam/
"This note is a production of Novalabs Consulting, which is solely
responsible for its content. Opinions not necessarily those of IBM."
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
Also sprach someone quoted by pkre...@op.net (<4ukjjd$5...@picasso.op.net>):
(sorry, I seem to have missed the original...)
+-----
| I say that because
| >given the chance, M$ will have NT on EVERY desktop in two years. Not
If M$ tries to foist NT off on the game-playing home market they'll be laughed
out of it. All reports I've heard say that NT can't play most Win95 games *at
all* --- not "too slow", but "can't start". Win95 games still play directly
with hardware for speed, and NT forbids that.
This is the primary reason that M$ keeps backing off on its claims of wanting
to move the home market to NT. The game ISVs won't hear of it, and they are
a large part of what drives the home/retail computer market.
--
++brandon s. allbery flying with merlin! b...@kf8nh.apk.net
telotech's "loup-guru" :-) FORZA CREW! b...@telotech.com
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
Also sprach t...@dialnet.net (David A. Spake) (<4uk96q$4...@news.dialnet.net>):
+-----
| A lot of long time OS/2 users are getting nervious. IBM keeps back-
| sliding on shipping dates for SS/2, and the merlin Beta just wasn't
| only evolved from Warp and that it doesn't have all that much new
| power in it. I mean along the lines of AIQ, or basic utilities like
| INI cleaners or DPMS support.
No, but today I had *one* major change rubbed in my face that is easy to miss:
having recently switched back to Connect (weird suspend/resume problem on my
Dell laptop) I just had a WPS hang earlier today that required a CAD to
recover, from trying to open an application.
I haven't had one of those since... since I loaded the Merlin beta. I've had
a few hangs, but under not of the out-of-the-blue sort I have always gotten
from Warp.
They may not have gotten as fancy or as technodweeby as you might like, but
somewhere in there Merlin is a heck of a lot SOLIDER than Warp has ever been
for me. If letting the UI slip a little is the price to pay for a *solid* WPS,
I'll pay it.
As for the "they've had two years" argument: based on what I have seen, no they
really haven't. OS/2 seems to have been managed by someone who would prefer to
kill it, until he was ousted and JWT put in charge. I suspect that what we are
seeing has all happened since JWT took over...
| hell... they can't even get Lotus to support OpenDoc, much less make
+--->8
Have you *used* OpenDoc? It needs work. A LOT of work. I don't blame Lotus
for that decision; whoever did the OpenDoc port to OS/2 should be fired and a
new team brought in to do it right.
I'm sorry if that hurts you (generic you, referring to many people in the OS/2
newsgroups...) in your fanatical heart, but a bottom-feeder like OpenDoc for
OS/2 as it currently exists does *nobody* any good --- nobody, that is, except
Microsoft.
Steven C. Den Beste
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH <b...@kf8nh.apk.net> wrote in article
<4uojvf$3...@kf8nh.apk.net>...
> Also sprach someone quoted by pkre...@op.net
(<4ukjjd$5...@picasso.op.net>):
> (sorry, I seem to have missed the original...)
> +-----
> | I say that because
> | >given the chance, M$ will have NT on EVERY desktop in two years. Not
> +--->8
>
> If M$ tries to foist NT off on the game-playing home market they'll be
laughed
> out of it. All reports I've heard say that NT can't play most Win95
games *at
> all* --- not "too slow", but "can't start". Win95 games still play
directly
> with hardware for speed, and NT forbids that.
>
> This is the primary reason that M$ keeps backing off on its claims of
wanting
> to move the home market to NT. The game ISVs won't hear of it, and they
are
> a large part of what drives the home/retail computer market.
NT 3.51 cannot play Win 95 native games.
NT 4 implements DirectDraw and DirectSound. The rest of DirectX 1 will be
available
on it in a few months, with DirextX 2 coming later.
--
Nntp-Posting-Host: world.std.com
Message-ID: <31F4D4...@world.std.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 09:34:02 -0400
From: Steven Den Beste <denb...@world.std.com>
kiy...@kiyoinc.com
>the following are my reasons to CEASE Development of Products for OS/2.
>
>OS/2 and NT are BOTH very poorly documented. When you wonder off of the
>'beaten path' in either Opsys the vendor provided documentation is
>woefully inadequate.
>
that the operating system internals are generally poorly documented. I
have rather high expectations of that, my standard is the pubs like
IBM's MVS guide, MVS transistion notebook, the MVS release guides, Job
Management, etc.; the operating system source code; the DSECTs that map
the system control blocks, IHADCB, TCB, ECB, ASCB, TSCB; the stuff that
doesn't exist for toy operating systems like WNT from wannabe systems
houses like M$.
>Both the OS/2 and the NT 'developer communities' are extremely generous
>and willingly share expertise with others but: The NT community is VERY
>MUCH LARGER than is the OS/2 community (at least 10x) and much more has
>been written about NT and many more of the 'dark places' have been
>probed -- the *SWEET SPOT* (the portions of the Opsys where there is
>enough known about the APIs and their side effects to make coding a
>reasonable enterprise) is much larger for NT.
>
There's that Opsys thing again. Is that a M$ term?
Unless you're writing a JES3 or TSO replacement, you don't need access
to systems internals. I'm sure you can get it if you have a product
that works against the base OS; that's what a NDA (non disclosure
agreement) is for.
>Until recently IBM was helpful to developers by providing support for
>their adventures beyond the commonplace. A recent change in IBM's
>policy transferring that support to a fairly stiff fee based program has
>left me (and others) in a bad place. I do not mind paying to get
>information in those cases where the vendor has provided me with
>adequate information to bail myself out of problems and I am just UNABLE
>to use it -- but now they will charge me to fix problems of their
>making (bugs, omissions, etc.). I FIND THIS INTOLERABLE!
>
Absolutely, it is intolerable; pound on them. One way to do that is to
document the incidents. What internal feature are you exploiting? How
is the core OS broken? What and when did you report it to IBM level
2/3? What and when did level 2/3 respond?
>It is *NOT* because Microsoft is any better, they are not. It is just
>very much easier to use their products because of their superior market
>position and, concommitantly, the help that you can get from non-MS
>sources (quickly and cheaply.)
>
I don't find that the M$ ISV base is particularly helpful or
widespread. I see a lot of M$ solution providers running around but they
tend to be scammers, fakes, and computer-geek wannabes looking to make a
quick buck.
>Is OS/2 dead? Not yet, but with IBM's lack of support for those of us
>who (will) make it a real 'Application Platform' (as opposed to a nifty
>desktop) it will die. *When you are not #1 you must try harder* IBM
>seems to be manifestly unwilling to continue to do so.
>
The problem in this case is IBM *is* number one and is still asleep at
the switch. There are lots of first rate people at IBM but there are
lots of second tier people there too. There's a whole useless middle
management clogging IBM's arteries.
Here are the external symptoms.... we've all been waiting and watching
for Smartsuite for OS/2, a rev of cc:Mail, OO Rexx, Net Rexx, WE,
etc. Where are they? Internal to IBM, there's a management layer
that's gumming up the works. "Let's talk about the Quality Committee
minutes from the last 18 meetings?", "I'd like a new desk."
You think Stardock, Describe, STS, SPG are amazing. They are just
real-world players who are doing real work, who don't spend their time
playing office politics, who have at least a half a brain, and now and
then, a clue.
>For my own company I have (tentatively) decided to use NT as the base
>of my next product and am now trying to evaluate how difficult it will
>be to convert my current applications (and customers) to the NT
>platform. If the latter task is daunting I may be forced to support
>OS/2 for some time to come but will only do so reluctantly.
>
>Am I alone? Do any of you folks share my apprehension?
>
Steve, what kind of product are you building? The OS/2 market is 10
times larger than WNT.
I am building a native OS/2 product; It could be done on WNT but
wouldn't sell as well as an OS/2 product.
>
>Steve Behman
><s...@pacbell.net>
>
There are lots of OS/2 products to be built, lots of products that
would make you a multimillionaire in a year or two.
REDWOOD for OS/2 is at Version 0.1
Cory Hamasaki Kiyo Design, Inc. http://www.kiyoinc.com
11 Annapolis St. OS/2 Web Store.
Annapolis, Md 21401 (410) 280-1942
Dave Tholen
David A. Spake spake:
> pkre...@op.net wrote:
>> David A. Spake writes:
> However, Merlin is so far behind in basic OS fixes that it isn't funny.
How can something be behind in fixes when it hasn't even been released
yet? Illogical.
> And IBM has had 2 years from Warp
> to get some of these things straightened out!
So what? Microsoft had many more years to fix things in their compilers
that never got fixed.
> Merlin is something that could easily have come out a year ago.
Illogical. IBM has been averaging about 15 months between OS/2 releases.
A year ago would have been only 9-10 months after the release of Warp.
>>> A lot of us see Merlin as the last chance of OS/2.
>> I don't, IBM doesn't (see John W. Thompson in PCWEEK)
> Yea, right. As if IBM will come out and say "well, OS/2 is over. But
> we want you to buy the new version anyway". Please.
Yea right. As if IBM would go through the trouble of doing another
release if it were really over. Please.
Dave Tholen
Steve Behman writes:
> Am I alone? Do any of you folks share my apprehension?
Not your same apprehensions. To be fair, however, you should mention
some apprehensions about developing for Windows.
Steven C. Den Beste
Dave Tholen <tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu> wrote in article
<Dw203...@news.hawaii.edu>...
I don't understand why this might be.
He's describing his own feelings. He's not under obligation to have any
feelings about windows at all. Maybe he doesn't care about Windows.
If someone expresses apprehensions about Cadillac, are they obligated to
express similar apprehensions about Toyota, Chevrolet, Ford, Volvo whether
they actually have them or not?
If someone expresses apprehensions about OS/2, are they obligated to
express similar apprehensions about Windows whether they have them or not?
(Why do I have the apprehension that the answer will come back "Yes"?)
Joe Kesselman
In <4upoog$g...@ari.ari.net>, kiy...@kiyoinc.com writes:
>Opsys? Hmmm, I've never heard anyone call an OS an Opsys.
OS=Operating System=OpSys=Opsys. Not uncommon terminology.
All these terms are somewhat debased by abuse. DOS is not an operating
system in the proper sense. Nor is DOS+Windows, for that matter.
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
Also sprach tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) (<Dw203...@news.hawaii.edu>):
+-----
| Steve Behman writes:
| > Am I alone? Do any of you folks share my apprehension?
|
| Not your same apprehensions. To be fair, however, you should mention
| some apprehensions about developing for Windows.
IBM's apparent unwillingness to support ISVs has always been worrisome to me.
Other things are *not* worrisome; it looks to me like JWT is trying to bring
OS/2 back from the precipice its former custodian tried to push it over.
That will take time.
Having had the chance to use, play with, and crash NT Beta2, I'm not impressed.
Neither will M$'s target market be, if the kinds of problems we encountered
made it into the GA version (and the Beta2 seemed awfully short to me...).
While I think the *best* possible future for OS/2 would come from someone
buying it (along with its developers and possibly JWT) from IBM and putting
it into a nurturing environment instead of the cauldron it's now in (IBM has
long reminded me of ex-Yugoslavia...) --- VM and the RS/6000 survived a
hostile environment within IBM, and with a strong leader OS/2 can as well.
If "Merlin" consists solely of everything accomplished since JWT took over
--- as seems likely to me --- then it is a promise of a brighter future.
(Would anyone at IBM ever acknowledge the above? I doubt it... sometimes
it seems one has to play 20 Questions with them to find out what they're
*really* up to. And you can be certain that reporters looking for sound
bites won't do so. I've never seen a company with such a huge communication
problem...!)
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
(Yes, quoting myself again...)
Also sprach b...@kf8nh.apk.net (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH) (<4uojvf$3...@kf8nh.apk.net>):
+-----
| If M$ tries to foist NT off on the game-playing home market they'll be laughed
| out of it. All reports I've heard say that NT can't play most Win95 games *at
| all* --- not "too slow", but "can't start". Win95 games still play directly
| with hardware for speed, and NT forbids that.
+--->8
Yeah, I know, "game API". Win95 only, folks. Not NT, not expected any time
soon. And by the time it hits NT, Win95's successor will have something
else... and likely it will *still* require getting closer to the hardware
than NT permits (rightly so).
David A. Spake
Dave Tholen (tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu) wrote:
: > David A. Spake spake:
: > However, Merlin is so far behind in basic OS fixes that it isn't funny.
:
: How can something be behind in fixes when it hasn't even been released
: yet? Illogical.
Fine. If Merlin has 1/4 of the things users have been crying for these
last 2-4 years, then fine. I'll be glad to eat a hardcopy of the
letter. However, IBM has shown that Merlin is not Revolutionary. It
is a pathetic, plodding step that was doomed a year ago to fail to get
users interested in it.
Face it. Without VT, Merlin wouldn't even appear on the screens
of users accros the computer universe.
: > And IBM has had 2 years from Warp
: > to get some of these things straightened out!
:
: So what? Microsoft had many more years to fix things in their compilers
: that never got fixed.
Oh, I C. So now we are trying to emulate M$ now? So that means
that if M$ screws up, IBM is allowed to do that as well?
HA! IBM has little to no leway with OS/2. Either it flies or it falls
off the face of the planet. If Merlin doesn't raise eyebrows and
get people involved in the OS, then you can write off all the non
corporate users of OS/2. Oh certainly there will be a few
die-hards that will use it, but they will be just like those
pathetic bastards are over in the Amiga crowd. Procaiming how
the OS isn't "dead", and "how superior" it is to everything else.
I mean good god. IBM is having to force Lotus to write for OS/2.
What can that mean for any other ISV? There will always be one or
two companies that live off the droppings very well. Stardock
has done this perfectly. They ARE the OS/2 ISV market. Nobody
else has even come out with a product that sold 1/4 of the numbers
that Stardock has accomplished.
: > Merlin is something that could easily have come out a year ago.
:
: Illogical. IBM has been averaging about 15 months between OS/2 releases.
: A year ago would have been only 9-10 months after the release of Warp.
Sure can't tell that they'v had two years to write Merlin. The UI is
pathetic. All it is is Warp with a few new icons. WC was a basic
recompile. I could list 200 more lines of things that they didn't
care to include in Warp. Simple, basic things that only a company
like IBM could overlook.
It doesn't matter that the WPS blows all the other UI's away. It
is an eyesore. Not only is it bland and industrial looking, the saddest
thing is that IBM could with NO effort make the damn thing look
like a winner. But no. They don't see it that way. Thier cash
cows (the corporate accountes) aren't clamoring for it. 9 will get
you 10 that every improvement to Merlin was done for the sole purpose
of appeasing the corporate accounts.
: > Yea, right. As if IBM will come out and say "well, OS/2 is over. But
: > we want you to buy the new version anyway". Please.
:
: Yea right. As if IBM would go through the trouble of doing another
: release if it were really over. Please.
Yes they would. Just to support their existing corporate base. You
know it as well as I do.
Dave
pkre...@op.net
In <4urali$u...@news.dialnet.net>, t...@dialnet.net (David A. Spake) writes:
>Dave Tholen (tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu) wrote:
>: > David A. Spake spake:
>
>
>: > However, Merlin is so far behind in basic OS fixes that it isn't funny.
>:
>: How can something be behind in fixes when it hasn't even been released
>: yet? Illogical.
>
>Fine. If Merlin has 1/4 of the things users have been crying for these
>last 2-4 years, then fine. I'll be glad to eat a hardcopy of the
>letter. However, IBM has shown that Merlin is not Revolutionary. It
>is a pathetic, plodding step that was doomed a year ago to fail to get
>users interested in it.
>
> Face it. Without VT, Merlin wouldn't even appear on the screens
>of users accros the computer universe.
>
>
David, Am I crazy or didn't you just try to convince me that VTD
wasn't a feature worth getting excited about? Which one is it?
>: > And IBM has had 2 years from Warp
>: > to get some of these things straightened out!
>:
>: So what? Microsoft had many more years to fix things in their compilers
>: that never got fixed.
>
> Oh, I C. So now we are trying to emulate M$ now? So that means
>that if M$ screws up, IBM is allowed to do that as well?
>
> HA! IBM has little to no leway with OS/2. Either it flies or it falls
>off the face of the planet. If Merlin doesn't raise eyebrows and
>get people involved in the OS, then you can write off all the non
>corporate users of OS/2. Oh certainly there will be a few
>die-hards that will use it, but they will be just like those
>pathetic bastards are over in the Amiga crowd. Procaiming how
>the OS isn't "dead", and "how superior" it is to everything else.
>
> I mean good god. IBM is having to force Lotus to write for OS/2.
Lotus has always maintained that they make money on OS/2 products.
Why would they be forced to write for the platform?
David Spicer
In message <4ult6b$9...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net> - cro...@kuentos.guam.net
(Christopher Robato) writes:
>So what does these products and parables all have in common? Lack
>of corporate support but got plenty of customer support. So it's
>really up to the end user to make OS/2 successful.
Sounds a lot like the OS I started with (OS-9). Tandy never really
knew how to support it, so the users did.
* David Spicer dsp...@ibm.net Team OS/2
* Where do I want to go today? -- I'm already there!
Steven C. Den Beste
> (Yes, quoting myself again...)
>
> Also sprach b...@kf8nh.apk.net (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH)
(<4uojvf$3...@kf8nh.apk.net>):
> +-----
> | If M$ tries to foist NT off on the game-playing home market they'll be
laughed
> | out of it. All reports I've heard say that NT can't play most Win95
games *at
> | all* --- not "too slow", but "can't start". Win95 games still play
directly
> | with hardware for speed, and NT forbids that.
> +--->8
>
> Yeah, I know, "game API". Win95 only, folks. Not NT, not expected any
time
> soon. And by the time it hits NT, Win95's successor will have something
> else... and likely it will *still* require getting closer to the hardware
> than NT permits (rightly so).
This information is not correct. The "game API" is DirectX. NT 4.0 supports
DirectDraw and DirectSound; DirectPlay and DirectInput will be coming soon.
The first round of DirectX games (such as "Zork Nemesis") only used
DirectDraw and DirectSound and should work just fine under NT 4.0.
sbe...@ibm.net
>>OS/2 and NT are BOTH very poorly documented. When you wonder off of the
>>'beaten path' in either Opsys the vendor provided documentation is
>>woefully inadequate.
>>
>that the operating system internals are generally poorly documented. I
>have rather high expectations of that, my standard is the pubs like
My discussion was NOT about INTERNALS -- I am concerned ONLY about the
API (*Application Program Interface*) calls. I have NO interest in
INTERNALS and would not use them even if they were available. It is the
API which I find to be poorly documented.
Examples: Try to find out which of the 'standard windows' have
preallocated "Window Words." What is a "rendering" (for drag and
drop)?
>>Both the OS/2 and the NT 'developer communities' are extremely generous
>>and willingly share expertise with others but: The NT community is VERY
>>MUCH LARGER than is the OS/2 community (at least 10x) and much more has
>>been written about NT and many more of the 'dark places' have been
>>probed -- the *SWEET SPOT* (the portions of the Opsys where there is
>>enough known about the APIs and their side effects to make coding a
>>reasonable enterprise) is much larger for NT.
>>Until recently IBM was helpful to developers by providing support for
>>their adventures beyond the commonplace. A recent change in IBM's
>>policy transferring that support to a fairly stiff fee based program has
>>left me (and others) in a bad place. I do not mind paying to get
>>information in those cases where the vendor has provided me with
>>adequate information to bail myself out of problems and I am just UNABLE
>>to use it -- but now they will charge me to fix problems of their
>>making (bugs, omissions, etc.). I FIND THIS INTOLERABLE!
>Absolutely, it is intolerable; pound on them.
I do not have the time or energy to pound on them any more -- starting
way back at Release 1.2 I tried that and many of the fusses I raised
then have yet to be addressed. It is not MY JOB to 'pound on them'.
>>It is *NOT* because Microsoft is any better, they are not. It is just
>>very much easier to use their products because of their superior market
>>position and, concommitantly, the help that you can get from non-MS
>>sources (quickly and cheaply.)
>I don't find that the M$ ISV base is particularly helpful or
>widespread. I see a lot of M$ solution providers running around but they
>tend to be scammers, fakes, and computer-geek wannabes looking to make a
>quick buck.
I think that is an unwarranted cheap shot, utterly without any basis in
fact and totally at odds with my personal experience! I do not find the
Windows/NT developer community to be any different from that for OS/2.
It is *remarkable* how much more help is available from the developer
communities than is available from the publishers.
>>Is OS/2 dead? Not yet, but with IBM's lack of support for those of us
>>who (will) make it a real 'Application Platform' (as opposed to a nifty
>>desktop) it will die. *When you are not #1 you must try harder* IBM
>>seems to be manifestly unwilling to continue to do so.
>The problem in this case is IBM *is* number one and is still asleep at
>the switch. There are lots of first rate people at IBM but there are
>lots of second tier people there too. There's a whole useless middle
>management clogging IBM's arteries.
It seems that you are giving the (in)famous "twinky defense": I do NOT
care WHY things are as they are: How they are affects me, why they are
that way is out of my control!
>Steve, what kind of product are you building? The OS/2 market is 10
>times larger than WNT.
My products are 'turnkey', industry specific 'business management'
programs for small companies. The only effect of the OS on my customers
is the 'other things' that can be done on the platform.
These 'other things' can range from playing games to having a popular
DTP or office layout program readily available for their occasional use.
It is a competetively disadventageous to tell a prospect that to run the
latest and greatest version of XXX he will have to reboot his system in
the middle of the business day or need another machine to do it.
OS/2 has been (for the most part) *THE* inclusive platform. IBM's
commitment to inclusivity is now in doubt. Windows 95 has not been a
booming success but Microsoft has shown 'staying power' and has stated
its intention to make NT inclusive of the Windows application base which
is, like it or not, considerably larger than is that for OS/2. (If you
have any doubt about this assertion you only need open the Programmers
Paradise or Egghead catalogs.)
Steve Behman
<s...@pacbell.net>
Wayne J. Hyde
In article <4ur3hb$b...@kf8nh.apk.net> b...@kf8nh.apk.net (Brandon
S. Allbery KF8NH) writes:
(Yes, quoting myself again...)
Also sprach b...@kf8nh.apk.net (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH)
(<4uojvf$3...@kf8nh.apk\ .net>):
>> If M$ tries to foist NT off on the game-playing home market they'll
>> be laughed out of it. All reports I've heard say that NT can't
>> play most Win95 games *at all* --- not "too slow", but "can't
>> start". Win95 games still play directly with hardware for speed,
>> and NT forbids that.
> Yeah, I know, "game API". Win95 only, folks. Not NT, not expected
> any time soon. And by the time it hits NT, Win95's successor will
> have something else... and likely it will *still* require getting
> closer to the hardware than NT permits (rightly so).
NT4 _can_ play quite a few games for Windows, including DirectX games.
So far, Fury3, Subspace, and even Civilization II work. I had to copy
a few .dll's from the Win95 system directory to NT's system directory
to get Civ II to work (wing*.dll). The only drawback is the
animations don't work, but they are pretty much fluff to the game.
Oh, and of course 3D Pinball works, but it comes with NT. Speed is
not a problem.
--
Wayne Hyde | System Administrator
w...@cis.ufl.edu | Fla. Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit
http://www.cis.ufl.edu/~wjh | and the
I speak for me, not them -> | U of Florida Department of Surveying and Mapping
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
|
| >>OS/2 and NT are BOTH very poorly documented. When you wonder off of the
| >>'beaten path' in either Opsys the vendor provided documentation is
| >>woefully inadequate.
|
| >that the operating system internals are generally poorly documented. I
| >have rather high expectations of that, my standard is the pubs like
|
| My discussion was NOT about INTERNALS -- I am concerned ONLY about the
| API (*Application Program Interface*) calls. I have NO interest in
| INTERNALS and would not use them even if they were available. It is the
| API which I find to be poorly documented.
|
| Examples: Try to find out which of the 'standard windows' have
| preallocated "Window Words."
Looking in the manual ...
"A ULONG value for applications to use is present at offset
QWL_USER in windows of the following preregistered window classes:
WC_FRAME (includes dialog windows)
WC_LISTBOX
WC_BUTTON
WC_STATIC
WC_ENTRYFIELD
WC_SCROLLBAR
WC_MENU"
-- online help for WinSetWindowULong,
Presentation Manager Guide and Reference.
| What is a "rendering" (for drag and drop)?
Again, looking in the manual ...
"The rendering mechanism represents the way in which you want to
exchange the data, for example dynamic data exchange (DDE). The
rendering format identifies the actual type or true type of the
data, for example, text. [...]"
-- online help, "Direct Manipulation, Rendering Mechanism and
Format", Presentation Manager Guide and Reference.
The Presentation Manager Guide and Reference is part of the OS/2
Developers' Toolkit, which is bundled with all four of the commercial
32-bit C++ compilers for OS/2 and with most of the PASCAL compilers, and
is also available separately both on the Developer Connection CD-ROMs and as a
standalone product.
Alan N.
In message <4urali$u...@news.dialnet.net> - t...@dialnet.net (David A. Spake)14
Aug 1996 01:37:54 GMT writes:
:>
:>Dave Tholen (tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu) wrote:
:>: > David A. Spake spake:
:>
:>
:>: > However, Merlin is so far behind in basic OS fixes that it isn't funny.
:>:
:>: How can something be behind in fixes when it hasn't even been released
:>: yet? Illogical.
:>
:>Fine. If Merlin has 1/4 of the things users have been crying for these
:>last 2-4 years, then fine. I'll be glad to eat a hardcopy of the
:>letter. However, IBM has shown that Merlin is not Revolutionary. It
:>is a pathetic, plodding step that was doomed a year ago to fail to get
:>users interested in it.
:>
:> Face it. Without VT, Merlin wouldn't even appear on the screens
:>of users accros the computer universe.
All I know it this! I am no computer genius, I am an end user, exposed to
about every kind of OS know to man
with my job! ( Television Engineer ) ! OS/2, Win 3.1, Win 95, Win NT, Dos,
Unix, SGI Unix, Novell 4.1, Mac, etc..
I am not an expert in ANY of these but must learn and know all of them.. OS/2
has made more sense to me, and
have been satisfied OS/2 user at home for 3 years now.. All I know is that if
OS/2 goes away, my P-120 will be
forsale, and I will buy a MAC! I, for one, will not run Microsoft! Thier
ideas are behind others, and most
implementations are poor, but for some reason, the general home market buys
it..! This just really bugs me!
I wish I knew "C" OR OOP to verfify this, but I don't. I know "chips" and
hardware.
Alan
********************************************
al...@intrlink.com
ham (km...@w4ca.usa.noam)
Running OS/2 Warp! [Team OS/2]
********************************************
kiy...@kiyoinc.com
In <4uso7v$i...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, sbe...@ibm.net writes:
>In <4upoog$g...@ari.ari.net>, kiy...@kiyoinc.com writes:
>
>My discussion was NOT about INTERNALS -- I am concerned ONLY about the
>API (*Application Program Interface*) calls. I have NO interest in
>INTERNALS and would not use them even if they were available. It is the
>API which I find to be poorly documented.
>
>Examples: Try to find out which of the 'standard windows' have
>preallocated "Window Words." What is a "rendering" (for drag and
>drop)?
>
out binders full of sample code, class definitions, etc. Almost too
much to read.
>
>I do not have the time or energy to pound on them any more -- starting
>way back at Release 1.2 I tried that and many of the fusses I raised
>then have yet to be addressed. It is not MY JOB to 'pound on them'.
>
It is, you want oil, you have to squeek. I have been looking at IBM's
class library, my problem is that there's too much to read. IBM keeps
sending more stuff. Do you have DEVCON? The Red books? Do you hang out
with local OS/2'ers?
>>I don't find that the M$ ISV base is particularly helpful or
>>widespread. I see a lot of M$ solution providers running around but they
>>tend to be scammers, fakes, and computer-geek wannabes looking to make a
>>quick buck.
>
>I think that is an unwarranted cheap shot, utterly without any basis in
>fact and totally at odds with my personal experience! I do not find the
>Windows/NT developer community to be any different from that for OS/2.
>
I was referring to the Solution Providers, a glazed-eyed bunch. I have
no doubt that here and there, there is a 'tuff-guy' cranking NT code;
maybe even someone as 'tuff' as the Silver Fox. The Solution Providers
are generally not code crankers, they are system integrators, they buy
boxes, connect boxes together, send bills.
>It is *remarkable* how much more help is available from the developer
>communities than is available from the publishers.
Real programmers stick together; I still haven't gotten used to the
term 'developer'. To me, a developer builds houses or buildings and
sells them. I think of myself as a programmer, code cranker, internals
wizard, or when producing marketing fluff, a software engineer.
The problem is that most of the 'developers' I've seen are GUI
clickers, SQueeLers, or hand wavers. None of them can read and write
machine language, understand bus timing diagrams, hardware logic, state
engines, recursive descent parsers, program in a language like C,
PL/X 370, or assembler, or tell me how a 16-way set associative L2
cache works.
>
>My products are 'turnkey', industry specific 'business management'
>programs for small companies. The only effect of the OS on my customers
>is the 'other things' that can be done on the platform.
>
>These 'other things' can range from playing games to having a popular
>DTP or office layout program readily available for their occasional use.
>It is a competetively disadventageous to tell a prospect that to run the
>latest and greatest version of XXX he will have to reboot his system in
>the middle of the business day or need another machine to do it.
>
>OS/2 has been (for the most part) *THE* inclusive platform. IBM's
>commitment to inclusivity is now in doubt. Windows 95 has not been a
>booming success but Microsoft has shown 'staying power' and has stated
>its intention to make NT inclusive of the Windows application base which
>is, like it or not, considerably larger than is that for OS/2. (If you
>have any doubt about this assertion you only need open the Programmers
>Paradise or Egghead catalogs.)
>
I've never seen an Egghead catalog; PP is coder-centric. I know that
there are W95 applications but they are not important to me or my
customer base.
Your products should be well received as either OS/2 or 32Bit Win.
Perhaps you could target Open32.
>
>Steve Behman
><s...@pacbell.net>
>
REDWOOD is now at V 0.2
Dave Tholen
David A. Spake spake:
>>> However, Merlin is so far behind in basic OS fixes that it isn't funny.
>> How can something be behind in fixes when it hasn't even been released
>> yet? Illogical.
> Fine. If Merlin has 1/4 of the things users have been crying for these
> last 2-4 years, then fine. I'll be glad to eat a hardcopy of the
> letter.
Does NT 4.0 have 1/4 of the things users have been crying for? Advanced
Power Management? Lower resources requirements? Lower cost? More
than 10 connections to Workstation? Plug and Play? An object oriented
user interface?
> However, IBM has shown that Merlin is not Revolutionary.
Microsoft has shown that NT 4.0 is not Revolutionary.
> It
> is a pathetic, plodding step that was doomed a year ago to fail to get
> users interested in it.
I know several people who are interested in it. So much for your alleged
"failure".
> Face it. Without VT, Merlin wouldn't even appear on the screens
> of users accros the computer universe.
Illogical; there are some people interested in OpenGL as well. Merlin has
other new features too.
>>> And IBM has had 2 years from Warp
>>> to get some of these things straightened out!
>> So what? Microsoft had many more years to fix things in their compilers
>> that never got fixed.
> Oh, I C.
No you don't; I'm thinking of a non-C Microsoft compiler.
> So now we are trying to emulate M$ now?
Or is MS emulating IBM? Or are they simply making business decisions
totally independent of one another?
> So that means
> that if M$ screws up, IBM is allowed to do that as well?
IBM is allowed to prioritize its list of things to do.
> HA! IBM has little to no leway with OS/2.
HA! You've used little to no logic with your argument.
> Either it flies or it falls off the face of the planet.
What constitutes flying? Is it not flying now? Does it have to out-do
Windows 3.1 to fly? Is there no middle ground? Is NT flying, even with
its order-of-magnitude-smaller installed base?
> If Merlin doesn't raise eyebrows and
> get people involved in the OS, then you can write off all the non
> corporate users of OS/2.
Merlin has already raised eyebrows and has gotten people involved.
> Oh certainly there will be a few
> die-hards that will use it, but they will be just like those
> pathetic bastards are over in the Amiga crowd.
Prove that Amiga users are "pathetic bastards". Some people think
that Windows advocates who have to post in OS/2 newsgroups are "pathetic
bastards".
> Procaiming how
> the OS isn't "dead", and "how superior" it is to everything else.
And what do you think you're doing here?
> I mean good god. IBM is having to force Lotus to write for OS/2.
I mean good god. Microsoft is having to pay web sites to let users
of Microsoft's web browser have free access to subscription services.
> What can that mean for any other ISV?
What can that mean for Netscape?
> There will always be one or
> two companies that live off the droppings very well. Stardock
> has done this perfectly.
Along with lots of other companies, far more than "one or two".
> They ARE the OS/2 ISV market.
Bullshit.
> Nobody
> else has even come out with a product that sold 1/4 of the numbers
> that Stardock has accomplished.
Last night, Dan Porter said that Innoval is selling 1000 copies *per day*
of the latest Post Road Mailer release.
>>> Merlin is something that could easily have come out a year ago.
>> Illogical. IBM has been averaging about 15 months between OS/2 releases.
>> A year ago would have been only 9-10 months after the release of Warp.
> Sure can't tell that they'v had two years to write Merlin. The UI is
> pathetic.
Many users find that allegedly "pathetic" interface to be vastly superior
to anything else out there.
> All it is is Warp with a few new icons.
Warp had an object-oriented interface to begin with.
> WC was a basic
> recompile. I could list 200 more lines of things that they didn't
> care to include in Warp.
And people can come up with 200 things that Microsoft didn't care to
include in Windows 95 or NT.
> Simple, basic things that only a company like IBM could overlook.
Simple, basic things that only a company like Microsoft could overlook.
> It doesn't matter that the WPS blows all the other UI's away.
To many users, it does matter.
> It is an eyesore.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Others find the Windows interface
to be an eyesore.
> Not only is it bland and industrial looking, the saddest
> thing is that IBM could with NO effort make the damn thing look
> like a winner.
To whom, you? If it takes NO effort, then why don't you do it?
> But no. They don't see it that way.
Their big customers don't see it that way.
> Thier cash cows (the corporate accountes) aren't clamoring for it.
Think about that.
> 9 will get
> you 10 that every improvement to Merlin was done for the sole purpose
> of appeasing the corporate accounts.
If true, why would that be a surprise? Wouldn't you try to satisfy your
biggest customers first?
>>> Yea, right. As if IBM will come out and say "well, OS/2 is over. But
>>> we want you to buy the new version anyway". Please.
>> Yea right. As if IBM would go through the trouble of doing another
>> release if it were really over. Please.
> Yes they would.
Illogical.
> Just to support their existing corporate base.
Then it obviously isn't "over".
> You know it as well as I do.
No, I don't know your illogic as well as you do.
Christopher Robato
In message <4urghr$3o...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> - dsp...@ibm.net
(David Spicer)14 Aug 1996 03:18:19 GMT writes:
:>
:>In message <4ult6b$9...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net> - cro...@kuentos.guam.net
:>(Christopher Robato) writes:
:>
:>>So what does these products and parables all have in common? Lack
:>>of corporate support but got plenty of customer support. So it's
:>>really up to the end user to make OS/2 successful.
:> Sounds a lot like the OS I started with (OS-9). Tandy never really
:>knew how to support it, so the users did.
:>
:>* David Spicer dsp...@ibm.net Team OS/2
:>* Where do I want to go today? -- I'm already there!
Actually, OS-9 is Microware's business. Tandy never wrote that.
OS-9 was also used in turnkey systems control projects and evolved
beyond the 6809 to the 68000, the latter again, never ran on Tandy
CoCos.
The greatest example of something that never had much "company"
support but grew entirely from its user support was of course,
Unix.
imw...@ibm.net
>Yea right. As if IBM would go through the trouble of doing another
>release if it were really over. Please.
Zachmann has integrity and intelligience. His statements are basically on the mark.
IBM has put os/2 on maintenance more or less. Stealth marketing will not make it.
I was at my NY OS/2 User sig tonite. The cofounder of the group is an IS manager
for a large NY law firm. They had to abndon 850 os/2 desktops to win'95 simply
because IBM moved like a snail to fix a bug in the dos windows requester for
their lan. They couldn't run their apps properly.
How about the chkdsk problem??? Since day one large companies have
complained about chkdsk being unable to fix partitions larger than 2 gigs
and the file limitations of chkdsk of files per directory. Still 7 years later no
fix for chkdsk. This stuff is inexcuseable and insufferable. That is why NT
is moving big time now. Mindshare and IBM intransigience to fix the major
weaknesses in their code. That the decision of IBM' brass to surrender to
Microsoft on the desktop and now on the servers. You see this world is full
of interconnections and the idiots who decided that you can ignore the desktop
to sell only middleware and hardware are Redmonds agents provocateur in IBM
in essence. A gutless company with no vision. That what it all boils down to.
Tim Gerchmez
On 13 Aug 1996 16:22:59 GMT, kes...@prodigy.com (Joe Kesselman)
wrote:
>In <4upoog$g...@ari.ari.net>, kiy...@kiyoinc.com writes:
>>Opsys? Hmmm, I've never heard anyone call an OS an Opsys.
>
>OS=Operating System=OpSys=Opsys. Not uncommon terminology.
>
>All these terms are somewhat debased by abuse. DOS is not an operating
>system in the proper sense. Nor is DOS+Windows, for that matter.
How about defining what "the proper sense" is...
--
Check out my home page at http://www.blarg.net/~future/index.html
I'm a volunteer at the Win95 Help Site. Drop by if you need help with Win95.
http://www.isisnet.com/terrymo/index.html
David A. Spake
pkre...@op.net wrote:
: In <4urali$u...@news.dialnet.net>, t...@dialnet.net (David A. Spake) writes:
: > Face it. Without VT, Merlin wouldn't even appear on the screens
: >of users accros the computer universe.
: >
:
: David, Am I crazy or didn't you just try to convince me that VTD
: wasn't a feature worth getting excited about? Which one is it?
No. What I meantt to say was that without VT, Merlin wouldn't be that big
a deal. I mean what else is there to get excited about? Opendoc? HA! name
me 10 applets that are OpenDoc on the OS/2 plaform. Mac seems to have
gotten the message, but the OS/2 ISV community seems mlike they coulnd
care less. Loutus certainly isn't going to be providing us with OpenDoc
anything. They have said publicly (Infoworld for one) that they are 100%
behind ActiveX. That ActiveX is the better of the two technologies. So
you tell me when they will write OpenDoc applets and I'll be skating
on the frozen lakes in Hell.
What else? GRADD? Not any time soon are we going to see this. Certainly
only on the high-end cards for the forseeable future.
VT is it. The sole thing Merlin is getting attention for. As great
as VT is, it cannot save the OS. Merlin is missing way too many things.
: Lotus has always maintained that they make money on OS/2 products.
: Why would they be forced to write for the platform?
Yea right. Who will buy SS/2 when it fially makes the scene in Xmas of
1997? Not I. JWT himself has stated that 1-2-3 for OS/2 won't be don
until "the 1st half" of next year. That means July. And they haven't
even _started_ on Approach. So you tell me when we will see SS/2?
And once again, the OpenDoc thing comes up again. There is no way
in hell Loutus is going to support OpenDoc. They have already stated
publicly that "us and IBM have agreed to disagree" on OpenDoc.
Not to mention that those contacts I have in IBM circles tell me WordPro/2
runs like a bloated pig. So what can that mean for the rest of the
SS/2 platform?
Dave
-----------------------------------------------------------
You have received these words of wisdom from
David A Spake
completely free of charge!
http://www.dialnet.net/~tsm
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moving ahead at Warp Speed
Member Team OS/2
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Sinnott
imw...@ibm.net wrote:
>>Yea right. As if IBM would go through the trouble of doing another
>>release if it were really over. Please.
> David I think its about time for all of us to take off the rose colored glasses.
>Zachmann has integrity and intelligience. His statements are basically on the mark.
>IBM has put os/2 on maintenance more or less.
I think someone told me that the move from Boca to Austin involved
some 400+ OS/2 programmers. If you assume that IBM Austin had about
the same # of people working on OS/2, you've got some 800+ people
working on OS/2.
That's one *hell* of a 'maintenance'.....
> Stealth marketing will not make it.
>I was at my NY OS/2 User sig tonite. The cofounder of the group is an IS manager
>for a large NY law firm. They had to abndon 850 os/2 desktops to win'95 simply
>because IBM moved like a snail to fix a bug in the dos windows requester for
>their lan. They couldn't run their apps properly.
Lemme get this straight. They dumped 850 desktops of OS/2, because of
a DOS requester? Wouldn't that be fixed by switching to just OS/2? Or
not using the Dos version??
> How about the chkdsk problem??? Since day one large companies have
>complained about chkdsk being unable to fix partitions larger than 2 gigs
Try 12-16 gigs. Chkdsk fixes partitions greater than 2 gigs here just
fine.
>and the file limitations of chkdsk of files per directory.
Isn't that limit like in the high-hundreds of files?
>Still 7 years later no
>fix for chkdsk. This stuff is inexcuseable and insufferable. That is why NT
>is moving big time now.
I would call it Microsoft Marketing, myself.
>Mindshare and IBM intransigience to fix the major
>weaknesses in their code. That the decision of IBM' brass to surrender to
>Microsoft on the desktop and now on the servers. You see this world is full
>of interconnections and the idiots who decided that you can ignore the desktop
>to sell only middleware and hardware are Redmonds agents provocateur in IBM
>in essence. A gutless company with no vision. That what it all boils down to.
I disagree.
-steve
---
Steve Sinnott
nap...@ibm.net
Napalm Productions, Inc.
Microsoft Windows 95 - From the makers of EDLIN and FAT drive formatting!
Dave Tholen
Steven C. Den Beste writes:
>> Steve Behman writes:
>>> Am I alone? Do any of you folks share my apprehension?
>> Not your same apprehensions. To be fair, however, you should mention
>> some apprehensions about developing for Windows.
> I don't understand why this might be.
Why not? There is no guaranteed success when developing for any platform.
> He's describing his own feelings.
Unfairly.
> He's not under obligation to have any feelings about windows at all.
Of course not. There is no obligation to be fair.
> Maybe he doesn't care about Windows.
Maybe he should.
> If someone expresses apprehensions about Cadillac, are they obligated to
> express similar apprehensions about Toyota, Chevrolet, Ford, Volvo whether
> they actually have them or not?
If someone is apprehensive about buying a Cadillac because of certain
problems, should they not also be apprehensive about the problems other
makes have? The alternative is to not buy anything at all.
> If someone expresses apprehensions about OS/2, are they obligated to
> express similar apprehensions about Windows whether they have them or not?
There is no obligation to be fair. Note that I didn't say anything about
obligation. You brought that up.
> (Why do I have the apprehension that the answer will come back "Yes"?)
Because you are illogically associating fairness with obligation? Note
that you didn't get the expected answer.
pkre...@op.net
In <4uum45$p...@news.dialnet.net>, t...@dialnet.net (David A. Spake) writes:
>pkre...@op.net wrote:
>: In <4urali$u...@news.dialnet.net>, t...@dialnet.net (David A. Spake) writes:
>: > Face it. Without VT, Merlin wouldn't even appear on the screens
>: >of users accros the computer universe.
>: >
>: >
>:
>: David, Am I crazy or didn't you just try to convince me that VTD
>: wasn't a feature worth getting excited about? Which one is it?
>
> No. What I meantt to say was that without VT, Merlin wouldn't be that big
>a deal. I mean what else is there to get excited about?
Try Open32. Over the next six months you will start to see more native
OS/2 apps because of this. Adobe acrobat reader, Netscape, photoworks (name?) are
already in the works. The makers of Photoworks said it took them 5days to port
their WinNt version with Open32. Other apps will follow. This excites me.
Opendoc? HA! name
>me 10 applets that are OpenDoc on the OS/2 plaform. Mac seems to have
>gotten the message, but the OS/2 ISV community seems mlike they coulnd
>care less. Loutus certainly isn't going to be providing us with OpenDoc
>anything.
I agree Lotus doesn't appear to be behind Opendoc.
They have said publicly (Infoworld for one) that they are 100%
>behind ActiveX. That ActiveX is the better of the two technologies. So
>you tell me when they will write OpenDoc applets and I'll be skating
>on the frozen lakes in Hell.
>
> What else? GRADD? Not any time soon are we going to see this. Certainly
>only on the high-end cards for the forseeable future.
>
> VT is it. The sole thing Merlin is getting attention for. As great
>as VT is, it cannot save the OS. Merlin is missing way too many things.
>
>
>: Lotus has always maintained that they make money on OS/2 products.
>: Why would they be forced to write for the platform?
>
> Yea right.
Lotus has shown working versions of freelance & 123 and Wordpro is reportedly
in manufacturing. Lotus will release a full native, feature compatible SS/2.
Who will buy SS/2 when it fially makes the scene in Xmas of
>1997? Not I. JWT himself has stated that 1-2-3 for OS/2 won't be don
>until "the 1st half" of next year.
123 for win95 is even out yet. Is Lotus just incompetent or is their support for win95
shaky?
That means July. And they haven't
>even _started_ on Approach. So you tell me when we will see SS/2?
>
> And once again, the OpenDoc thing comes up again. There is no way
>in hell Loutus is going to support OpenDoc. They have already stated
>publicly that "us and IBM have agreed to disagree" on OpenDoc.
>
> Not to mention that those contacts I have in IBM circles tell me WordPro/2
>runs like a bloated pig.
Others have reported that is a nice program. Were they running beta's? Which
build? Lotus publicly stated that optimization for speed would come last.
Wait for the GA before drawing conclusions, it keeps you from looking stupid.
Dave Carlson
cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Christopher Robato) wrote:
>So what does these products and parables all have in common? Lack
>of corporate support but got plenty of customer support. So it's
>really up to the end user to make OS/2 successful.
I've watched this debate since 1987 onward in various platforms, and
since I began using OS/2 2.0 and it simply hasn't changed.
Now this is my own personal position...
I've come to realize OS/2 users and supporters must make a choice.
Either decide that this product has to be pushed feverently into the
mainstream; which might entail watering it down for the common folk.
And if we take this path, we must also ask ourselves, are we
compromising the things which make OS/2 strong? If so, maybe the best
alternative is next....
Or just accept the fact that most users of OS/2 are like drivers of
Porsche's, Rolls-Royces, etc... Everyone knows they're better cars,
they just can't afford them. So OS/2 is the Rolls-Royce of operating
systems and the cost comes in the form of knowledge, experience, and
sophistication required of the user/supporter.
I would love nothing more than to see the whole PC market finally wake
up from the haze they're in and use a stable, reliable operating
system from a company that doesn't play games. (How many OS/2
Undocumented books are there in comparison to ones for DOS, Windows,
etc?) Anytime anyone asks me about operating systems, I look at what
they need...alot of times OS/2 is overkill unfortunately.
Maybe if the users/supporters took hold of directing IBMs efforts to
promote OS/2 in areas where its strengths shine; ie places where a
system crashes and a reboot is needed everytime a new peice of
software is run is required. (isn't this everywhere? :) )
Besides, so what if Zachmann dropped OS/2? Do we all stop wearing
Nikes when Micheal Jordan retires and stops promoting them?
It just means we (the supporters) must push as hard and harder to get
our product into the lime-light. How about a letter campaign to the
Computer Man to have some more episodes on OS/2...and please somebody
get the man to work with it first...nothing I hate more than some
person trying to talk about a product and not know anything about it.
We love OS/2, I love OS/2...tell the world about it and why and maybe
we can enlighten the masses that have been drawn astray by the M$
facade....
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Carlson, Owner Carlson Computer Consulting, Team OS/2 Member
DrHex on IRC (EFNet)
Web page: http://www.cwconnect.ca/~dcarlson/index.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Carlson, Owner Carlson Computer Consulting, Team OS/2 Member
DrHex on IRC (EFNet)
Web page: http://www.cwconnect.ca/~dcarlson/index.htm
Charlie Turner
In <Dw21u...@news.hawaii.edu>, tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:
>David A. Spake spake:
>> Yea, right. As if IBM will come out and say "well, OS/2 is over. But
>> we want you to buy the new version anyway". Please.
>Yea right. As if IBM would go through the trouble of doing another
>release if it were really over. Please.
I have to agree with Zachmann in that I too am sometimes disappointed in
IBM's handling of OS/2. However, I can also remember any number of times
over the past 25 years that I have been disappointed in IBM's handling
of some other software or hardware product that I was using.
As others have already noted in various articles, inter-divisional civil war
is more the norm inside IBM than the exception. The fact that some IBM
executive or another doesn't embrace OS/2 doesn't worry me.
On the other hand, some of the 'major strategic directions' that IBM has
lined up behind and promoted in the past have now faded from view. Where is
SAA now, for example.
gme...@worldnet.att.net
In <4uvvfj$1q...@news.missouri.edu>, ccc...@showme.missouri.edu (Charlie Turner) writes:
>In <Dw21u...@news.hawaii.edu>, tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:
>>David A. Spake spake:
>>> Yea, right. As if IBM will come out and say "well, OS/2 is over. But
>>> we want you to buy the new version anyway". Please.
>
>>Yea right. As if IBM would go through the trouble of doing another
>>release if it were really over. Please.
>
>I have to agree with Zachmann in that I too am sometimes disappointed in
>IBM's handling of OS/2. However, I can also remember any number of times
>over the past 25 years that I have been disappointed in IBM's handling
>of some other software or hardware product that I was using.
Me too! Remember PL/I? It was supposed to replace COBOL and FORTRAN.
PL/I has always been a very powerful language with features that C++ heads
thought were invented with C++. Yet IBM has never (not even now) promoted this
programming language the way it should've been done. And I kept using PL/I!
Now PL/I has come back being even more powerful on OS/2 and MVS and I was one
of the first in line to get it for my PC.
As long as IBM keeps releasing new versions of the products I use, I don't worry about
whether they promote it or not.
Another thing: when the user base of OS/2 was less than five million and IBM had
a year loss of $8 Billion, they could've used that excuse and kill the Operating System.
Yet they kept it alive. If that was then when they had a real excuse, why would
they do it now when they have so much money in the bank?
Gilbert Mella
Brad Wardell
In <4urcrk$p...@picasso.op.net>, pkre...@op.net writes:
>In <4urali$u...@news.dialnet.net>, t...@dialnet.net (David A. Spake) writes:
>>: > David A. Spake spake:
>>
>>
>>: > However, Merlin is so far behind in basic OS fixes that it isn't funny.
>>:
>>: How can something be behind in fixes when it hasn't even been released
>>: yet? Illogical.
>>
>>Fine. If Merlin has 1/4 of the things users have been crying for these
>>last 2-4 years, then fine. I'll be glad to eat a hardcopy of the
>>is a pathetic, plodding step that was doomed a year ago to fail to get
>>users interested in it.
>>
>>of users accros the computer universe.
>>
>>
>
>David, Am I crazy or didn't you just try to convince me that VTD
>wasn't a feature worth getting excited about? Which one is it?
>
VT doesn't get me excited but I'm looking forward to Merlin because:
#1 Looks a lot nicer and makes it easier for third party products such as
Object Desktop to "blend in".
#2 Has tons of fixes to the base OS
#3 integrated FTP
#4 The new arrange options and other usability options to the UI.
#5 Performance will be improved over Warp Connect
#6 Installation now puts OS/2 in a usable state by default instead of requiring
a consultant or other technical user to put OS/2's "things" into the proper place.
#7 JAVA and Opendoc integration (though weak right now is still quite promising)
Our webpage: http://www.stardock.com has an article on what's cool in Merlin.
Are there things I wish they would fix? TONS. Kris Kwilas has an excellent list of
things they should have added but Merlin, IMHO is the first time IBM has actually
listened to its customers in making a new version.
Catcha later!
Brad
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Brad Wardell - war...@ibm.net
"I'll never forget about Larry...no matter how I try..."
-Weird Al
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
My opinions are not my own, they are all forced on
me by my robot friends...
David A. Spake
Dave Tholen (tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu) wrote:
: David A. Spake spake:
:
: >>> However, Merlin is so far behind in basic OS fixes that it isn't funny.
:
: >> How can something be behind in fixes when it hasn't even been released
: >> yet? Illogical.
:
: > Fine. If Merlin has 1/4 of the things users have been crying for these
: > last 2-4 years, then fine. I'll be glad to eat a hardcopy of the
: > letter.
:
: Does NT 4.0 have 1/4 of the things users have been crying for? Advanced
: Power Management? Lower resources requirements? Lower cost? More
: than 10 connections to Workstation? Plug and Play? An object oriented
: user interface?
But NT does have MAJOR improvements. Does it have everything that the
users wanted? No. But none-the-less MAJOR improvements/changes. Merlin
certainly doesn't. Merlin is still tied to the wreckage of the past. Lack
of basic system utilities just the tip of the iceberg.
: > However, IBM has shown that Merlin is not Revolutionary.
:
: Microsoft has shown that NT 4.0 is not Revolutionary.
What everyone sees in NT is the fact that M$ will support it to the
last. They are using every smidgen on their power to push NT. Both
in the corporate world and to the power users of the plant. Direct???
is just one example. IBM has shown REPEATEDLY that they have no
wish to do this. Departments under the IBM name repeatedly thumb
thier nose at OS/2. Hell, Lou G couln't even get a ThinkPad 560
loaded with OS/2. Had to take it to Austin to get it specially
loaded!
: > It
: > is a pathetic, plodding step that was doomed a year ago to fail to get
: > users interested in it.
:
: I know several people who are interested in it. So much for your alleged
: "failure".
I know more people who are getting frantic and looking at other alternatives
very, Very seriously. I get all kinds of email from fellow OS/2 users who
are agreeing with those of us who are saying that IBM screwed up any
chances for OS/2 in the future. These are people (from their postings)
who have been using OS/2 for years. Died-in-the-wool users of OS/2
who are freaking out becuase they see OS/2 swirling away down the toilet.
: > Face it. Without VT, Merlin wouldn't even appear on the screens
: > of users accros the computer universe.
:
: Illogical; there are some people interested in OpenGL as well. Merlin has
: other new features too.
OpenGL. wow. Sure gets me excited.... ohhhh.... OpenGL...... I think I'm
going to faint from the possiblities. OpenGL is nothing. OpenGL is a tidbit
where people expected a full meal.
Open32.. wow.... sure gets me interested as well. Just because it is there
doesn't mean that companies will use it. Certianly makes it easier to
port over, but would they get involved in an OS that has as much turmoil
in it as OS/2 does? Not likely. Hell, Stardock has a tough time
keeping up with the flames from OS/2 users.
<FLAME SNIPPAGE>
:
: > So that means
: > that if M$ screws up, IBM is allowed to do that as well?
:
: IBM is allowed to prioritize its list of things to do.
So I guess screwing up any chances of OS/2 in the non-corporate
marketplace is one of them? Sure must be becuase they are doing
a hell of a job.
: > Either it flies or it falls off the face of the planet.
:
: What constitutes flying? Is it not flying now? Does it have to out-do
: Windows 3.1 to fly? Is there no middle ground? Is NT flying, even with
: its order-of-magnitude-smaller installed base?
What constitutes flying right now is keeping all the users of Warp from
bolting to NT/Win95. What constitues flying is drawing new users into the
OS/2 world. Merlin without VT would be a complete failure. Merlin
with VT only has a very tiny chance. If there are major installation
problems once again with Merlin (like the Beta, and Warp), you better
get ready to see the installed base of OS/2 stagnate and shrink.
: > If Merlin doesn't raise eyebrows and
: > get people involved in the OS, then you can write off all the non
: > corporate users of OS/2.
:
: Merlin has already raised eyebrows and has gotten people involved.
Those people who use OS/2 here certainly have thier eyebrows raised.
They are raised looking at NT and other alternatives becuase Merlin
is all but a failure in their/our eyes.
: > Oh certainly there will be a few
: > die-hards that will use it, but they will be just like those
: > pathetic bastards are over in the Amiga crowd.
:
: Prove that Amiga users are "pathetic bastards". Some people think
: that Windows advocates who have to post in OS/2 newsgroups are "pathetic
: bastards".
I used the Amiga for years(6). I know the exact mindset of the vast
majority of people still using the platform. Great platform. No doubt
about it. In it's day. But it's time is far over.
: > Procaiming how
: > the OS isn't "dead", and "how superior" it is to everything else.
:
: And what do you think you're doing here?
What I'm doing is raising flags, and letting people know that their
worries about Merlin are not singular events. That they are not
alone. Not to mention making my opinions known. Major Lou G. himself
will see it and make some changes. I'm not holding my breath on that
last one.
: > I mean good god. IBM is having to force Lotus to write for OS/2.
:
: I mean good god. Microsoft is having to pay web sites to let users
: of Microsoft's web browser have free access to subscription services.
So? That gets people to use thier Web Browser doesn't it? Doesn't
mean that I like the way they accomplish their sucess, but I do like
the fact that they will go that far in order to get people to use
their product. If IBM showed 10% of that zeal, OS/2 would have
a future. They don't, so it won't.
: > What can that mean for any other ISV?
:
: What can that mean for Netscape?
JWT himself said that an OS/2 version of Netscape is not 100%. Take
the rosy glasses off your eyes and read the text again. I have.
: > There will always be one or
: > two companies that live off the droppings very well. Stardock
: > has done this perfectly.
:
: Along with lots of other companies, far more than "one or two".
Yea. Right. Name me some. Name me an OS/2 ISV who has sold 1/4 of
the numbers of products StarDock has sold.
: > Nobody
: > else has even come out with a product that sold 1/4 of the numbers
: > that Stardock has accomplished.
:
: Last night, Dan Porter said that Innoval is selling 1000 copies *per day*
: of the latest Post Road Mailer release.
So? A lot of people say that. Let me see some numbers behind it, and
I'll raise the estimates of OS/2 ISV's to 2. Hell, I'll be generous
and raise it to 10. 10 ISV's who are making money on their products.
10 ISV's who _might_ have a product that can compete with products in
the Windows world. Wow.. I'm getting excited.
: >>> Merlin is something that could easily have come out a year ago
: >> Illogical. IBM has been averaging about 15 months between OS/2 releases.
: >> A year ago would have been only 9-10 months after the release of Warp.
:
: > Sure can't tell that they'v had two years to write Merlin. The UI is
: > pathetic.
:
: Many users find that allegedly "pathetic" interface to be vastly superior
: to anything else out there.
It is pathetic. It is a warmed over Warp UI. The WPS is still the best
in the world. Too bad IBM doesn't realize this and support it. People
have to be able to look at it and say "Wow!". We are still at the "Ugly!"
stage right now. And you won't get new users interested in the OS without
that "Wow!" when they see the OS for the first time.
: > All it is is Warp with a few new icons.
:
: Warp had an object-oriented interface to begin with.
So? Does that mean that people will use it? Absolutely not.
: > WC was a basic
: > recompile. I could list 200 more lines of things that they didn't
: > care to include in Warp.
:
: And people can come up with 200 things that Microsoft didn't care to
: include in Windows 95 or NT.
So? M$ has shown that they will go to the utmost limit to make NT
a sucess. IBM hasn't. M$ has every department using NT and pushing
it to make it better. IBM isn't. M$ is going to make NT a sucess,
IBM isn't.
<MAJOR Flame SNIPPAGE>
: > Not only is it bland and industrial looking, the saddest
: > thing is that IBM could with NO effort make the damn thing look
: > like a winner.
:
: To whom, you? If it takes NO effort, then why don't you do it?
I HAVE. I like the power and look of my desktop. But if you say
that _we_ can make our desktops look nice, you are preaching to the
choir. People's first impressions of OS/2's UI are always "ugly"
So how does that get them involved or intersted in our OS? The
Apps? HA! The power? Sure, lot of power there. Too bad its a
tough bastard to install. Too bad you have to do with second
hand apps, from unknown companies to get your job done. Too bad
you have to order all your software from a MailOrder company
based in the US. Oh yea, I can see the people beating the doors
down to get Merlin right now.
: > But no. They don't see it that way.
:
: Their big customers don't see it that way.
Oh. Their big customers. Well, OS/2 will die the day IBM does everything
their "big customers" want. As is apparent right now.
: > 9 will get
: > you 10 that every improvement to Merlin was done for the sole purpose
: > of appeasing the corporate accounts.
:
: If true, why would that be a surprise? Wouldn't you try to satisfy your
: biggest customers first?
It is true. Everyone who has been using the OS for years knows this.
IBM has admitted that they are dropping the Constumer marketplace.
And I would make sure that I don't piss-off the vast numbers of
users who came in with Warp. Irregardless of what the "big customers"
want. And that is _EXACTLY_ what IBM has done so successfully.
The only reason they don't push the corporate users is becuase they don't
want those customers to re-evaluate their committment to OS/2.
: >>> Yea, right. As if IBM will come out and say "well, OS/2 is over. But
: >>> we want you to buy the new version anyway". Please.
:
: >> Yea right. As if IBM would go through the trouble of doing another
: >> release if it were really over. Please.
:
: > Yes they would.
:
: Illogical.
No it isn't. IBM won't kill the OS right out. They have too much
prestige in it. they have said they wouldn't. Doesn't mean that they
won't cut off all supply to that branch. Keep it just alive for thier
"biggest" customers, all the while saying "OS/2 isn't dead. It's
just been repositioned". I can see the headlights of that last
statement right now.
: > Just to support their existing corporate base.
:
: Then it obviously isn't "over".
If your a corporate user, then enjoy. Power users are getting ready
to bolt the OS left and right.
Dave
Christopher Robato
In message <4uvrtm$h...@news.bellglobal.com> -
dcar...@cwconnect.ca (Dave Carlson)Thu, 15 Aug 1996 18:58:52 GMT
writes:
:>
:>cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Christopher Robato) wrote:
:>
:>>So what does these products and parables all have in common? Lack
:>>of corporate support but got plenty of customer support. So it's
:>>really up to the end user to make OS/2 successful.
:
[good opinion removed]
:>Besides, so what if Zachmann dropped OS/2? Do we all stop wearing
:>Nikes when Micheal Jordan retires and stops promoting them?
:>It just means we (the supporters) must push as hard and harder to get
:>our product into the lime-light. How about a letter campaign to the
:>Computer Man to have some more episodes on OS/2...and please somebody
:>get the man to work with it first...nothing I hate more than some
:>person trying to talk about a product and not know anything about it.
:>
Yes indeed, so what if Zachmann dropped OS/2? So far my OS/2
systems still ran as smoothly as they did. All my software still
runs. None of them are affected by his opinions.
I am still getting the same productivity I have ever did, and
actually better, since I plucked my pocket for the Pro version of
Faxworks and using the StarOffice betas. I am very very happy
with the way things are running in my system now, and I would like
to get both WordPro96 (expected to release about the same time as
Merlin), Merlin itself, and the commercial versions of StarOffice
in about the next two months.
jbr...@aros.net
In <4v0748$j...@news.dialnet.net>, t...@dialnet.net (David A. Spake) writes:
>Dave Tholen (tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu) wrote:
>: David A. Spake spake:
>:
>: >>> However, Merlin is so far behind in basic OS fixes that it isn't funny.
>:
>: >> How can something be behind in fixes when it hasn't even been released
>: >> yet? Illogical.
>:
>: > Fine. If Merlin has 1/4 of the things users have been crying for these
>: > last 2-4 years, then fine. I'll be glad to eat a hardcopy of the
>: > letter.
>:
>: Does NT 4.0 have 1/4 of the things users have been crying for? Advanced
>: Power Management? Lower resources requirements? Lower cost? More
>: than 10 connections to Workstation? Plug and Play? An object oriented
>: user interface?
>
> But NT does have MAJOR improvements.
Like what? A bullshit GUI? limited connections so you have to pay Bill
for the privelege? Domain handling that is right out of the stone age. Backup
software that sort of works, almost. and on and on and on. Its technology
base is almost older than OS/2 itself. Keep buying it, he'll make more. :-(
NT is just one piece of software piled on top of another. Slow, expensive,
resource hungry, and basically a total pile of crap. If you can speak your mind
then so can I.
David A. Spake
Jeff Glatt
>Does NT 4.0 have 1/4 of the things users have been crying for? Advanced
>Power Management? Lower resources requirements? Lower cost? More
>than 10 connections to Workstation? Plug and Play? An object oriented
>user interface?
A parrot perch? An invisible list of Win32 software? The lyrics to an
unreleased Paul Simon tune entitled "1,000 pendantic ways to leave
your lover" (ie, "Tell him he has reading comprehension problems")?
>> However, IBM has shown that Merlin is not Revolutionary.
>Microsoft has shown that NT 4.0 is not Revolutionary.
Said the parrot, pedantically.
>I know several people who are interested in it. So much for your alleged
>"failure".
A whole "several people" you know? Impressive.
>IBM is allowed to prioritize its list of things to do.
IBM's List of Things To Do:
1) Sell Windows NT.
2) Sell Windows 95.
3) There's something else, but we forgot what it was.
>What constitutes flying?
Ask the parrot. He's sitting behind you dictating your posts anyway.
>Merlin has already raised eyebrows.
They're giving away Groucho Marx spectacles with it?
>> I mean good god. IBM is having to force Lotus to write for OS/2.
>I mean good god. Microsoft is having to pay web sites to let users
>of Microsoft's web browser have free access to subscription services.
Said the parrot.
>> What can that mean for any other ISV?
>What can that mean for Netscape?
Said the parrot.
>> Stardock ARE the OS/2 ISV market.
>Bullshit.
Parrot droppings.
>> WC was a basic
>> recompile. I could list 200 more lines of things that they didn't
>> care to include in Warp.
>And people can come up with 200 things that Microsoft didn't care to
>include in Windows 95 or NT.
Said the parrot.
>> Simple, basic things that only a company like IBM could overlook.
>Simple, basic things that only a company like Microsoft could overlook.
Said the parrot.
>> But no. They don't see it that way.
>Their big customers don't see it that way.
You're a "big" customer? Or, you're just presuming to speak for others
yet again?
Matt Beazer
b...@kf8nh.apk.net (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH) wrote:
>Also sprach someone quoted by pkre...@op.net (<4ukjjd$5...@picasso.op.net>):
>(sorry, I seem to have missed the original...)
>+-----
>| I say that because
>| >given the chance, M$ will have NT on EVERY desktop in two years. Not
>+--->8
>If M$ tries to foist NT off on the game-playing home market they'll be laughed
>out of it. All reports I've heard say that NT can't play most Win95 games *at
>all* --- not "too slow", but "can't start". Win95 games still play directly
>with hardware for speed, and NT forbids that.
>This is the primary reason that M$ keeps backing off on its claims of wanting
>to move the home market to NT. The game ISVs won't hear of it, and they are
>a large part of what drives the home/retail computer market.
NT can play pinball in 4.0. Slowly. <grin> Quake won't run, DOOM
runs slowly with no sound, Mechwarrior 2 (DOS version) won't even
INSTALL since it tried to access the HD directly, Descent 1.4a
registered crashes Terminal Velocity played fine under NT 3.5, but I
haven't tried it in 4.0.
Working with a beta of NT Server 4.0 at work, I've noticed it is much
more unstable than 3.5 or 3.51 ever was. So far I've been forced to
reinstall it once after I tried to start and FTP service manually. NT
crashed and burned, and from then on whenever it booted it would
complain that it was low on virtual memory (P6-200 w/64mb RAM and a
74mb swap file) then crash, do a memory dump, boot, crash, do a memory
dump, boot, crash, ect. Since we have no backup implementation yet
(it's a machine that we're still waiting for most of the hardware to
get in, BTW. I work for a school, and it takes forever for anything
to get approved)
So I had to re-install. I had to format the drive; if I tried to
re-install it over the old copy, I'd just get a different error at
boot, and it would lock solid. A fresh install in a different
directory resulted in the same thing. Then we have this NTFSDOS
thing...sure, it's not much of a big deal for a server, which is
locked up most of the time anyway, but a workstation that's supposed
to have C2 security? All you have to do it make a DOS boot disk, copy
this little executable onto the boot floppy, hit reset, boot of the
floppy, run the program, and congrats, you've hacked NT. OS/2 has the
HPFS drivers out, but it doesn't claim to have C2 secuirty. And MS
denies that this has any implications to the security in NT.
Then they went and put the video on ring 0, meaning if you have a
goofy video driver it can royally screw your machine over. MS says
this doesn't matter, since you're 'only supposed to use drivers
approved by microsoft'. Is this feasable, especially fi they try to
push it on their average consumer? We've all seen video problems with
OS/2 before, and the video drivers aren't even on ring 0!
Mypoint is, MS is messing up NT, and I HATE IT! I hate the GUI more
than I hated the old Windows 3.1 interface, sure the bindings are MUCH
easier to handle. But I've crashed NT moretimes running the beta than
I did with the OS/2 2.99 beta, and I've been using the NT beta less
than the OS/2 beta, on a MUCH worse machine.
MS will go in and tear out the insides of what makes NT a decent OS,
and one that I can handle running without screaming in frustration.
Watch them make it so the sound drivers can be accessed directly, then
keyboard and other perepheral devices such as joysticks. Watch them
speed up and improved the compatibilty of the DOS support once MS
figures out that thay've underestimated the foothold DOS still has in
the market, especially in games.
Now, this could be great for OS/2. But I doubt anyone in the press
will admit it. Just look at the reviews of OS/2 Warp Server vs. NT
and Novell. Look how they overreacted to the bug in the install
program for the original Warp that caused it to crash if a backup copy
of the config.sys still existed in the root directory of the install
drive.
NT 4.0 seems like it will be much less stable than NT users are used
to. Sure, it might look prettier, but OS/2 is still more configurable
than NT is, and NT still, in my opinion, hold a candle to the many
UNIX variants out there, especially on the internet. The server
machine uses between 29 and 31 megs of RAM sitting at the desktop,
with only the resource monitor open, with no users connected to it.
Of course, I have IIS, TCP/IP and the gateway services/client for
netware loaded, as well as the 'standard fare' that NT installs by
defualt, but how odd is this configuraton?
But I'm rambling. The question is, will MS slaughter both Server and
Workstation, or break Server off from Workstation? Either way, OS/2,
if the stability issues I've seen (which may not be universal, of
course) will allow OS/2 to challenge NT's claims to better stability
in the desktop market, and possibly the server market as well. I have
no idea how Warp Server stacks up to NT when it comes to stability, so
I can't really say how far apart the two are.
I'm waiting to see how the release version handles, but it's tied up
in the average BS you have to go through with a school district.
----
...it's terrifying. In an age where we have more choice than ever before,
more mobility, more information, more opportunity to fulfill ourselves, how
is it that people can prefer to be identical?
ma...@mattb.spk.wa.us
c...@bcc.louisville.edu
a bit of snippage in this location..
> No. What I meantt to say was that without VT, Merlin wouldn't be that big
>a deal. I mean what else is there to get excited about? Opendoc? HA! name
>me 10 applets that are OpenDoc on the OS/2 plaform. Mac seems to have
>gotten the message, but the OS/2 ISV community seems mlike they coulnd
>care less. Loutus certainly isn't going to be providing us with OpenDoc
>anything. They have said publicly (Infoworld for one) that they are 100%
>behind ActiveX. That ActiveX is the better of the two technologies. So
>you tell me when they will write OpenDoc applets and I'll be skating
>on the frozen lakes in Hell.
>
the reason there isn't much OpenDoc development is that until Merlin you had to
have DEVCON to get it. think about this for a minute. if only developers have
the capability to run your program just how big is your market going to be?
With the release of Merlin you'll see OpenDoc commponents.
Chris
Harry Bush
Hello!
Friday August 16 1996 from jbr...@aros.net to All:
>> But NT does have MAJOR improvements.
j> Like what? A bullshit GUI? limited connections so you have to pay Bill
j> for the privelege? Domain handling that is right out of the stone age.
j> Backup software that sort of works, almost. and on and on and on. Its
j> technology base is almost older than OS/2 itself. Keep buying it, he'll
j> make more. :-(
It's offtopic here... but I must agree that all this hype about superior
NT 4 seems kinda crap to me now when I have both NT 4 release and Merlin
Beta 22 on my machine. Besides the well-known fact that NT is slow even
on P120 32 Mb EDO machine, it also cannot live with device drivers from
NT 3.5x. I will have to roll back to 3.51 to use Corel CD Creator-2
because NT 4 release traps on Sony CD Recorder device driver. In fact
I have seen much more blue colored NT kernel traps during last months than
black-colored OS/2 traps... Probably I will just buy Unite CD maker to
do the same CD forming thing under OS/2.
Speaking about so much glorified NT security I will just quote fragment
of an ad founded in USENET. Easy to understand: if some commercial company
can do it _guaranteed_, than clever intruder can do it either. So goes
overhyped C2 (which BTW has nothing to do with any _networked_ NT anyway).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ALT.SECURITY
Subj: Win NT - Internet Security Alert
*** Password Recovery Service ***
Guaranteed Administrator's password recovery service for Windows
NT 3.5x, 4.0. MWC, Inc. uses proprietary procedures to recover Windows NT
installation with a lost administrator's password.
More information about this service is available at:
http://www.omna.com/yes/mwc/prs-index.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Best wishes, Harry
Friday August 16 1996 16:02
* Crossposted in ALT.ORG.TEAM-OS2
* Crossposted in TEAMOS2
Steve Behman
I admit that fairness to any vendor (IBM or MS) who is little concerned
about me and other small VARs/ISVs like me is not a serious concern of
mine.
I am selfish! The only obligations I readily acknowledge are to my
family (to protect my investment), to my employees (to protect their
livelyhood) and especially to my customers who put their *trust* in my
company. I will buy from the devil himself (W. Gates?) if it helps me
meet my obligations.
I was merely expressing my concern and my *JUDGEMENT* while observing
that Mr. Zachmann *might* not be wrong.
Steve Behman
<s...@pacbell.net>
Christopher McRae
Who the hell is Will Zachmann and why is it of so much concern that he's
dropped OS/2 ?!?!?!
Joe Presley
In <4v8lkm$h...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, e-l...@uiuc.edu <Eric Larson> writes:
>In <4v225n$1...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>, cmc...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Christopher McRae) writes:
>
>>Who the hell is Will Zachmann and why is it of so much concern that he's
>>dropped OS/2 ?!?!?!
>
>Will Zachmann used to be a critic of IBM in the mid-80's. At the end of the
>80's into the early 90's, he became a supporter of IBM and a critic of
>Microsoft. He was also a writer for PC Magazine at this time, and, under
>pressure from Ziff Davis for writing too many pro-OS/2 articles, was
>fired (er resigned) from ZD.
Personally, I think he has recanted his earlier position (pro OS/2) because
he has found that the dwindling CIS crowd doesn't feed the coffers and he
needs ZD again. Note, he doesn't have *any* presence on the net, he's
hungry and ignored. Hey Will, we're over here!
Petri Taimisto
In message <4v8q26$7...@unx1.shsu.edu> - pre...@ibm.net (Joe Presley)19
Aug 1996 04:20:22 GMT writes:
>In <4v8lkm$h...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, e-l...@uiuc.edu <Eric Larson> writes:
>>In <4v225n$1...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>, cmc...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Christopher McRae) writes:
[comp.os.os2.misc dropped]
>>>Who the hell is Will Zachmann and why is it of so much concern that he's
>>>dropped OS/2 ?!?!?!
>>Will Zachmann used to be a critic of IBM in the mid-80's. At the end of the
>>80's into the early 90's, he became a supporter of IBM and a critic of
>>Microsoft. He was also a writer for PC Magazine at this time, and, under
>>pressure from Ziff Davis for writing too many pro-OS/2 articles, was
>>fired (er resigned) from ZD.
Plus until recently he wrote for OS/2 Magazine and he also hosts the
CANOPUS forum (CompuServe) which was pretty popular until CompuServe and MS
got into bed together.
>Personally, I think he has recanted his earlier position (pro OS/2) because
>he has found that the dwindling CIS crowd doesn't feed the coffers and he
>needs ZD again. Note, he doesn't have *any* presence on the net, he's
>hungry and ignored. Hey Will, we're over here!
I don't think anyone ought to sling mud at Will Z. unless he/she knows
what's been going on. I don't, but for chrissake give the man at least some
benefit of a doubt.
How many of you have, one time or another, felt that IBM is doing all the
wrong moves wrt OS/2 despite they've been dealt dream cards over and over
again? Now, how many of you have been promoting OS/2 (practically)
professionally for years, both inside and outside IBM? It's like banging
your head against the wall! Every passing month (without action) increases
Redmond Behemoth's grip on the industry and IBM may soon realize that after
desktop (if they really give it up) there's nothing preventing the Redmond
boys taking the Really Big Businesses away from IBM's contact list.
Now, if Will Z. "threatens" to install W95 or W-NT he must feel really
disappointed with IBM, the lack of vision and all. AFAIK he hates it as
much as we (most of us, I think) do to see proprietary and technologically
inferior MS-stuff taking over left and right.
>Note, he doesn't have *any* presence on the net, he's hungry and ignored.
> Hey Will, we're over here!
Well, maybe he's going to, if just to show you his hunger... ;-)
Brgds,
___________________________________________________________________
--- Petri Taimisto, Hong Kong © p...@iohk.com
System Powered By A Warp Engine
Do you enjoy freedom of speech, opinion and religion?
A lot of people aren't that lucky...
F R E E T I B E T
http://www.peacenet.org/ict/tibet.html
>
>Who the hell is Will Zachmann and why is it of so much concern that he's
>dropped OS/2 ?!?!?!
===========
Will Zachmann used to be a critic of IBM in the mid-80's. At the end of the
80's into the early 90's, he became a supporter of IBM and a critic of
Microsoft. He was also a writer for PC Magazine at this time, and, under
pressure from Ziff Davis for writing too many pro-OS/2 articles, was
fired (er resigned) from ZD.
Eric Larson
e-l...@uiuc.edu
Tim Gerchmez
On Fri, 16 Aug 1996 06:21:11 GMT, ma...@mattb.spk.wa.us (Matt Beazer)
wrote:
>Working with a beta of NT Server 4.0 at work, I've noticed it is much
>more unstable than 3.5 or 3.51 ever was.
Gosh... a beta that's more unstable than a release version... what
*will* they think of next...
jay...@rcinet.com
Maybe he's looking for his old job back. With CI$ going down the tubes (and the
Canopus forum with it), he might need it.
|
| Jay Schamus
| jay...@rcinet.com
|
| "Meanwhile to the northwest, storm clouds gather over the new Barad-Dur.
| The Dark Lord stirs...."
|
Dave Tholen
Steve Behman writes:
>>>> Steve Behman writes:
>> Unfairly.
>> Maybe he should.
Some people and businesses have investments in software.
> to my employees (to protect their
> livelyhood) and especially to my customers who put their *trust* in my
> company.
But when you're the customer... (see above).
> I will buy from the devil himself (W. Gates?) if it helps me
> meet my obligations.
Do you expect your customers to treat you that way?
> I was merely expressing my concern and my *JUDGEMENT* while observing
> that Mr. Zachmann *might* not be wrong.
And I was merely expressing my concern that apprehension exists on both
sides of the fence.
jim frost
kiy...@kiyoinc.com writes:
>>OS/2 and NT are BOTH very poorly documented. When you wonder off of the
>>'beaten path' in either Opsys the vendor provided documentation is
>>woefully inadequate.
>>
>Opsys? Hmmm, I've never heard anyone call an OS an Opsys.
I'm sure there are a whole lot of colloquialisms that you haven't
heard. That one I ran into in the microcomputer world in the late
1970's.
>the stuff that
>doesn't exist for toy operating systems like WNT from wannabe systems
>houses like M$.
You sure do show your biases. NT is not as mature as MVS, nor even
remotely as well documented, but it is not a toy -- and it was
developed by an engineering team with quite a lot of experience in
developing "real" systems. The similarities between NT and other
Microsoft operating systems aren't even skin deep.
What I find particularly amusing is that Microsoft didn't expect to
get something like NT, and they really don't know how to exploit it.
They think "mass market," not "high technology."
>The problem in this case is IBM *is* number one and is still asleep at
>the switch. There are lots of first rate people at IBM but there are
>lots of second tier people there too. There's a whole useless middle
>management clogging IBM's arteries.
IBM has a hell of a lot of problems, it's not just middle management.
It's infighting amongst the big boys, aging infrastructure, and just
plain bloated development teams. They still haven't learned the
lesson that bigger is not better when it comes to software, even
though they wrote the book on the subject decades ago, nor do they
appear to have even the vaguest idea what to do with marketing.
>Steve, what kind of product are you building? The OS/2 market is 10
>times larger than WNT.
True, but this ignores the Win95 market base. It is not all that
difficult to write a product on NT and move it to Win95 to take
advantage of the mainstream. Hell, look at what it has done for Java.
jim frost
ji...@world.std.com
--
http://world.std.com/~jimf
jim frost
sbe...@ibm.net writes:
>Windows 95 has not been a booming success
Just out of curiosity, by what measure has it not been a booming
success?
Robert Dohrenburg
Joe Presley wrote:
>
> In <4v8lkm$h...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, e-l...@uiuc.edu <Eric Larson> writes:
> >In <4v225n$1...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>, cmc...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Christopher McRae) writes:
> >
> >>Who the hell is Will Zachmann and why is it of so much concern that he's
> >>dropped OS/2 ?!?!?!
> >===========
> >
> >Will Zachmann used to be a critic of IBM in the mid-80's. At the end of the
> >80's into the early 90's, he became a supporter of IBM and a critic of
> >Microsoft. He was also a writer for PC Magazine at this time, and, under
> >pressure from Ziff Davis for writing too many pro-OS/2 articles, was
> >fired (er resigned) from ZD.
>
> he has found that the dwindling CIS crowd doesn't feed the coffers and he
> needs ZD again. Note, he doesn't have *any* presence on the net, he's
> hungry and ignored. Hey Will, we're over here!
Yep, I agree. He's been ignored in the past few years, and with the ever
increasing
possibility of Compuserve going under he's trying to *make* friends.
He used to or has a column in OS/2 Magazine, I wonder what happened.
Robert Dohrenburg.
William F. Zachmann
My views on OS/2 finally changed, Joe, when I learned, beyond any
reasonable doubt, in conversations with most of IBM's top executives in
Toronto week before last, that despite the pretence that IBM will "continue
to support" and enhance OS/2, OS/2 is in fact considered a dead (or at
least dying) duck by IBM management and, practically speaking, has NO
support at IBM outside of PSP. The rest of the company is far more deeply
committed to (and enthusiastic about) Windows NT and takes OS/2's eventual
demise for granted.
As to CANOPUS, it is one of the busiest forums on CompuServe and is doing
just fine, thanks.
All the best,
Will Zachmann
..
Joe Presley
In <01bb8f9e$54b3e0e0$8af1e4cd@ariel-one>, "William F. Zachmann" <Will_Z...@MSN.NET> writes:
>My views on OS/2 finally changed, Joe, when I learned, beyond any
>reasonable doubt, in conversations with most of IBM's top executives in
>Toronto week before last, that despite the pretence that IBM will "continue
>to support" and enhance OS/2, OS/2 is in fact considered a dead (or at
>least dying) duck by IBM management and, practically speaking, has NO
>support at IBM outside of PSP. The rest of the company is far more deeply
>committed to (and enthusiastic about) Windows NT and takes OS/2's eventual
>demise for granted.
Will, my take on what you are saying is that IBM is claiming to
support OS/2 when in fact they are really trying to delude the
general public. This seems to be a very serious charge and one
that could hold you accountable (slander). So far, all I've heard
is gossip (anonymous IBM upper management). In fact, I've read
named IBM upper management persons saying that they continue to
fully support OS/2. Some have even been in this forum, making
similar statements.
>As to CANOPUS, it is one of the busiest forums on CompuServe and is doing
>just fine, thanks.
Will, I was a big fan of CANOPUS (and Will Zachmann), when I used CIS.
It was first forum I downloaded when I logged on, using Golden Compass.
For a couple of months, after I started using the internet, I logged into CIS
just to get my CANOPUS fix. Today, we see in the various 'e-rags' that
CIS' business is so poor that they are laying people off. This CIS problem
comes at a very inopertune time for your statements to hold much
credence, other than for publicity.
If your statements are founded, you should at least share some quotes
from the anonymous IBM wheels. Further, if your statements are correct,
I expect to see you going after IBM with the same zest that you went after
Microsoft (the postings that were coming from some user that was really
a MS operative). If IBM is trying to fool the public, then they are probably
perpetrating an illegal act. If they are indeed trying to advance OS/2 then
you are out of line and probably guilty of slander. This is such bad timing
in a rejuvenated Merlin campaign for you to have a foxhole conversion
that is almost looks to have malicious intent.
>All the best,
>
>Will Zachmann
And truly, all the best to you,
Joe
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
*}"William F. Zachmann" <Will_Z...@MSN.NET> writes:
...OS/2 is in fact considered a dead (or at least dying) duck by IBM
management and, practically speaking, has NO support at IBM outside
of PSP. The rest of the company is far more deeply committed to
(and enthusiastic about) Windows NT and takes OS/2's eventual demise
for granted.
It's interesting Zachman actually posted here to the Usenet (albeit from
MSN)... or maybe someone forwarded on his behalf. What's perplexing is
the reiteration of such an irrelevant point. OS/2 belongs the the PSP
division. Period. IBM divisions are extremely independent (perhaps
excessively). End of story.
Although preloads would be useful with the Adaptivas and Thinkpads,
beyond that, the opinion of other IBM divisions is no more relevant to
the fate of OS/2 than is the opinion of independent companies. I do not
know if it is true that the rest of the company is enthusiastic about
WinNT; but the issue seems a bit irrelevant since the rest of the
company is not in a business that has any use for NT. NT doesn't run on
the mainframes. NT doesn't run on the RS/6000's or AS/400's. NT might
compete with AIX on PowerPC's, but I kinda doubt the AIX folks want to
give up their jobs. Any enthusiasm for NT would seem to have to be at a
sufficient distance to be a bit academic.
Yours, Lulu...
_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/
_/_/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[qui...@philos.umass.edu]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _/_/
_/_/ The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer... _/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them! _/_/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGP 2.6 key available by finger <qui...@oitunix.oit.umass.edu>
ga...@atcon.com
In <01bb8f9e$54b3e0e0$8af1e4cd@ariel-one>, "William F. Zachmann" <Will_Z...@MSN.NET> writes:
>My views on OS/2 finally changed, Joe, when I learned, beyond any
>reasonable doubt, in conversations with most of IBM's top executives in
>Toronto week before last, that despite the pretence that IBM will "continue
>least dying) duck by IBM management and, practically speaking, has NO
>support at IBM outside of PSP. The rest of the company is far more deeply
>committed to (and enthusiastic about) Windows NT and takes OS/2's eventual
>demise for granted.
>
>just fine, thanks.
>
>
>Will Zachmann
>
AHAHAHAHAHAHHA Sad!!!!! Who do you work for again? Hahaahaha.
Pankil
Actually, I've just read in the news, online, and in newspapers that
Compuserve is taking a loss due to low subscriptions...
All this ranting and raving like a lunatic about the demise of OS2 seems
like your CANOPUS forum may not be doing as well as you would have
us believe. (Maybe you want OS2 users to join the forum, eh!?!)
Come to think of it, Will, can the usenet community expect to hear
your lunacy once Compuserve does not perform to YOUR standards?
As the saying goes: Don't leave mad. JUST LEAVE!
PS: Nice email address...
William F. Zachmann
> Maybe he's looking for his old job back. With CI$ going down the tubes (and the
> Canopus forum with it), he might need it.
Hardly. I don't need a job, since I do very well running my own
business (Canopus Research) and my forum on CompuServe (GO CANOPUS) in
fact had its busiest week (in terms of message traffic) where it was the
fourth-busiest forum there during that period. More messages are
typically posted there in a few hours than are posted on c.o.o.a. in a
24 hour period and the folks who hang around there include key industry
executives, analysts and press. Your speculation is misinformed.
Alex Nicolson
In message <01bb8f9e$54b3e0e0$8af1e4cd@ariel-one> - "William F. Zachmann"
<Will_Z...@MSN.NET>21 Aug 1996 20:19:30 GMT writes:
:>
:>My views on OS/2 finally changed, Joe, when I :>learned, beyond any:>...
>>>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155
I just feel like adding gasoline to the fire... but did any one notice the ISP
address?? What about the newsreader?
I use to love reading CANOPUS on CIS.. but there was no local dial for CIS.
cro...@kuentos.guam.net
In <01bb8f9e$54b3e0e0$8af1e4cd@ariel-one>, "William F. Zachmann" <Will_Z...@MSN.NET> writes:
>My views on OS/2 finally changed, Joe, when I learned, beyond any
>Toronto week before last, that despite the pretence that IBM will "continue
>to support" and enhance OS/2, OS/2 is in fact considered a dead (or at
>least dying) duck by IBM management and, practically speaking, has NO
>support at IBM outside of PSP. The rest of the company is far more deeply
>committed to (and enthusiastic about) Windows NT and takes OS/2's eventual
>demise for granted.
>
>just fine, thanks.
>
>
>Will Zachmann
>
Smells of a complete forgery. What will Winminions think of next?
Rgds,
Chris
Famous People on Operating Systems (Please feel free to contribute)
Rene Discartes---"I think, therefore I don't use Windows."
Clint Eastwood---"A man got to know his operating system limitations."
Albert Einstein---"E=OS/2"
Hamlet---"To Warp or not to Warp, that is the question."
Steve McGarrett, Hawaii Five-O---"Boot'em, Dano."
President Roosevelt---"This day shall live in infamy."
(On the day Windows 95 is launched.) ***cro...@kuentos.guam.net***
Frank Field
In <321C90...@pcix.com>, "William F. Zachmann" <w...@pcix.com> writes:
>> He used to or has a column in OS/2 Magazine, I wonder what happened.
>
>weren't making enough money because the OS/2 market was doing so poorly
>and so they couldn't afford my column any longer.
>
>I sorta think of 'em as horses that kept getting shot out from under me.
>
>All the best,
>
>Will Zachmann
Now, the real question is, Who is this person and
why is he pretending to be Will Zachmann?
(actually, the second half of the question is
answered by the trolling he's undertaking).
More interestingly, does Will Zachmann have any recourse?
Frank Field
O-
Greg F Walz Chojnacki
Just seems like some clever pre-emptive anti-Merlin FUD to me.
WIN 95 is a joke, and NT is just a niche OS, for now, anyway. So, if you
have any brains you either stick with DOS or DOS/Win31 or get OS/2.
Or, if you're adventurous, try Linux. (I had the CD for months but made the
plunge the other night; I think the impending availability of Star Office
for linux was the final, if subliminal push.)
(computing) Power to the People!
--
g...@csd.uwm.edu UW-Milwaukee News Services & Publications 414/229-4454
http://www.uwm.edu/News FAX:414/229-6443
ga...@atcon.com
In <321C90...@pcix.com>, "William F. Zachmann" <w...@pcix.com> writes:
>> He used to or has a column in OS/2 Magazine, I wonder what happened.
>
>The same thing that happened to all the other OS/2 magazines. They
>weren't making enough money because the OS/2 market was doing so poorly
>and so they couldn't afford my column any longer.
>
>I sorta think of 'em as horses that kept getting shot out from under me.
>
>All the best,
>
>Will Zachmann
Didn't have the heart to just fire you eh ?
Whiner.
ga...@atcon.com
>
>Will Zachmann
Anyone know what the other three were?
Joe Kesselman
In <DwIHn...@world.std.com>, ji...@world.std.com (jim frost) writes:
>True, but this ignores the Win95 market base. It is not all that
>difficult to write a product on NT and move it to Win95 to take
>advantage of the mainstream. Hell, look at what it has done for Java.
It's not all that hard to move a product from Win95 to OS/2 either,
using the Developer API Extensions and with assistance from the
SMART tool. If you're just slightly careful, you can probably support
all three systems from a single code base.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph J. Kesselman http://pages.prodigy.com/keshlam/
"This note is a production of Novalabs Consulting, which is solely
responsible for its content. Opinions not necessarily those of IBM."
PL. Miraglia
In article <01bb8f9e$54b3e0e0$8af1e4cd@ariel-one> "William F. Zachmann" <Will_Z...@MSN.NET> writes:
> My views on OS/2 finally changed, Joe, when I learned, beyond any
> reasonable doubt, in conversations with most of IBM's top executives in
> Toronto week before last, that despite the pretence that IBM will "continue
> to support" and enhance OS/2, OS/2 is in fact considered a dead (or at
....
Could you give us at least a hint of why executives who would not balk
at laying off several thousands of people would "pretend" to support a
product _they_ regard as a failure? What's the logic here? Every day
that goes by costs them millions of $, they assume (by your testimony)
that it's all for naught, yet they keep paying. Where did they get their
MBAs? If what you say it's true, the IBM brass is not fooling anybody
but themselves.
Cheers,
--
---***---***---***---***---
Pierluigi Miraglia
Here in North-East Ohio: pim...@telerama.lm.com
There: pmir...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu
William F. Zachmann
> He used to or has a column in OS/2 Magazine, I wonder what happened.
The same thing that happened to all the other OS/2 magazines. They
weren't making enough money because the OS/2 market was doing so poorly
and so they couldn't afford my column any longer.
I sorta think of 'em as horses that kept getting shot out from under me.
All the best,
Will Zachmann
ado...@isl.net
Well, Will.
I dont want any of your articles in OS/2 Magazine anyway.
And I hardly doubt that OS/2 Mag is short of $$$
-Dave
Master of the Universe
http://www.isl.net/~adolphc/os2rules/os2rules.html
ado...@isl.net
ado...@isl.net
>
Just FYI, but.....
OS/2 Proffesional went under for unknown reasons in Feb.
Could this be related to Zachman??
Steve Sinnott
fut...@blarg.net (Tim Gerchmez) wrote:
>On 24 Aug 1996 19:01:54 GMT, p...@iohk.com (Petri Taimisto) wrote:
>>Is it really necessary for you to drag Team OS/2 into every mess you see?
>>Rancorous? Team OS/2 is a large group of volunteered individuals bonded to
>>together just by liking OS/2 and the willingness to help others share a
>>positive experience. You were one of Team OS/2 once, and even tried to give
>>me a hand with my Canon BJ printer problems. I appreciated your help, but
>>your continuing and unwarranted attacking of Team OS/2 leaves a bad taste.
>Perhaps the fact that he was once a member, but is now disgruntled
>with Team OS/2 should tell you something, or at least make you think.
>Certain members of Team OS/2 are creating a bad reputation for the
>entire team.
Ah, so now TeamOS/2 disgruntled Jason from the OS/2 Operating System
as well?
Interesting theory there, Tim. Very novel.
>--
>Check out my home page at http://www.blarg.net/~future/index.html
>I'm a volunteer at the Win95 Help Site. Drop by if you need help with Win95.
>http://www.isisnet.com/terrymo/index.html
---
Steve Sinnott
nap...@ibm.net
Napalm Productions, Inc.
Microsoft Windows 95 - From the makers of EDLIN and FAT drive formatting!
jpe...@ibm.net
In article ,
fu...@mit.edu (Frank Field) wrote:
>
> In , "William F. Zachmann" writes:
> >> He used to or has a column in OS/2 Magazine, I wonder what happened.
> >
> >weren't making enough money because the OS/2 market was doing so poorly
> >and so they couldn't afford my column any longer.
> >
> >I sorta think of 'em as horses that kept getting shot out from under me.
> >
> >All the best,
> >
> >Will Zachmann
> why is he pretending to be Will Zachmann?
> (actually, the second half of the question is
> answered by the trolling he's undertaking).
> More interestingly, does Will Zachmann have any recourse?
> Frank Field
> O-
Do you think possibly, just possibly, that it might just BE Will Zachamnn?
Do you think possibly, just possibly, that up until very recently his main internet access provider has exclusively been Compuserve, being a forum manager there? Or perhaps he wanted to get on the internet quickly with Win95, and using a disposable account with MSN to receive rancorous messages from irate Team-OS/2ers is preferable than getting his normal ISP account saturated with innumerable hate mail? Just a thought.
After speaking with him for almost an hour last week over the telephone, it
definitely sounds like its the genuine article. Its him.
Jason H. Perlow
http://www.ntweb.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]
sav...@ibm.net
In <01bb8f9e$54b3e0e0$8af1e4cd@ariel-one>, "William F. Zachmann" <Will_Z...@MSN.NET> writes:
>My views on OS/2 finally changed, Joe, when I learned, beyond any
>reasonable doubt, in conversations with most of IBM's top executives in
>Toronto week before last, that despite the pretence that IBM will "continue
>to support" and enhance OS/2, OS/2 is in fact considered a dead (or at
>support at IBM outside of PSP. The rest of the company is far more deeply
>committed to (and enthusiastic about) Windows NT and takes OS/2's eventual
>demise for granted.
>
>As to CANOPUS, it is one of the busiest forums on CompuServe and is doing
>just fine, thanks.
>
>
>Will Zachmann
>
Sorry you feel this way, but I understand your frustration. However, I do
believe that you are incorrect one point, it really doesn't matter what the rest
of the IBM thinks, as long as the consumer continues buying OS/2 (and they
have), then the PSP division will continue to support OS/2.
I talked to a high level executive officer in the PSP division and he told me
unofficially that version 5 of OS/2 was already in the works (if you want the
the official version, its in Info World about three to four weeks ago).
As an OS/2 only PC company, what has amazed us is the fact that around 40%
of our initial sales have been to former Windows users. They are looking for
an alternative, and if it is shown to them, they buy it.
We sold one box through a Reseller in NJ, and because of it, the owner has
decided to go with OS/2 in all three of his businesses and is presently in the
process of installing OS/2 on every desktop (he has not left it up to the
employees, the will ALL be using OS/2). We have sold over 30 copies of Warp
and just because of that one box, and we have three other stories just like it.
And we've only been delivering systems in the market for four months!
Microsoft has not done a brilliant marketing job. Their marketing sucks. Their
OEM agreements, however, have been brilliant. How can the consumer make a
choice if when they buy a PC, the only OS they get is Windows? We plan, in
a small way at first, and hopefully in a larger scheme later, to change that.
OS/2 is not for everyone. But neither is NT nor 95. And with their less than
stellar market performance, the consumer is looking for an alternative. Not
everyone will buy, but I will more than gladly take 1% of the market. Heck, I'll
take .05% of the market.
OS/2 is not going to sell because we all hang around and tell each other how
great a product it is. Nor will it sell because of IBM. It will sell because
someone SOLD them OS/2. I am salesman, not a techie. I come from a marketing
background, and that is exactly what I plan to do.
The consumer goes out to buy a PC, not an OS. And that is why we will
succeed. How large is the question. Only time will tell. But I will tell you
one thing, my consumer who has been running one of her machines since Dec
12, 1995 without a reboot, lockup or shut down while running a three peer
to peer running windows, DOS and OS/2 side by side couldn't care less what
the press, or anyone else says about OS/2. You couldn't get her to back to
Windows if you paid her.
And we plan on having quite a few more of those success stories.
So in conclusion (see, I am even long winded when I write), I understand
your frustration, I can understand why you have given up on OS/2. But the
consumer hasn't. And a lot of them have given up on Microsoft. And we're going
to give them a place to go.
God bless you, and good luck with NT :).
sav...@ibm.net
In <01bb8f9e$54b3e0e0$8af1e4cd@ariel-one>, "William F. Zachmann" <Will_Z...@MSN.NET> writes:
>My views on OS/2 finally changed, Joe, when I learned, beyond any
>reasonable doubt, in conversations with most of IBM's top executives in
>Toronto week before last, that despite the pretence that IBM will "continue
>to support" and enhance OS/2, OS/2 is in fact considered a dead (or at
>least dying) duck by IBM management and, practically speaking, has NO
>support at IBM outside of PSP. The rest of the company is far more deeply
>committed to (and enthusiastic about) Windows NT and takes OS/2's eventual
>demise for granted.
>
>As to CANOPUS, it is one of the busiest forums on CompuServe and is doing
>just fine, thanks.
>
>All the best,
>
>Will Zachmann
>
>...
The long winded one was,
Art Powell
CEO
Simply Intelligent Inc.
"Your OS/2 PC Company"
1-800-OS/2-BETT'er'
sis...@fc.net
http://www.fc.net/sios2/
Jim
ado...@isl.net wrote:
>In <321C90...@pcix.com>, "William F. Zachmann" <w...@pcix.com> writes:
>>> He used to or has a column in OS/2 Magazine, I wonder what happened.
>>
>>The same thing that happened to all the other OS/2 magazines. They
>>weren't making enough money because the OS/2 market was doing so poorly
>>and so they couldn't afford my column any longer.
>>
>>I sorta think of 'em as horses that kept getting shot out from under me.
>>
>>All the best,
>>
>>Will Zachmann
>
>Well, Will.
>
>I dont want any of your articles in OS/2 Magazine anyway.
>
>And I hardly doubt that OS/2 Mag is short of $$$
>
OS/2 developer has bit the big one (merged with OS/2 mag I believe) ,
and OS/2 professional also.
Regards
Jim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Figure out what sucks..., then don't do it
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jussi Jumppanen
Joe Kesselman (kes...@prodigy.com) wrote:
> It's not all that hard to move a product from Win95 to OS/2 either,
> using the Developer API Extensions and with assistance from the
> SMART tool. If you're just slightly careful, you can probably support
> all three systems from a single code base.
It is far easier to move from Win95 to WinNT than OS/2. At the moment
DAPIE (or Open32) is still not solid and has a few holes but it does
have promise. But a bigger problem is getting the compiler to do the
compile. At the moment I run BC45 and my fairly standard C++ code that
compiles clean as a whistle on Windows 3.x, Windows 95 and Windows NT
does not compile with Watcom or VAC++. So much for the C++ standard!
I my case it will not port unless I do a lot of (meaningless) code
rework to bring it down to the lowest common denominator.
Jussi Jumppanen (ju...@sydney.dialix.oz.au)
Author of: Digital Logic Analyers for Windows
Zeus for Windows, Win32 (Brief, WordStar, Emacs clone) Editor
"The ultimate programmers editor and development environment"
Home Page: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jussi
w...@pcix.com
In article <4vgai3$m...@decius.ultra.net>,
I happened to post that in the middle of checking out the new Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 as well as the Microsoft Network (still on the first month "free trial offer"). This is my regular Internet account. Please address any replies to me (or at least cc: me) at w...@pcix.com, since I don't regularly monitor this newsgroup.
Will
w...@pcix.com
In article <4vg1sv$5...@unx1.shsu.edu>,
pre...@ibm.net (Joe Presley) wrote:
.
> If your statements are founded, you should at least share some quotes
> from the anonymous IBM wheels. Further, if your statements are correct,
> I expect to see you going after IBM with the same zest that you went after
> Microsoft (the postings that were coming from some user that was really
> a MS operative). If IBM is trying to fool the public, then they are probably
> perpetrating an illegal act. If they are indeed trying to advance OS/2 then
> you are out of line and probably guilty of slander. This is such bad timing
> in a rejuvenated Merlin campaign for you to have a foxhole conversion
> that is almost looks to have malicious intent.
They are defintely well founded and have been discussed at length over on the Canopus Research Forum (GO CANOPUS) on CompuServe. Were you to look at the discussion over there, you would readily see that I have been no kinder to IBM concerning IBM's abandonment of OS/2 (which is, in fact, what IBM is doing despite a superficial pretense at "continuing to support and enhance" the product) than I was concerning Microsoft's equally unstraightforward abandonment of OS/2 the winter of '90/'91.
It isn't at all a matter of "foxhole conversion." It is that I learned, beyond any reasonable possibility of doubt, at the IBM IT Analysts Conference in Toronto two weeks ago, that Lou Gerstner and the entire IBM executive group consider OS/2 to be a dead (or at least dying) duck and that they would drop OS/2 immediately were it not that they've convinced some of their big customers to use it in a fairly big way. I had guite extensive conversations with numerous IBM executives including John M. Thompson (John W. Thompson's boss)and it was painfully evident (at least from the point of view of any OS/2 supporter) that OS/2 is considered a total dead end by IBM.
It is by no means pleasant for me to have to admit that I made a mistake, back in 1991, in thinking that IBM, despite numerous missteps, would eventually get its act together with OS/2. It is now clear to me, however, that they aren't even going to try any longer. They have been steadily reducing spending on OS/2 and recently, after a two month review which actively considered dumping the product immediately, they are reducing it even futher than originally planned. The budget PSP still has available to spend on OS/2 (a mere fraction of what it was two years ago) amounts to little more than funeral expenses.
Will Zachmann
(Anyone who wants to reply to me personally is requested to cc: me at w...@pcix.com since I don't ordinarily monitor this newsgroup.)
cha...@sans.vuw.ac.nz
In <4vhcb7$d...@thor.atcon.com>, ga...@atcon.com writes:
>In <01bb8f9e$54b3e0e0$8af1e4cd@ariel-one>, "William F. Zachmann" <Will_Z...@MSN.NET> writes:
>>My views on OS/2 finally changed, Joe, when I learned, beyond any
>>reasonable doubt, in conversations with most of IBM's top executives in
>>Toronto week before last, that despite the pretence that IBM will "continue
>>to support" and enhance OS/2, OS/2 is in fact considered a dead (or at
>>least dying) duck by IBM management and, practically speaking, has NO
>>support at IBM outside of PSP. The rest of the company is far more deeply
>>committed to (and enthusiastic about) Windows NT and takes OS/2's eventual
>>demise for granted.
>>As to CANOPUS, it is one of the busiest forums on CompuServe and is doing
>>just fine, thanks.
>>Will Zachmann
>AHAHAHAHAHAHHA Sad!!!!! Who do you work for again? Hahaahaha.
The from headers were all crap..
fron...@wwa.com
In <01bb8f9e$54b3e0e0$8af1e4cd@ariel-one>, "William F. Zachmann" <Will_Z...@MSN.NET> writes:
>My views on OS/2 finally changed, Joe, when I learned, beyond any
>reasonable doubt, in conversations with most of IBM's top executives in
>Toronto week before last, that despite the pretence that IBM will "continue
>to support" and enhance OS/2, OS/2 is in fact considered a dead (or at
>least dying) duck by IBM management and, practically speaking, has NO
>support at IBM outside of PSP. The rest of the company is far more deeply
>committed to (and enthusiastic about) Windows NT and takes OS/2's eventual
>demise for granted.
>
>As to CANOPUS, it is one of the busiest forums on CompuServe and is doing
>just fine, thanks.
>
pronouncements have made here on the internet.
Alot of us here do not agree with your evaluation of IBM and OS/2, but its
a free country and I do not take issue with the right of having your own
professional judgements. However, I would like you to answer one question
that has me really baffled. What possible positive contribution to the current
PC users' community does your announcement have?
Please respond here, I would like everyone to read what you have to say!
/// James W. Richards
/// Frontline Technologies, Inc. - Evolving Technologies Specialists
Martin Nisshagen
In article <XH9GykKk...@oitunix.oit.umass.edu>
qui...@oitunix.oit.umass.edu (Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters) wrote:
> It's interesting Zachman actually posted here to the Usenet (albeit from
> MSN)... or maybe someone forwarded on his behalf. What's perplexing is
Why is Usenet different than other forums like Compuserve?
Just curious...
> Although preloads would be useful with the Adaptivas and Thinkpads,
> beyond that, the opinion of other IBM divisions is no more relevant to
> the fate of OS/2 than is the opinion of independent companies. I do not
> know if it is true that the rest of the company is enthusiastic about
> WinNT; but the issue seems a bit irrelevant since the rest of the
> company is not in a business that has any use for NT. NT doesn't run on
I think he maybe refers to the news that IBM will stop with preloading
of OS/2 on Thinkpads and expanding their support for NT Workstation and
preload of NT 4.0 (http://www.pcco.ibm.com/thinkpad/).
As I uses several OSes I must agree with Zazhman that OS/2 has
less support from IBM than what I would like. Even if they are
different divisions you would expect them to at least continue
to offer preloads as an option to NT and Win95.
How easy is it for PSP to convince other PC manufactures to
preload OS/2 if they can't convince their own PC company?
Best regards,
m a r t i n n
--
Martin Nisshagen
mar...@mts.se (MIME 1.0 enabled)
http://home1.swipnet.se/~w-10005/martin/
Steven C. Den Beste
cha...@sans.vuw.ac.nz wrote:
>
> In <oH8GyoHp...@skypoint.com>, rste...@skypoint.com (Richard Steiner) writes:
> >Since PSP is the development arm for PC software at IBM, and since they
> >are the folks who have direct say on what OS/2 is and where it goes,
> >provide development/support resources, etc., it would appear to my own
> >untrained eye that OS/2 as a product still has considerable potential.
>
> OS/2 isn't making IBM LOOSE money, so why on earth would any company
> drop a profitable product? (Even if the profits were tiny).
>
> ESP. one that still shows potential..
It is not a question of absolute profit, but of relative profit
potential compared to other ways in which the same resources could be
invested.
IBM does not have infinite resources to invest. Every company has more
things it COULD do than it has resources to do them with. The idea is to
select those opportunities which maximize profits. If you select a
low-profit item over a high-profit item, you may not LOSE money, but you
won't make as much as you could.
If I invest $100 million in a product and make a net profit of $1.73,
I'm not LOSING money, but it is still a foolish investment.
OS/2 may or may not be such an investment; that's not my contention. I'm
simply pointing out that a company may have good reasons to drop a
"profitable product" if it isn't profitable enough.
--
Nntp-Posting-Host: world.std.com
Message-ID: <31F4D4...@world.std.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 09:34:02 -0400
From: Steven Den Beste <denb...@world.std.com>
Hugh Whalen
comp.os2.misc trimmed
On 23 Aug 1996 05:58:27 GMT, cha...@sans.vuw.ac.nz wrote:
>In <oH8GyoHp...@skypoint.com>, rste...@skypoint.com (Richard Steiner) writes:
>>Since PSP is the development arm for PC software at IBM, and since they
>>are the folks who have direct say on what OS/2 is and where it goes,
>>provide development/support resources, etc., it would appear to my own
>>untrained eye that OS/2 as a product still has considerable potential.
>
>OS/2 isn't making IBM LOOSE money, so why on earth would any company
>drop a profitable product? (Even if the profits were tiny).
OK, I'll give this one a shot.
Companies have limited resources (financial, managerial, etc.). They
cannot afford to fund all profitable or potentially profitable
ventures. They must make a choice. One of the ways they make the
choice is by using a technique called return on investment (ROI). If
the ROI is too low the investment may be terminiated so that the
investment can be put into more profitable ventures.
A simple example. If you have $10,000 invested in a bank savings
account earning interest at 2% , you are making a profit on this
investment. However, if you could put the same money in Government
Bonds and earn 6% you would be better off doing that. In the same way
marginally profitable products may be discontinued or divisions sold
off if investment opportunities are better elsewhere.
Lots of companies do this. If my memory serves me correctly, General
Electric used to divest from any business where they felt they could
not be a world leader ( or at least very competitive.) I also beleive
that IBM had a profitable printer business which they sold off
(Lexmark).
>ESP. one that still shows potential..
Hugh Whalen, PhD
Assistant Prof., Management Information Systems
Faculty of Administration
University of New Brunswick
Fredericton, NB. Canada E3B 5A3
Ph: (506) 453-4869 Fax: (506) 453-3561
e-mail hwh...@unb.ca
Jim
g...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (Greg F Walz Chojnacki) wrote:
>Just seems like some clever pre-emptive anti-Merlin FUD to me.
>
>WIN 95 is a joke, and NT is just a niche OS, for now, anyway. So, if you
>have any brains you either stick with DOS or DOS/Win31 or get OS/2.
>
wanna share with the rest of us some of what you've been smoking.
jay...@rcinet.com
In <321C73...@MSN.COM>, "William F. Zachmann" <Will_Z...@MSN.COM> writes:
>> Maybe he's looking for his old job back. With CI$ going down the tubes (and the
>> Canopus forum with it), he might need it.
>
>
>Hardly. I don't need a job, since I do very well running my own
>business (Canopus Research) and my forum on CompuServe (GO CANOPUS) in
>fact had its busiest week (in terms of message traffic) where it was the
>fourth-busiest forum there during that period.
<snip>
>
>Will Zachmann
Dropping a bomb like this seems like a good way to boost message traffic (and
revenues) for the Canopus Forum. :-) Doesn't change the fact that CI$ is
loosing money in gushes and the only way it will survive is by turning itself
into an ISP. The old CI$ is dying, and good riddance in my opinion.
|
| Jay Schamus
| jay...@rcinet.com
|
| "Meanwhile to the northwest, storm clouds gather over the new Barad-Dur.
| The Dark Lord stirs...."
|
Frank Field
In <8407586...@dejanews.com>, jpe...@ibm.net writes:
>In article ,
> fu...@mit.edu (Frank Field) wrote:
[snip of quote/cite of original 'Zachmann' post]
>> Now, the real question is, Who is this person and
>> why is he pretending to be Will Zachmann?
>> (actually, the second half of the question is
>> answered by the trolling he's undertaking).
>> More interestingly, does Will Zachmann have any recourse?
>> Frank Field
>> O-
>
>Do you think possibly, just possibly, that it might just BE Will Zachamnn?
>Do you think possibly, just possibly, that up until very recently his main
>internet access provider has exclusively been Compuserve, being a forum
>manager there? Or perhaps he wanted to get on the internet quickly with
>Win95, and using a disposable account with MSN to receive rancorous >
>messages from irate Team-OS/2ers is preferable than getting >
>his normal ISP account saturated with innumerable hate mail? >
>Just a thought.
>
>After speaking with him for almost an hour last week over the telephone, it
>definitely sounds like its the genuine article. Its him.
>
>Jason H. Perlow
Jason:
Well, it certainly is *possible* - but I seem to have found the original
Zachmann message in several newsgroups in the comp.os.os2
heirarchy, always responding to a different person, and from
a William Zachmann at a variety of different hosts. It may be
that Zachmann has become suffiently paranoid that he's got
a bunch of IDs set up so that he can "safely" continue his discussion,
but, given the past experiences of the comp.os.os2 heirarchy with
spammers/FUDders using false IDs, I tend to be suspicious.
After all, given that Zachmann *does* post his comments electronically,
it's trivial for someone else to collect the text and rebroadcast it
(without attribution), and claim to be that person. I'd still suggest
that it's not clear, without a PGP signature or equivalent, that this
*is* Will Zachmann posting (even if it may be Will Zachmann's words).
Frank Field
O-
joseph coughlan
Hugh Whalen wrote:
>
> comp.os2.misc trimmed
>
> On 23 Aug 1996 05:58:27 GMT, cha...@sans.vuw.ac.nz wrote:
>
> >In <oH8GyoHp...@skypoint.com>, rste...@skypoint.com (Richard Steiner) writes:
> >>Since PSP is the development arm for PC software at IBM, and since they
> >>are the folks who have direct say on what OS/2 is and where it goes,
> >>provide development/support resources, etc., it would appear to my own
> >>untrained eye that OS/2 as a product still has considerable potential.
> >
> >OS/2 isn't making IBM LOOSE money, so why on earth would any company
> >drop a profitable product? (Even if the profits were tiny).
>
> OK, I'll give this one a shot.
>
> Companies have limited resources (financial, managerial, etc.). They
> cannot afford to fund all profitable or potentially profitable
> ventures. They must make a choice. One of the ways they make the
> choice is by using a technique called return on investment (ROI). If
> the ROI is too low the investment may be terminiated so that the
> investment can be put into more profitable ventures.
If you read 'Big Blues' you'll find an example with IBM and
PC software. the author says an IBM exec decided that the
low profit margins in the PC software industry were not worth
IBM's efforts so that individual pulled PC software development
and left IBM without any software content. One great appliction
that was killed was Hollywood.
In hindsight the decision was a very bad one. IBM had to buy
LOTUS to reenter the market. The bean counting didn't figure
into the fact that a computer company needs to have syngery
between products and the large hole in PC software weakened
put IBM's Software services and low end AS/400 and AIX systems.
ROI is easy to describe but diffcult to measure.
I think accounting is a poor way to run a business. I've been
told that buy several successful businesspersons. They know their
costs but they also understand the market and why some so called
poorer performers are worth far more than the bean counters can
quantify.
There are other examples of how product will be created and
sold to attack a competitor and protect larger markets.
I see OS/2 filing this role for IBM. It's putting pressure
on MS and making MS fight in a market the media claims is
long lost to MS -- it is not.
As long as IBM has OS/2 MS has to spend effort and money in
a market they could be milking to fund attacks into other
markets. One example with NT/S is the lack of a DNS and
poor network admininstation tools. These vulnerabilities
in NT/S are being asttacked by IBM and WARP Server.
Without OS/2 MS could fix these problems slower and
generate more revenue off NT/S sales.
Jim Lang
In <4vj2b0$38...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, sav...@ibm.net writes:
>In <01bb8f9e$54b3e0e0$8af1e4cd@ariel-one>, "William F. Zachmann" <Will_Z...@MSN.NET> writes:
>>My views on OS/2 finally changed, Joe, when I learned, beyond any
>>reasonable doubt, in conversations with most of IBM's top executives in
>>Toronto week before last, that despite the pretence that IBM will "continue
>>to support" and enhance OS/2, OS/2 is in fact considered a dead
>>
>>Will Zachmann
>>
>>...
>believe that you are incorrect one point, it really doesn't matter what the rest
>of the IBM thinks, as long as the consumer continues buying OS/2 (and they
>have), then the PSP division will continue to support OS/2.
>God bless you, and good luck with NT :).
I have snipped a good portion of this post, not to 'get rid' of it, but to save space.
The meat of it is that it is the consumers that keep OS/2 going, and the consumers
that need the choice. I am _very_ glad that there _are_ companies that are selling
boxes with Warp preloaded. I'm very happy with my new Dell, but I probably will
have to buy something else next time because Dell no longer offers a *Choice*.
Mr. Zachmann, I respect your views and thank you for the advocacy. I understand
your position and wish you the best. But don't give up on OS/2 completely. I'd bet
it will be around a lot longer than DOS was (is?). And consumers will be happy.
Jim Lang
Student (ALWAYS!)
Mathematician (SOON!)
Team-OS/2
#include standard_disclaimer.h
cha...@sans.vuw.ac.nz
In <oH8GyoHp...@skypoint.com>, rste...@skypoint.com (Richard Steiner) writes:
>Since PSP is the development arm for PC software at IBM, and since they
>are the folks who have direct say on what OS/2 is and where it goes,
>provide development/support resources, etc., it would appear to my own
>untrained eye that OS/2 as a product still has considerable potential.
OS/2 isn't making IBM LOOSE money, so why on earth would any company
drop a profitable product? (Even if the profits were tiny).
ESP. one that still shows potential..
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
mar...@mts.se (Martin Nisshagen) wrote previously:
*}qui...@oitunix.oit.umass.edu (Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters) wrote:
*}> It's interesting Zachman actually posted here to the Usenet (albeit from
*}> MSN)... or maybe someone forwarded on his behalf. What's perplexing is
*}
*}Why is Usenet different than other forums like Compuserve?
Just because I hae not previously seen Zachmann hereabouts. Also, I
guess, because C$ is a proprietary and pricey (less so nowadays)
service, rather than the more open Usenet.
*}I think he maybe refers to the news that IBM will stop with preloading
*}of OS/2 on Thinkpads and expanding their support for NT Workstation and
*}preload of NT 4.0 (http://www.pcco.ibm.com/thinkpad/).
I can find no such news at the URL Nisshagen mentions. They have a
press release that NT will now be an OPTION on thinkpads. That's all.
Maybe a different URL contains the information Nisshagen purports, but
not the one he gives.
FWIW, I certainly think IBM SHOULD provide NT as an OS option to its
customers. If that's what they want, why block a hardware sale?
Yours, Lulu...
_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/
_/_/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[qui...@philos.umass.edu]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _/_/
_/_/ The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer... _/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them! _/_/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGP 2.6 key available by finger <qui...@oitunix.oit.umass.edu>
Steven C. Den Beste
PL. Miraglia wrote:
>
> In article <01bb8f9e$54b3e0e0$8af1e4cd@ariel-one> "William F. Zachmann" <Will_Z...@MSN.NET> writes:
>
> > My views on OS/2 finally changed, Joe, when I learned, beyond any
> > reasonable doubt, in conversations with most of IBM's top executives in
> > Toronto week before last, that despite the pretence that IBM will "continue
> ....
>
> Could you give us at least a hint of why executives who would not balk
> at laying off several thousands of people would "pretend" to support a
> product _they_ regard as a failure? What's the logic here? Every day
> that goes by costs them millions of $, they assume (by your testimony)
> that it's all for naught, yet they keep paying. Where did they get their
> MBAs? If what you say it's true, the IBM brass is not fooling anybody
> but themselves.
The important point is who the actions would anger. Laying off people
gets those people mad, but they are small and powerless and distributed.
Terminating a product line which major customers are using will get
those major customers angry, and they may decide to take ALL of their
business elsewhere. Furthermore, it will cast a pall over every other
product line you have, making all your other customers nervous. Thus
they might be more likely to take their business elsewhere to someone
they have more confidence in.
It is not uncommon for a company to continue to carry a product line at
a loss in order to maintain good relations with major customers.