Win32 Leads Byte COMDEX Survey
Terry Sikes
Magazine. Byte polled attendees of Fall Comdex to asking "Which
operating system and processor family will dominate over the next five
years?". There was no information about sample size, I'm going to try
to find out what it was and post a followup. The results were
presented as pie charts, so I can't give exact percentages, I will
estimate to give you some idea. However, in decreasing order the
results were:
Windows 95 ~23%
Windows NT ~18%
OS/2 ~15%
MS-DOS/PC-DOS ~8%
MacOS ~8%
Other UNIX ~8%
Win 3.1 ~3%
Cairo Into the noise
Taligent
Workplace
Solaris
AIX
Other
A couple of things here were big surprises. First, that Windows NT
has more mind share than OS/2 even last November. Also, the Windows
family (Win 95, Win NT, Win 3.1 and Cairo) totalled out at just about
50% of the responses. Despite being beat by about 3 to 1 by Win32,
OS/2 did make a strong showing and this bodes well for Warp etc. It
looks to me like UNIX, like it or not, is in trouble in terms of
expanding its corporate marketshare. I was unsurprised but somewhat
disappointed that NEXTSTEP received no mention (perhaps it was lumped
with 'other UNIX'). The Mac doesn't appear to be winning new hearts
and minds too well either, its showing of 8% was right around its
current marketshare.
For processors, the results went:
Pentium ~18%
PowerPC ~18%
Pentium Clones ~18%
P6 ~14%
Dec Alpha ~6%
486 Clones ~5%
Moto 68x ~5%
PA-RISC ~5%
Intel 486 ~4%
Sun SPARC ~3%
MIPS Into the noise
AMD K5
Other
Clearly Intel and the P5 clones still have a strong grip on the
marketplace. Things are looking good for PowerPC and Alpha though,
and again this is good news for Windows NT. MacOS and OS/2 for PPC
should account for some of the momentum behind PPC as well. I was
fairly surprised that Alpha beat out PA-RISC, SPARC and MIPS in terms
of RISC mindshare, but it is an indication that DEC is getting the
word out about its products.
I certainly wouldn't take any of these results as a "crystal ball"
indicating where the industry will really go over the next five years.
However, I do think its indicative of what the general mindset
currently is with regards to operating systems and processor
architectures. Comdex tends to attract a fairly influential set of
people in the computing industry.
I hope you found this interesting!
--
Terry Sikes | The sound of one hand clapping.
Software Engineer++ | The sound of a tree falling in the forest with
tsi...@netcom.com | no-one to hear.
My opinions - mine only! | The sound of IBM OS/2 for PowerPC booting.
Thomas G. McWilliams
: Byte polled attendees of Fall Comdex to asking "Which operating
: system and processor family will dominate over the next five
: years?".
Any predictions for the Stanley Cup? How about the NCAA final four?
I've got San Diego and 22 points in the Super Bowl. Whaddya think?
Kazimir Kylheku
Terry Sikes <tsi...@netcom.com> wrote:
>There is a very interesting graphic in the February 1995 issue of Byte
>Magazine. Byte polled attendees of Fall Comdex to asking "Which
>operating system and processor family will dominate over the next five
>years?".
Interesting, but polling Comdex attendees is biased sample for many
reasons, not the least of which is that many of them have vested
interests as developers or consultants.
Paul G. Stout
>
>Any predictions for the Stanley Cup? How about the NCAA final four?
>I've got San Diego and 22 points in the Super Bowl. Whaddya think?
I haven't got a clue about the Stanley Cup or the NCAA final four, but I think you got
yourself a winner on the Super Bowl with that 22 point spread. ;-)
muza...@smixedsignal.com
In article <3fsg2...@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>, <c2a...@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
writes:
Oh I see; maybe we need to poll house-wifes who have no idea about this
subject or college students who have no experience and think *nix is the
best thing since the sliced bread because they haven't seen any other
or a bunch of Next programmers (all 6 of them :-).
By your definition, the Comdex attendees are the most suitable group
of people to poll for this issue. I wonder what the usenet response
would have been if they voted OS/2?
Muzaffer
standard disclaimer
Tom Haapanen
>Terry Sikes <tsi...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> There is a very interesting graphic in the February 1995 issue of Byte
>> Magazine. Byte polled attendees of Fall Comdex to asking "Which
>> operating system and processor family will dominate over the next five
>> years?".
c2a...@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca (Kazimir Kylheku) writes:
> Interesting, but polling Comdex attendees is biased sample for many
> reasons, not the least of which is that many of them have vested
> interests as developers or consultants.
On the other hand, if you're interested in knowing where the development
is going to be happening in the near future, COMDEX isn't such a bad
sample after all. After all, these people's interests include selecting
the most successful platform for their products...
--
[ /tom haapanen -- to...@metrics.com -- software metrics inc -- waterloo, ont ]
[ "stick your index fingers into both corners of your mouth. ]
[ now pull up. that's how the corrado makes you feel." -- car, jan'93 ]
Alan Dail
:>Terry Sikes <tsi...@netcom.com> wrote:
:>> There is a very interesting graphic in the February 1995 issue of Byte
:>> Magazine. Byte polled attendees of Fall Comdex to asking "Which
:>> operating system and processor family will dominate over the next five
:>> years?".
I assume this poll was done before Win95 slipped yet again in it's release.
Alan
--
+Alan Dail - Developer--+--/-\--+-"The journey is the reward" - S.Jobs--+
|804/867-7202 | \_/ | "The best way to predict the future |
|AppleLink: AlanDail | j-+-{ | is to invent it" - Alan Kay |
|Internet ad...@infi.net| -|- | "Hate is not a family value" - Anon |
+-----------------------+---V---+"Race,in the space I mark Human"-Prince+
s...@ccnet.com
>There is a very interesting graphic in the February 1995 issue of Byte
>Magazine. Byte polled attendees of Fall Comdex to asking "Which
>operating system and processor family will dominate over the next five
>years?". There was no information about sample size, I'm going to try
>to find out what it was and post a followup. The results were
>presented as pie charts, so I can't give exact percentages, I will
>estimate to give you some idea. However, in decreasing order the
>results were:
>
> Windows 95 ~23%
> Windows NT ~18%
> OS/2 ~15%
> MS-DOS/PC-DOS ~8%
> MacOS ~8%
> Other UNIX ~8%
> Win 3.1 ~3%
> Cairo Into the noise
> Taligent
> Workplace
> Solaris
> AIX
> Other
>
Which means that since Win 95 is not shipping yet, and NT sales are still
small, that these people were avocating operating systems that they have
never used ! The grass is allways greener......
>architectures. Comdex tends to attract a fairly influential set of
>people in the computing industry.
I don't know. I go to comdex, and everyone here knows what my opinion is
worth :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| JUST SAY NO -- TO THE GIF (Greed Is Fundamental) FORMAT. |
| SEND "STEALTH STANDARDS" BACK TO HELL WHERE THEY CAME FROM. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Get slip access for shell prices with TIA ! |
| Microwave: Def: Device used in the manufacture of rubber goods. |
| Fuzzy logic: Def: Method of engineering taught by several universities. |
| Segmentation: Def: A small box used to keep programmers in. |
| Get a life ! Now available for very reasonable terms and prices. |
| |
| SAM is s...@ccnet.com |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warwick Allison
...
> Windows 95 ~23%
> Windows NT ~18%
> OS/2 ~15%
> MS-DOS/PC-DOS ~8%
> MacOS ~8%
> Other UNIX ~8%
> Win 3.1 ~3%
> Cairo Into the noise
> Taligent
> Workplace
> Solaris
> AIX
> Other
>A couple of things here were big surprises....
I think the biggest surprise of all is that there is no clear leader.
Since the above measured which OS people thought was going to "dominate",
it is clear that the real answer is that *NO* operating system will dominate.
And that is a Good Thing.
What does "Other UNIX" mean? Unix other than those separated out?
Makes me wonder what the total for Unix was. Since there is about
17% in "the noise", it could be quite high. Someone got the raw data
handy to make that calculation?
--
Warwick
--
_-_|\ war...@cs.uq.oz.au \ Microsoft is not the answer, Microsoft
/ * <- Comp Science Department,\ is the question. NO is the answer.
\_.-._/ University of Queensland,)
v Brisbane, Australia. / Intel Inside? Don't Divide!
Terry Sikes
Its basically impossible to find "unbiased" people who are deeply
involved in the computer industry. Everyone has their favorite
environments and tools. The attendees at Comdex are arguably
PC-centric, but there is a strong Mac influence as well. Between
those two camps well over 90% of the current desktop market is
represented. Also, many corporate MIS types and network
administrators attend. I would argue that the sample consisted of
those likely to influence the direction of the industry, and was more,
not less, significant than a random sample of say, Byte readers.
I'd be interested in hearing reasoned arguments to the contrary.
Terry Sikes
Warwick Allison <war...@cs.uq.oz.au> wrote:
>tsi...@netcom.com (Terry Sikes) writes:
>
>...
>> Windows 95 ~23%
>> Windows NT ~18%
>> OS/2 ~15%
>> MS-DOS/PC-DOS ~8%
>> MacOS ~8%
>> Other UNIX ~8%
>> Win 3.1 ~3%
>> Cairo Into the noise
>> Taligent
>> Workplace
>> Solaris
>> AIX
>> Other
>
>>A couple of things here were big surprises....
>
>I think the biggest surprise of all is that there is no clear leader.
>Since the above measured which OS people thought was going to "dominate",
>it is clear that the real answer is that *NO* operating system will dominate.
Again, the total mindshare for Win32 was around 50%. If that follows
through into the marketplace, its pretty clear what the preferred API
will be for ISVs.
>And that is a Good Thing.
Competition is a good thing, indeed.
>What does "Other UNIX" mean? Unix other than those separated out?
Correct.
>Makes me wonder what the total for Unix was. Since there is about
>17% in "the noise", it could be quite high. Someone got the raw data
>handy to make that calculation?
Again, I eyeballed the pie charts to guesstimate the numbers. The
rankings (descending from the top) are definitely correct, the exact
numbers are suspect. Its just that without the numbers the rankings
are much more vague. The percentages were mainly included to indicate
where there was more separation between rankings. I'm waiting to see
if my request for sample size and exact figures is answered.
If you note that my estimate for Win 3.1 was 3%, each of the ones
below that were less. I'd guess the total for Solaris and AIX was
about 3%-4% more. That would give all UNIX around 12%.
Bill Vermillion
Well I've been to many Comdex shows. I even worked part of the
show for an exhibitor in the 1983 show in LV.
Comex has changed considerably. The technical expertise that
used to be in the vendors booths has been changed to 'glitz and
glamour' - as the target audience has changed to those who are
user oriented - eg corporate accounts, large users and
individuals.
Originally COMDEX was COmputer DEalers eXposition. The focus
was on dealers who then took this information to the end user.
Today's focus is toward the end user in many instances.
The attendees today are more likely to be influenced and have
their opinions formed from reading the 'popular computer press'
and we know how biased those computer publications tend to be.
It is an interesting place however, and if you've never been to
it is something to experience. True sensory overload.
--
Bill Vermillion - bi...@bilver.oau.org | bill.ve...@oau.org
muza...@smixedsignal.com
In article <3fvcvv$a...@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>, <war...@cs.uq.oz.au> writes:
> > Other UNIX ~8%
> > Win 3.1 ~3%
> > Cairo Into the noise
> > Taligent
> > Workplace
> > Solaris
> > AIX
> > Other
> Makes me wonder what the total for Unix was. Since there is about
other Unix means Unix other than the ones listed (Solaris, AIX) ie HP/UX
SCO, Interactive, UnixWare etc.
Muzaffer
standard disclaimer
Olav Torvund
In a situation when there is a lot of changes going on in the OS market, one
should not take such figures very seriously. If the same question had been
asked when the world was moving from 8-bit to 16-bit, the majority would
probaly have said that CP/M would be the dominant OS, and MS-DOS/PC-DOS
would not have gotten a very high score.
******************************
Olav Torvund P.O. Box 6702 St. Olavs pl.
Professor, dr. juris N-0130 OSLO
Norwegian Research Center for Computers and Law Norway
University of Oslo Phone: +47-22 85 00 95
Faculty of Law
olav.t...@jus.uio.no Fax: +47-22 85 01 02
Darcy BROCKBANK
<muza...@smixedsignal.com> writes:
>other Unix means Unix other than the ones listed (Solaris, AIX) ie HP/UX
>SCO, Interactive, UnixWare etc.
Speaking of "other UNIX," my personal favorite is having to circle
"other UNIX" and write in "NEXTSTEP" when filling out a NEXTSTEP upgrade
card, in response to the question, "Which OS do you currently use?" :-).
- db
Nobody has asked me what my sig means yet ;-(.
--
(prog (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move eat) eat (senseFood move eat))
rotRight eat) (prog move (prog (prog eat (senseFood move rotRight) eat) loop)
rotRight)) (prog (senseFood (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move move) eat
(senseFood move eat)) rotRight eat) (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move
Joseph Coughlan
>On the other hand, if you're interested in knowing where the development
>is going to be happening in the near future, COMDEX isn't such a bad
>sample after all. After all, these people's interests include selecting
>the most successful platform for their products...
So the slipping of WIN95 and the shipment of WARP are non-events?
Also the preloading of WARP in germany and Australia are non-events?
If you want to believe the poll is still accurate then you have to
discount two of the most important events in the industry and the
exclusive offering of WARP and PC DOS on major computer vendor's
systems.
Go head and draw what ever conclusion you want on out-of-date information.
>[ /tom haapanen -- to...@metrics.com -- software metrics inc -- waterloo, ont ]
--
"What do you want to wait for today?"
Replies are welcome at jcou...@gaia.arc.nasa.gov
Tom Krotchko
>So the slipping of WIN95 and the shipment of WARP are non-events?
>Also the preloading of WARP in germany and Australia are non-events?
If you think the slippage of Win95 by 2 months and an incremental
release of OS/2 are earth shaking, then how exactly did you feel about
BOB (R)? Netware 4.1? 100 Mbs Ethernet? Phillipe Kahn stepping down?
>If you want to believe the poll is still accurate then you have to
>discount two of the most important events in the industry
Exactly which industry did you mean? The biggest effect OS/2 v3.0 is
having is that IBM is spending a lot of money promoting it. And that,
my friend, is good news for the economy.
>Go head and draw what ever conclusion you want on out-of-date information.
Imagine him relying on 2 month old data!
>"What do you want to wait for today?"
More bold predictions from OS/2 fanatics.
--
Tom Krotchko
<to...@access.digex.net>
Pixelated!
OK, I'll byte. what's it mean? Looks like a pseudo-lisp description of
an "organism"'s algorithm to find food. Also, it looks like your newsreader
chopped it at 4 lines. Is there more than what's reprodued below? If so,
how about posting the rest, and explaining it. :)
>(prog (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move eat) eat (senseFood move eat))
>rotRight eat) (prog move (prog (prog eat (senseFood move rotRight) eat) loop)
>rotRight)) (prog (senseFood (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move move) eat
>(senseFood move eat)) rotRight eat) (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move
--
Richard Cooley Extraordinaire "Yeah. Arrgh."
pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu These are my opinions, not MIT's.
rcoo...@dgl.ssc.mass.edu Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux
Cafe des etudiants du diro
> Its basically impossible to find "unbiased" people who are deeply
> involved in the computer industry. Everyone has their favorite
> environments and tools. The attendees at Comdex are arguably
> PC-centric, but there is a strong Mac influence as well. Between
> those two camps well over 90% of the current desktop market is
> represented. Also, many corporate MIS types and network
> administrators attend. I would argue that the sample consisted of
> those likely to influence the direction of the industry, and was more,
> not less, significant than a random sample of say, Byte readers.
> I'd be interested in hearing reasoned arguments to the contrary.
I don't know about other places, but where I work, there's two
kind of persons, the Micro$oft evangelist, who tell everyone it's
impossible that other companies have better software than
Micro$oft and there ar the others. In this 'others' groups,
people range from Micro$oft fans who recognize that Micro$oft
isn't perfect than that other companies have better products
to Micro$oft haters.
Strangely enough, the Micro$oft evangelists groups is
concentrated in the decision makers (marketing people, direction,
some project managers) and the others are mostly in the
programmers/developers group. Now, 4 or 5 people from the
company went to Comdex, all of them from the decision makers
group. So, for at least this company, their vote wasn't
representative of our 'collective' opinion.
--
Alain Southiere, B.Sc. | You can't always get what you want,
caf...@jsp.umontreal.ca | But if you try sometimes,
------------------------------------| You might find you get what you need !
OS/2 3.0 : Stop waiting, get warped | -The Rolling Stones
Joseph Coughlan
>If you think the slippage of Win95 by 2 months and an incremental
>release of OS/2 are earth shaking, then how exactly did you feel about
>BOB (R)? Netware 4.1? 100 Mbs Ethernet? Phillipe Kahn stepping down?
If you want to trivalize WIN95's 8 month lead time and 1 milion copies
of WARP then also include and effort to trivialize the loss of the MS
monopoly on preloading in your denial fantasy. That's 40% of the
German market and the largest Australia PC supplier all not selling MS
OSs.
>>Go head and draw what ever conclusion you want on out-of-date information.
>
>Imagine him relying on 2 month old data!
Information is not like food. It can spoil in an instant. This data is
good for measuring the pre-WARP market. MS will never have a larger
lead in mind share than it had then.
>>"What do you want to wait for today?"
>
>More bold predictions from OS/2 fanatics.
Lotus will make more from WPS apps then win32 apps.
--
"What do you want to wait for today?"
Darcy BROCKBANK
>OK, I'll byte. what's it mean? Looks like a pseudo-lisp description of
>an "organism"'s algorithm to find food. Also, it looks like your newsreader
>chopped it at 4 lines. Is there more than what's reprodued below? If so,
>how about posting the rest, and explaining it. :)
Whoops. I didn't mean to post to all those groups, but as many people
are asking me (and one person hit it right on the head, plus this one is
pretty close too!) I'll explain.
It's part of the output of a run of a genetic algorithm/simulation I
wrote that breeds artifical ants to find food on a semi-random trail.
The performance of the algorithm is quite good (meaning that it works!)
on a trail which is quite hard (has gaps, and some large ones at that).
I'm currently building a screen saver module around the ObjC GA kit that
I've worked up.
Anyway, here's a sample from my .plan (including my GA Haiku ;-). You
can read the results of this particular ant's DNA as follows:
'.' == ant stepped here
'+' == food stepped on by ant, but not eaten
'o' == food not eaten
'"' == food eaten (crumbs ;-).
The operations run by the ant include:
(prog ...) == group of instructions
(senseFood A B) == conditional, A if senseFood is true, B otherwise
rotRight == rotate ant 1/8 turn right
rotLeft == rotate ant 1/8 turn left
eat == try to eat food underneat ant
move == step forward
For those that aren't GA-aware, it's a technique of "breeding" random
programs and using evolutionary pressure to achieve the goal. The goal
being to bring into existence a program which can solve the problem at
hand. It works surprisingly well for some problems, this being an
example. So, look for the BackSpace module (you NEXTSTEP people) at some
time in the future. This individual was bred in generation 15. Initial
programs were between 4 and 11 instructions long, so it's interesting
how evolution (in this instance, at least) favored a more complex
individual. Blah blah blah. Now I have to change my sig!!! ;-).
.."."""o o" oo o
o " "."".". o GA HAIKU
o "" .". ..". .... o --------
.".o " . . .o.. . ooo
" ".". .. ""." o" o I don't need anything.
." " . .o" o
"" . . .. Since my ants always love me.
" . ..
. . Why would I need more?
..
(prog (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move eat) eat (senseFood move eat))
rotRight eat) (prog move (prog (prog eat (senseFood move rotRight) eat) loop)
rotRight)) (prog (senseFood (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move move) eat
(senseFood move eat)) rotRight eat) (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move
move) eat (senseFood move eat)) rotRight eat) (prog move (prog (prog eat
(senseFood move rotRight) eat) loop) rotRight))) (senseFood (prog (senseFood
(prog (prog (senseFood move move) eat (senseFood move eat)) rotRight eat)
(prog move (prog (prog eat (senseFood move rotRight) eat) loop) rotRight))
loop) (senseFood eat rotRight))) loop) (prog (senseFood (senseFood (prog move
(prog eat loop) move) (prog (prog (senseFood move move) eat (senseFood move
eat)) rotRight eat)) (prog (prog (senseFood move move) eat (senseFood move
eat)) rotRight eat)) loop))
Cool, huh? Alien and beautiful too...
- darcy
--
bog...@ibm.net
>In article <D2tLC...@metrics.com>, to...@metrics.com (Tom Haapanen) wrote:
>:>> There is a very interesting graphic in the February 1995 issue of Byte
>:>> Magazine. Byte polled attendees of Fall Comdex to asking "Which
>:>> operating system and processor family will dominate over the next five
>:>> years?".
>I assume this poll was done before Win95 slipped yet again in it's release.
>Alan
Yes it was definately done before the date slipped as are all articles in
monthly magazines at this point. Note that most monthlies have lead times
of 2-3 months before they hit the shelves and if you don't believe that take
a look at the issues reported ie COMDEX is being reported in some
Jan mags but mostly Feb mags, COMDEX was in November.
//
// Rolf Boganes
// Victoria, BC
// Canada
// MS yesterdays technology tomorrow
Ulrich Guenther
****************************************************
Why do American suppliers not start to preload OS/2?
I think it is because they are totally manipulated by a
biased press which made good mnoey on windows.
--
*******************************************************
***** Ulrich Guenther, Tufts Univ., Biochemistry ****
***** email: ugun...@emerald.tufts.edu ****
*******************************************************
Terry Sikes
Joseph Coughlan <jo...@gaia.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>In article <D2tLC...@metrics.com> to...@metrics.com (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>>
>
>>On the other hand, if you're interested in knowing where the development
>>is going to be happening in the near future, COMDEX isn't such a bad
>>sample after all. After all, these people's interests include selecting
>>the most successful platform for their products...
>
>So the slipping of WIN95 and the shipment of WARP are non-events?
The slipping of Win95 has garnered both praise and derision, many people
seem to feel it was a good idea to avoid a buggy first release. Many
of you complain about buggy MS software, then you complain when they
take longer to get it right the first time. So it goes.
The shipment of Warp was not a surprise. It was in a wide beta for
months before it shipped. The people polled at Comdex were well aware
of its existence.
>Also the preloading of WARP in germany and Australia are non-events?
Frankly, for the US computer industry, yes. How much impact did the
dominance of the Atari ST in the German computer market have here in
the US? Now if Dell or Gateway drops Windows and starts exclusively
pre-loading Warp, you'd have something. Or maybe even IBM... ;)
>If you want to believe the poll is still accurate then you have to
>discount two of the most important events in the industry and the
>exclusive offering of WARP and PC DOS on major computer vendor's
>systems.
Those 'major events' (yawn) might have caused a couple of percentage
points shift here and there. You need to remember that computer and
software companies have to have long-range plans, and most have major
commitments to Windows at this point. Its going to take a whole lot
to get the momentum moving in another direction. So far I don't see
it happening.
>Go head and draw what ever conclusion you want on out-of-date information.
This information is the most recent available. If you have any
better, please share it with us. I feel its substantially accurate.
jo...@ibm.net
>In article <3g1k95$7...@news.arc.nasa.gov> jo...@gaia.arc.nasa.gov (Joseph Coughlan) writes:
>
>****************************************************
>Why do American suppliers not start to preload OS/2?
>
>I think it is because they are totally manipulated by a
>biased press which made good mnoey on windows.
Reasons might be
1) Fear of going first and risk angering MS.
2) No WARP fullpack with windows. (due in Feb)
3) Lack of media news about warp.
I suspect that the IBM PC co. will have to lead the
charge and am very disappointed that they have not.
The PC reorganization is on going as IBM slipped from 3 to 4
in the top PC vendor list.
Today I see no reason to buy IBM hardware to run WARP.
That is stupid and way IBM chooses to run a company that
is losing money at current hardware revenue rates.
The new CEO does not seem to tolerate poor performance
and actually is cutting lose some big Turkeys who were
calling themselves IBM Execs.
Joseph C. Coughlan, jo...@ibm.net
jo...@ibm.net
>Joseph Coughlan <jo...@gaia.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>In article <D2tLC...@metrics.com> to...@metrics.com (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>The slipping of Win95 has garnered both praise and derision, many people
>seem to feel it was a good idea to avoid a buggy first release. Many
>of you complain about buggy MS software, then you complain when they
>take longer to get it right the first time. So it goes.
Your suggestion that the additional slip was praised is a joke Terry.
You'd be suggesting that MS never planned on shipping a good release
in early 1994, Dec 1994, and Spring 95 when they made those dates.
That goodness someone finally decided to ship a stable WIN95 and
added a few more months to the ship date.
You laugh at OS/2 PPC for slipping and praise the sliping WIN95 for
it's guarenteed stability. You are a MS Apologist.
>The shipment of Warp was not a surprise. It was in a wide beta for
>months before it shipped. The people polled at Comdex were well aware
>of its existence.
Once again you avoid the issue Terry. WARP was no surprise.
WARP's stability, easy install and 1 million copies shipped are big surprises.
So much so that ISV's are saying that WARP's new popularity is justifying
WPS ports of their applications. Still want to pretend that WARP's
popularity is not a big surprise? Probably.
>>Also the preloading of WARP in germany and Australia are non-events?
>
>Frankly, for the US computer industry, yes. How much impact did the
>dominance of the Atari ST in the German computer market have here in
>the US? Now if Dell or Gateway drops Windows and starts exclusively
>pre-loading Warp, you'd have something. Or maybe even IBM... ;)
Germans and Austrailais buy software and therefore the market for
OS/2 Software is growing. It's more incentive to do WPS apps and
export product. Even my housemates small business does a signifiacnt amount
of over seas sales to Australia and Japan. People at comdex are not
so silly as to dismiss off shore OS/2 sales.
>>Go head and draw what ever conclusion you want on out-of-date information.
>
>This information is the most recent available. If you have any
>better, please share it with us. I feel its substantially accurate.
Oh,i t's accurate data Terry. I've never said it's not accurate.
I said it's outdated.
Data about OS/2 sales in 1990 are still accurate but also outdated.
I have nothing better to offer but I don't have to offer better data
when pointing out limitations in your data.
To use that data is to ignore 1 million WARP sales and a sustained
sales rate. Only a fool would ignore WARP sales when predicting
NT's bright future. That's your choice. It means thathe Spring
Poll will be all the more surprising to you.
>--
>Terry Sikes | The sound of one hand clapping.
>Software Engineer++ | The sound of a tree falling in the forest with
>tsi...@netcom.com | no-one to hear.
>My opinions - mine only! | The sound of IBM OS/2 for PowerPC booting.
Joseph C. Coughlan, jo...@ibm.net
Bruce Scott TK
> Why do American suppliers not start to preload OS/2?
>
> I think it is because they are totally manipulated by a
> biased press which made good mnoey on windows.
Judging from the shops I have seen, talked to on the telephone, and exchanged
faxes with, Germany is as besotted with MS-stuff as the US. I even had to
get my network adapter from Austria, the bozos around here were so ignorant
(they knew _only_ Xircom, the leader-of-the-moment in all the windows rags,
but which because of non-disclosure silliness is inaccessible to freeware).
Toshiba as well: _all_ of the support and documentation is pinned to MS.
If you want to run OS/2 on this thing you are out of luck. Linux you can
do only because of these newsgroups, and the all-important X-config file
from the sunsite database.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik odorless and transparent
b...@ipp-garching.mpg.de -- W Gibson
Pixelated!
Ulrich Guenther <ugun...@emerald.tufts.edu> wrote:
>Why do American suppliers not start to preload OS/2?
>
>I think it is because they are totally manipulated by a
>biased press which made good mnoey on windows.
I think you answered your own question. Me, I'd buy a system that had OS/2
(warp, not 2.1--too slow on my box, tried it) over one that had Windozzzzzz
*urp* sorry. :) even if it cost me an extra $50 or so. If I had to get
Windoze preloaded, I'd nuke it in an instant.
Ray Jones
: There is a very interesting graphic in the February 1995 issue of Byte
: Magazine. Byte polled attendees of Fall Comdex to asking "Which
: operating system and processor family will dominate over the next five
: to find out what it was and post a followup. The results were
: presented as pie charts, so I can't give exact percentages, I will
: estimate to give you some idea. However, in decreasing order the
: results were:
: Windows 95 ~23%
: Windows NT ~18%
: OS/2 ~15%
: MS-DOS/PC-DOS ~8%
: MacOS ~8%
: Other UNIX ~8%
: Win 3.1 ~3%
: Cairo Into the noise
: Taligent
: Workplace
: Solaris
: AIX
: Other
[rest deleted]
: I hope you found this interesting!
These are not suprising results concidering the attendees at Comdex.
Comdex has turned into a Intel platform show, most of the attendees are from
the MS and windows community. Some are from the Apple community and a few
from the Unix community. These results reflect the bias of those at the
show, not the world as a whole.
Net results - big deal.
--
INTERNET: r...@Celestial.COM | The probability of one or more
Ray A. Jones; Celestial Software | spelling errors in this missive
8545 S.E. 68th Street | approaches unity. If this bothers you,
Mercer Island, WA 98040;(206) 236-1676 | run it through your spell checker!
David Charles Leblanc
>****************************************************
>Why do American suppliers not start to preload OS/2?
>I think it is because they are totally manipulated by a
>biased press which made good mnoey on windows.
The answer is good deal more complex than that. It boils down to profit
motive. If enough people saw OS/2 as a feature, they'd do it. Why
doesn't IBM advertise _it's own computers_ with OS/2 running? Even
*IBM* advertises it's new line with Windows clearly visible on screen.
It will also take a while for the effects of MS's per-processor pricing
to dissipate.
--
David Charles LeBlanc
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
Internet: gt6...@acme.gatech.edu
Damir Smitlener
sam...@marge.cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy BROCKBANK) wrote:
[...snip...]
>
> Nobody has asked me what my sig means yet ;-(.
>
>
>
> --
> (prog (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move eat) eat (senseFood move eat))
> rotRight eat) (prog move (prog (prog eat (senseFood move rotRight) eat) loop)
> rotRight)) (prog (senseFood (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move move) eat
> (senseFood move eat)) rotRight eat) (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move
I'll take a wild guess - are you chasing your tail?
--
damir smitlener |
gt7...@prism.gatech.edu |
da...@mindspring.com |
Tom Maki
>involved in the computer industry. Everyone has their favorite
>environments and tools. The attendees at Comdex are arguably
>PC-centric, but there is a strong Mac influence as well. Between
>those two camps well over 90% of the current desktop market is
>represented. Also, many corporate MIS types and network
>administrators attend. I would argue that the sample consisted of
>those likely to influence the direction of the industry, and was more,
>not less, significant than a random sample of say, Byte readers.
Okay, assuming that Comdex are the "movers and shakers" of the computer
industry, what was the methodology used to draw the sample? I'm sure
that they didn't poll *every* person in attendance.
My company subcontracts out survey work to others that spend weeks drawing
up a sample that is representative of the population being studied-- was
similar rigor used by Byte?
I suspect the survey was like others published in the PC press and used
self-selected responses...
Tom
-
Tom Maki
maki...@gold.tc.umn.edu
http://www.umn.edu/nlhome/g561/maki0019/
Bernd Bernie Meyer
>The slipping of Win95 has garnered both praise and derision, many people
>seem to feel it was a good idea to avoid a buggy first release.
So you mean there won't be _any_ release of Windows95 ever? I mean, we all
know that MS hasn't delivered anything on time for years, and that they
haven't delivered any non-buggy first release, either...
>>Also the preloading of WARP in germany and Australia are non-events?
>Frankly, for the US computer industry, yes. How much impact did the
>dominance of the Atari ST in the German computer market have here in
>the US? Now if Dell or Gateway drops Windows and starts exclusively
>pre-loading Warp, you'd have something. Or maybe even IBM... ;)
Well, there are about 80,000,000 Germans, and about three times that many
Americans (I think). So the German market is not really insignificant, is
it?
Bernie
Bill Vermillion
Cafe des etudiants du diro <caf...@JSP.UMontreal.CA> wrote:
> I don't know about other places, but where I work, there's two
>kind of persons, the Micro$oft evangelist, who tell everyone it's
>impossible that other companies have better software than
>Micro$oft and there ar the others. ....
> Strangely enough, the Micro$oft evangelists groups is
>concentrated in the decision makers (marketing people, direction,
>some project managers) and the others are mostly in the
>programmers/developers group. ....
So the people that buy the product love it, while those that
use it hate it.
Is this going to be "you won't get fired for buying Microsoft"
as oppesed to the old IBM saw.
Tom Krotchko
>>If you think the slippage of Win95 by 2 months and an incremental
>>release of OS/2 are earth shaking, then how exactly did you feel about
>>BOB (R)? Netware 4.1? 100 Mbs Ethernet? Phillipe Kahn stepping down?
>
>If you want to trivalize WIN95's 8 month lead time and 1 milion copies
>of WARP then also include and effort to trivialize the loss of the MS
>monopoly on preloading in your denial fantasy.
I'm not trying to trivialize anything; I'm merely putting things into
perspective. To be frank, Netware is a lot more important to the computer
industry than OS/2 (in virtually any way you can name). Ethernet will
be around long after OS/2 remains a footnote in "The Best Of Byte, Volume
2". Kahn's destruction of Borland destroyed a far more credible competitor
to MS than OS/2.
An old, creaky Win 3.1 still outsells OS/2.
The monopoly on DOS/Windows preloading was ending with the introduction
of Win95, regardless of the Justice Departments quixotic efforts.
--
Tom Krotchko
<to...@access.digex.net>
ams...@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz
> ****************************************************
> Why do American suppliers not start to preload OS/2?
>
> I think it is because they are totally manipulated by a
> biased press which made good mnoey on windows.
Gee, and I thought all us journalist from the biased media had kept quiet about
all the money MS was giving us in kickbacks and other benfits.
Get with the program, man. Your stereotypical image of the media as part of
Chairman Bill's private coterie is lame. Sure, MS sends out the usual media
bribes that any other software/hardware company does - free (review) software,
launch junkets, etc. - but that doesn't mean the media is getting anything
special out of it. Perhaps IBM should do a little more of this itself. After
paying for me to fly up to its launch of OS/2 a few months back, IBM still
hasn't given me a review copy of OS/2, despite repeated requests. My paper
runs stories from a feature writer who hates OS/2, and I would like to answer a
lot of his criticisms, as I was impressed by what I saw at the launch, but I
can't review it without trying it (we're only allowed to do that with MS
products ;-)). IBM may have a great product, but if their marketing consists
only of a bunch of ads on tv sayig "where's the hourglass", their marketing
department should be shot. A few good reviews from us media sluts and OS/2 may
end up preloaded on PCs. Gotta have demand, remember.
--
---
James Baker, AMS...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Snail mail P.O.Box 34-011, Christchurch, New Zealand
Voice and Fax +64-3-379-2265
------------------------veni, vidi, volo domum redire-----------------------
Yasuo Ohgaki
: tsi...@netcom.com (Terry Sikes) writes:
: ...
: > Windows 95 ~23%
: > Windows NT ~18%
: > OS/2 ~15%
: > MS-DOS/PC-DOS ~8%
: > MacOS ~8%
: > Other UNIX ~8%
: > Win 3.1 ~3%
: > Cairo Into the noise
: > Taligent
: > Workplace
: > Solaris
: > AIX
: > Other
: >A couple of things here were big surprises....
: I think the biggest surprise of all is that there is no clear leader.
: Since the above measured which OS people thought was going to "dominate",
: it is clear that the real answer is that *NO* operating system will dominate.
: And that is a Good Thing.
: What does "Other UNIX" mean? Unix other than those separated out?
Other UNIX?? Sounds like LINUX!! (55,000> CDs each month + downloads
from net.)
Windows NT is also supports POSIX poersonality (only 1003.1, right?)
AIX and Soalris are UNIXes.
Is Taligent and Workplace OS UNIX? (I thought both of them will have
UNIX personality)
: Makes me wonder what the total for Unix was. Since there is about
UNIX is trade mark. Therefore, Linux is not UNIX, but UNIX like OS.
: 17% in "the noise", it could be quite high. Someone got the raw data
: handy to make that calculation?
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
e-mail: yoh...@phoebe.cair.du.edu
#ifndef __USE_LINUX__
#define __USE_LINUX__
Caesar Farley Arvin
Damir Smitlener <da...@is.net> wrote:
>In article <SAMURAI.95...@marge.cs.mcgill.ca>,
>sam...@marge.cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy BROCKBANK) wrote:
>
>[...snip...]
>>
>> Nobody has asked me what my sig means yet ;-(.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> (prog (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move eat) eat (senseFood move eat))
>> rotRight eat) (prog move (prog (prog eat (senseFood move rotRight) eat) loop)
>> rotRight)) (prog (senseFood (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move move) eat
>> (senseFood move eat)) rotRight eat) (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move
>
Paul G. Stout
>
>The monopoly on DOS/Windows preloading was ending with the introduction
>of Win95, regardless of the Justice Departments quixotic efforts.
That's a particularly rosy view of things.
I think it safe to say that if it wasn't for the Justice Departments proposed
consent decree Microsoft's "per processor" pre-load contracts would have been
quickly extended to add in Win95. Do you really believe Microsoft was going to
voluntarily give up that much marketing muscle?
It would be pretty naive to think otherwise.
Terry Sikes
>In <tsikesD2...@netcom.com>, tsi...@netcom.com (Terry Sikes) writes:
>>In article <3g0u34$4...@news.arc.nasa.gov>,
>>Joseph Coughlan <jo...@gaia.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>>In article <D2tLC...@metrics.com> to...@metrics.com (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>
>>The slipping of Win95 has garnered both praise and derision, many people
>>seem to feel it was a good idea to avoid a buggy first release. Many
>>of you complain about buggy MS software, then you complain when they
>>take longer to get it right the first time. So it goes.
>
>Your suggestion that the additional slip was praised is a joke Terry.
Actually, not. Its been widely reported in the press. I also pointed
out that many are aggravated that MS didn't make the date. I'm glad I
didn't have a Win95 product ready to go out the door in January.
>You'd be suggesting that MS never planned on shipping a good release
>in early 1994, Dec 1994, and Spring 95 when they made those dates.
Well, that would depend on just how cynical I am. ;)
Actually, I honestly thought (in early-mid '94) that MS would make the
Dec '94 ship date, simply because they would have hit the Christmas
season. Its clearly in MS best interest to ship this thing, so I'm
confident they will do it ASAP. It continues to amaze me that the
software industry is so bad at hitting deadlines. Its certainly not
just MS.
>That goodness someone finally decided to ship a stable WIN95 and
>added a few more months to the ship date.
I would have preferred a great product on time. How many times has
either IBM or MS managed that??? Um...zero?
>You laugh at OS/2 PPC for slipping and praise the sliping WIN95 for
>it's guarenteed stability. You are a MS Apologist.
No, I presented a balanced viewpoint thats backed up by reported fact.
I suppose you didn't read the recent PC Week where many users/MIS folk
were quoted as saying "We'd rather wait for a good product"? In the
meantime, those wanting to run Win32 apps or develop them have a good
alternative. Windows NT.
The difference between Win95 and OS/2 PPC is that lack of OS/2 PPC has
held up the release of an entire hardware platform. I want better,
faster hardware. The fact is that OS/2 PPC and its associated
politics are holding the industry back, and IBM may have seriously
damaged its ability to sell PPC machines. The good news is that Win
NT for PPC will ship soon, and a raft of PPC clones are on the way
with or without IBM participation. In the meantime, Workplace has
basically gone into oblivion, and we're left with nothing but an OS/2
personality (assuming it ships someday).
>>The shipment of Warp was not a surprise. It was in a wide beta for
>>months before it shipped. The people polled at Comdex were well aware
>>of its existence.
>
>Once again you avoid the issue Terry. WARP was no surprise.
>
>WARP's stability, easy install and 1 million copies shipped are big surprises.
What makes you think so? Is Warp more stable than 2.11? I've seen
nothing that implies that. The "easy install" is an issue that should
be addressed on another thread. All I'll say here is its gotten very
mixed reviews. Finally, one million copies shipped isn't a surprise,
its a yawn. The earlier product had an installed base of (supposedly)
6 million. Why is it surprising that an upgrade shipped 1 million in
a fairly short period? And yes, I know about the full-pack issue.
Didn't you own the 2.11 full-pack? Are you running Warp now? I'm
sure there are lots of new Warp users. I'm also sure that many of the
purchases are upgrades from existing OS/2 users.
>So much so that ISV's are saying that WARP's new popularity is justifying
>WPS ports of their applications. Still want to pretend that WARP's
>popularity is not a big surprise? Probably.
Why must it be a surprise for ISVs to announce support? Non-sequitor.
BTW, would you mind listing some new vendors (i.e. not Lotus) that have
jumped on the Warp bandwagon?
>>>Also the preloading of WARP in germany and Australia are non-events?
>>
>>Frankly, for the US computer industry, yes. How much impact did the
>>dominance of the Atari ST in the German computer market have here in
>>the US? Now if Dell or Gateway drops Windows and starts exclusively
>>pre-loading Warp, you'd have something. Or maybe even IBM... ;)
>
>Germans and Austrailais buy software and therefore the market for
>OS/2 Software is growing. It's more incentive to do WPS apps and
>export product. Even my housemates small business does a signifiacnt amount
>of over seas sales to Australia and Japan. People at comdex are not
>so silly as to dismiss off shore OS/2 sales.
Yes, just like they rushed to support the millions of Atari ST
machines. Also, bear in mind that a Windows version will still
support the OS/2 market. If those preloads don't include Windows
compatibility, their customers will scream. A recent survey here
showed that 85% of OS/2 users run Windows apps (cited from article on
WP 6.1 for Windows integration with WPS).
>>>Go head and draw what ever conclusion you want on out-of-date information.
>>
>>This information is the most recent available. If you have any
>>better, please share it with us. I feel its substantially accurate.
>
>Oh,i t's accurate data Terry. I've never said it's not accurate.
>I said it's outdated.
Let me rephrase so you understand. I feel the data substantially
reflects the current (as of 1/25/95) marketplace. Clearer?
>Data about OS/2 sales in 1990 are still accurate but also outdated.
>I have nothing better to offer but I don't have to offer better data
>when pointing out limitations in your data.
Given my clarification above, do you have anything to add?
>To use that data is to ignore 1 million WARP sales and a sustained
>sales rate. Only a fool would ignore WARP sales when predicting
>NT's bright future. That's your choice. It means thathe Spring
>Poll will be all the more surprising to you.
No, to use that data is to realize that strategic plans don't change
rapidly. If Warps sales appear sustained (and the industry believes
that new users are adopting it, as opposed to upgrades) then there may
be more interest. Most vendors will take the stance that Warp will
run the Windows (or Win32s) version of their product, and thats good
enough.
Warp and Windows NT are substantially different products aimed at
different markets. Windows 95 is the real competition, and Warp will
benefit from its delays in the short term. The longer term is a more
interesting question.
Philip Machanick
> In article <3fsg2...@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>,
> Kazimir Kylheku <c2a...@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
> >In article <tsikesD2...@netcom.com>,
> >Terry Sikes <tsi...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >>There is a very interesting graphic in the February 1995 issue of Byte
> >>Magazine. Byte polled attendees of Fall Comdex to asking "Which
> >>operating system and processor family will dominate over the next five
> >>years?".
Now there's a loaded question. If you ask voters which party they think
will win the next election vs. which party _they_ are going to vote for
you could get a very different response.
That 8% of respondents thought the Mac would dominate is surprising. How
many Mac users seriously believe this? I would prefer the Mac to outsell
certain other products for reasons I won't go into. I believe Apple
_could_ radically increase market share over the next 5 years. But
dominate?
The only "interesting" thing about this is that so many people have been
fooled into thinking the poll is based on a valid question.
--
--
Philip Machanick phi...@cs.wits.ac.za
Department of Computer Science, University of the Witwatersrand
2050 Wits, South Africa
phone 27(11)716-3309 fax 27(11)339-7965
Fredric Lonngren
-- snip --
|> Get with the program, man. Your stereotypical image of the media as part of
|> Chairman Bill's private coterie is lame.
Stereotypical image? Let us look at it.
|> Sure, MS sends out the usual media
|> bribes that any other software/hardware company does - free (review) software,
|> launch junkets, etc. - but that doesn't mean the media is getting anything
Ok, MS gives you loads of free lunches and a kitchensink to.
|> special out of it. Perhaps IBM should do a little more of this itself. After
IBM doesn't. So why should you try to cover IBMs corner of the field you
claim to report on? Until IBM shapes up they get the press cover they
deserve, right? If the products might interest you readers doesn't matter.
|> paying for me to fly up to its launch of OS/2 a few months back, IBM still
|> hasn't given me a review copy of OS/2, despite repeated requests. My paper
They paid your fly-ticket and now you don't want to ask your editor for $70
to try the damn thing. If you don't get it for free you don't want to touch
it with a pole?
|> runs stories from a feature writer who hates OS/2, and I would like to answer a
|> lot of his criticisms, as I was impressed by what I saw at the launch, but I
|> can't review it without trying it
No matter how intresting anything is, you can't write about it if it is not
delivered to you for free?
|>(we're only allowed to do that with MS
|> products ;-)).
I really don't understand why you put a smiley here.
|> IBM may have a great product, but if their marketing consists
|> only of a bunch of ads on tv sayig "where's the hourglass", their marketing
|> department should be shot. A few good reviews from us media sluts and OS/2 may
|> end up preloaded on PCs. Gotta have demand, remember.
You blame the IBM marketing dept. for you own lacking ability to report on
an intresting product? Is media really driven by freebies, givaways, lunches
and pats on the back? Investigating journalisms must be long gone. Don't you
feel any responsabilty to report about an exciting product to your readers?
Why have journalists at all? All you seems to need is someone who collects press-
releases and send them to print. The cost of testing and evaluating a product
must surely be a magnitude larger than the $70 you don't seem to afford. So if
you are on such a tight budget why not print the pressreleases as is and save
the bucks of evaluating. But then there wouldn't be any need to bribe the writers
(ie you) and we couldn't have that, could we?
Stereotypical image? You just proved it true. Chairman Bill pays your
lunches so ol'Bill gets the coverage.
http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/wessler/dict?word=journalism
Webster's definition for
`journalism':
jour.nal.ism n
\'j*rn-(*)l-.iz-*m \
1a: the collection and editing of material of current interest
for presentation through news media
1b: the editorial or business management of an agency engaged
in the collection and dissemination of news
1c: an academic study concerned with the collection and editing
of news or the management of a news medium
[Hmm, all three above mentions collection, not recieving, so it can't
be that.]
2a: writing designed for publication in a newspaper or popular
magazine
[Neutral and fine, no strings attached.]
2b: writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or
description of events without an attempt at interpretation
[ROTFL, no no no, absolutly not]
2c: writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public
interest
[Your adds department might insist on the first part, you have just
proved the public interest part a non issue].
3: newspapers and magazines
[N/A]
|> ---
|> James Baker, AMS...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Journalist Class 2a & 2c1.
I'm feeling sick...
---
Fredric Lonngren Ericsson Telecom AB AXE Control Systems
Fredric....@eos.ericsson.se Voice/Fax + 46 8 719 5226/5557
[THUNK - The sound of Win9n+1 slipping yet another 3 months]
Eric M Hermanson
>Warp and Windows NT are substantially different products aimed at
>different markets. Windows 95 is the real competition, and Warp will
>benefit from its delays in the short term. The longer term is a more
>interesting question.
What's most interesting to me is the question "Who will lead the object
oriented development market?"
It is clear that OpenStep will be the industry standard on Unix, with Sun
implementing OpenStep directly into Solaris, and HP supporting NEXTSTEP
while Digital supports OpenStep.
The second market is the "mainstream" market. PowerBuilder and NEXTSTEP
currently share in most of the profits on this front having products
available for Intelx86. But most importantly, Microsoft wishes to enter
this potentially huge market with Cairo. The problem with Microsoft's
strategy, however, is two-fold:
1. They are at least 3 years from releasing a 1.0 product (don't give me
any 'late 1996' crap. If they can't get Win'95 out on time, there is
_NFW_ they will get Cairo out the door even close to the planned date).
2. Cairo will only run on top of NT. This is Microsoft's biggest downfall.
They are killing themselves in the object market by virute of selling
Windows 95, which will outsell NT 1,000:1. NeXT and PowerBuilder will
have object development tools for both NT and Win95 (with NeXT being
truly cross-platform across Unix, INtel, Alpha, PA-RISC, Sparc, and probably
PowerPC). And if Taligent can't get their act together in the next few months,
the only true object products that even have a chance at dominating in the
future are OpenStep and PowerBuilder. (For obvious reasons I believe
NeXT will retain the clear advantage vs. PowerSoft).
I made this statement a year ago, and most people thought I was nuts, but I
will say it again because it is even more clear to me now that the following
will happen:
Microsoft will _either_ license OpenStep from NeXT or they will make the
Cairo specification open to the public. Again, my estimate is that Microsoft
will go with OpenStep.
If Microsoft hopes to have any marketshare in the object oriented
development market they will have to cooperate with NeXT.
Eric
Tommy t3 Thornton
>In article <1995Jan2...@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz> ams...@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
>
>>products ;-)). IBM may have a great product, but if their marketing consists
>>only of a bunch of ads on tv sayig "where's the hourglass", their marketing
>>department should be shot. A few good reviews from us media sluts and OS/2 may
>>end up preloaded on PCs. Gotta have demand, remember.
>
>the Nuns...much better than the Microsoft adds, but they are doing nothing to
>really push OS/2. Do Ambra machines still ship with Windows as a default.
>While it is nice that IBM is willing to give customers what they want, it's
>too bad one depertment is shooting the other in the foot.
>
I personally thought that IBMs ads were kinda silly. Watching beeper-wearing
Nuns talking about multitasking and surfing the net doesn't make me want to
buy Warp. IBM needs to seriously do something to separate themselves from
Microsoft. Warp runs Windows and DOS applications...duh? So does Windows.
IBM needs to motivate companies to make OS/2 only apps and OS/2 only games.
Windows GUI competes with the Mac but, the MAC OS is much more user friendly
and Mac OS is the choice for destop publishing. The one thing that Warp
really has going for it is built in internet connectivity. IBM needs to ride
the "Information Superhighway" fade. Pre-emptive multitasking is great but,
the average user doesn't understand the difference.
-t3
Joe Ragosta
etudiants du diro) wrote:
>
> Strangely enough, the Micro$oft evangelists groups is
> concentrated in the decision makers (marketing people, direction,
> some project managers) and the others are mostly in the
> programmers/developers group. Now, 4 or 5 people from the
> company went to Comdex, all of them from the decision makers
> group. So, for at least this company, their vote wasn't
> representative of our 'collective' opinion.
In our company, there's a clear distinction. The MIS manager and
controller are pushing Windows, NT, and anything Microsoft. Everyone else
(especially those of us who have to do many different things on our
computers every day) is pushing Mac. I'm convinced that this accounts for
a large part of MS domination--MIS managers who a) have to justify their
existence so they choose software systems which require high levels of
training and support or b) choose to stick with what they're most
familiar with. (Answer depends on your cynicism level).
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
doc...@interramp.com
"Microsoft Office 4.2-What you use when you don't have access to good software."
pag...@netcom.com
: I'm not trying to trivialize anything; I'm merely putting things into
: perspective. To be frank, Netware is a lot more important to the computer
: industry than OS/2 (in virtually any way you can name). Ethernet will
: be around long after OS/2 remains a footnote in "The Best Of Byte, Volume
: 2". Kahn's destruction of Borland destroyed a far more credible competitor
: to MS than OS/2.
Borland, IMHO, started to make mistakes at the same time Bill Gates
& Co. decided to go after them by revamping their Development SYstems (try
comparing pre-BC++/win C/C++ with VC++ 2.0), and buying FoxPro and implementing
their own 2-database strategy (with Access clearly sold as the high-volume
product, being in Office Pro, and FoxPro to get Mac portability and DBase
customers...). Then, for Borland C++ at least, they decided to copy
Visual C++ with mixed and buggy results (try comparing BC++ 3.1 with 4.0,
and you'll see...). They cloned MFC and changed it, and made worse docs
out of it.
I think it's too bad Borland is just now focusing on only
developer stuff, after dropping the ball with BC++ 4.0x the way they did
(If they made 4.0 into a 32-bit 3.1, I'd still be using it...)
IMHO, they should have bought Digital Research instead of Novell, who
is dropping DR-DOS, instead of Ashton Tate. Market-share wise, Paradox was
passing DBase, and they also probably got Microsoft chasing after them too...
And Kahn isin't exactly gone yet, either... Look for Star Wreck II :
The Wrath of Kahn in a theater near you RSN... :)
- Chad Page
: An old, creaky Win 3.1 still outsells OS/2.
Patrick Hall
: The slipping of Win95 has garnered both praise and derision, many people
: seem to feel it was a good idea to avoid a buggy first release. Many
: of you complain about buggy MS software, then you complain when they
: take longer to get it right the first time. So it goes.
The slipping of the ship date is true - however, avoiding a buggy
first release will not be seen to be either true or false until at least a
little while after it ships. The NT ship date, as I recall, was moved
back a few times. This did not, however, result in a clean, good first
release of NT.
Take longer, yes. Get it right the first time? This is around
the 4th time, as I recall...
Patrick Hall
ph...@umr.edu
Christopher B. Browne
>>You laugh at OS/2 PPC for slipping and praise the sliping WIN95 for
>>it's guarenteed stability. You are a MS Apologist.
>
>No, I presented a balanced viewpoint thats backed up by reported fact.
>I suppose you didn't read the recent PC Week where many users/MIS folk
>were quoted as saying "We'd rather wait for a good product"? In the
>meantime, those wanting to run Win32 apps or develop them have a good
>alternative. Windows NT.
My company's "Director of Technology" made comment today that he figures
that there is no point to waiting for Windows 95; it makes *far* more sense
to go straight to Windows NT.
Of course, it begs the question of why MS has bothered to build another
upgrade to the DOS family; the answer appears more a matter of trying to
"stampede" users into buying multiple Microsoft upgrades than it does any
actual user needs.
>The difference between Win95 and OS/2 PPC is that lack of OS/2 PPC has
>held up the release of an entire hardware platform. I want better,
>faster hardware. The fact is that OS/2 PPC and its associated
>politics are holding the industry back, and IBM may have seriously
>damaged its ability to sell PPC machines. The good news is that Win
>NT for PPC will ship soon, and a raft of PPC clones are on the way
>with or without IBM participation. In the meantime, Workplace has
>basically gone into oblivion, and we're left with nothing but an OS/2
>personality (assuming it ships someday).
Regardless of whether I ever use either, I'd like to see Workplace OS come
out some time faintly soon, to provide a commercial alternative to the
Windows series, if nothing else.
--
Christopher Browne - cbb...@io.org
TeX or Word: Whose product would you rather to be using:
That of a Stanford Professor of Computer Science --OR-- that of a
Harvard freshman dropout?
Terry Sikes
Patrick Hall <ph...@rocket.cc.umr.edu> wrote:
>Terry Sikes (tsi...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: The slipping of Win95 has garnered both praise and derision, many people
>: seem to feel it was a good idea to avoid a buggy first release. Many
>: of you complain about buggy MS software, then you complain when they
>: take longer to get it right the first time. So it goes.
>
> The slipping of the ship date is true - however, avoiding a buggy
>first release will not be seen to be either true or false until at least a
>little while after it ships. The NT ship date, as I recall, was moved
>back a few times. This did not, however, result in a clean, good first
>release of NT.
Sure it did. Win NT 3.1 was very stable, and by far the best
first-release OS I've seen. Compare it to the rollout of Solaris. No
contest.
> Take longer, yes. Get it right the first time? This is around
>the 4th time, as I recall...
Um, Windows 95 is a bit more than a point release. Certainly, parts
of it come from Win 3.x, but quite a bit is new territory.
James R. McClure Jr.
total copies," (this figure is highly susceptable to manipulation [e.g.:
Windows for Warehouses 3.1]) then yes, Win does "outsell" OS/2. If by "sell"
you mean "users made a conscious decision to spend their economic resorces
on a product," (as opposed to having it forced on them, i.e.: 'preloaded')
then OS/2 "outsells" Win handily.
> The monopoly on DOS/Windows preloading was ending with the introduction
> of Win95, regardless of the Justice Departments quixotic efforts.
Do you really believe that Microsoft would have voluntarily relaxed its
monopolistic per-processor contracts w/o the Justice Department's intervention?
I, for one, seriously doubt it.
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert standard disclaimer here>
Alan Dail
<pre...@umich.edu> wrote:
:ad...@infi.net (Alan Dail) wrote:
:> NextStep is not an object oriented OS. It is unix with an object oriented
:> shell. C++ on top of a non object oriented OS is not the answer. What
:> you really need is an OS that is objects from the ground up.
:
:>This is what Taligent is building.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:And I hate to say it, but thats what NeXT did back in 1989......sorry
:Taligent, like most IBM and APPLE things, its not new and they stole
:something great from someone else...and yes, they will screw it up.
:
No, NeXT had a object oriented shell around unix (actually MACH).
Taligent is going to do both, have object oriented frameworks that run on
top of existing OSes (unix, OS/2, Copland, etc) and have their own object
oriented OS.
Alan
--
+Alan Dail - Developer--+--/-\--+-"The journey is the reward" - S.Jobs--+
|804/867-7202 | \_/ | "The best way to predict the future |
|AppleLink: AlanDail | j-+-{ | is to invent it" - Alan Kay |
|Internet ad...@infi.net| -|- | "Hate is not a family value" - Anon |
+-----------------------+---V---+"Race,in the space I mark Human"-Prince+
Alan Dail
:In article <3g61qg$9...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>,
zmon...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric M Hermanson) writes:
:|>
:|> >Warp and Windows NT are substantially different products aimed at
:|> >different markets. Windows 95 is the real competition, and Warp will
:|> >benefit from its delays in the short term. The longer term is a more
:|> >interesting question.
:|>
:|> What's most interesting to me is the question "Who will lead the object
:|> oriented development market?"
:
:The real question is "will the object oriented operating systems make any
:difference?". I don't think they will. Everyone seems perfectly happy
:using C++/Smalltalk on top of exising OSs with OO extensions, like SOM.
:
:Nextstep is a neat idea but it'll never amount to anything (I said this
:back in '90).
:
NextStep is not an object oriented OS. It is unix with an object oriented
shell. C++ on top of a non object oriented OS is not the answer. What
you really need is an OS that is objects from the ground up. This is what
Taligent is building.
Alan
Robert Stephen Rodgers
Alan Dail <ad...@infi.net> wrote:
>:The real question is "will the object oriented operating systems make any
>:difference?". I don't think they will. Everyone seems perfectly happy
>:using C++/Smalltalk on top of exising OSs with OO extensions, like SOM.
When was the last time you bought a commercial app based on Smalltalk?
The penetration of Smalltalk is inversely proportional to the cost of the
runtime. Visual Basic sold hundreds of thousands more copies than all
variants of Smalltalk combined. A hideous outcome that could have been
stopped by rational pricing.
>NextStep is not an object oriented OS. It is unix with an object oriented
>shell. C++ on top of a non object oriented OS is not the answer. What
>you really need is an OS that is objects from the ground up. This is what
>Taligent is building.
It's ironic that you say "C++ on top of a non oo OS is not the answer" and
then point to Taligent, which is based on C++ and will deploy CommonPoint
(nee TalAE) on several non-OO OSes, as an example of where the world is
going.
--
"2. cntl+ins and shift+ins now work for cut and paste without crashing
UltiMail."
-Steve Withers, IBM employee, reporting on a patch that fixes some of
the bugs and performance problems that ended up in the released OS/2v3.
Dan Newcombe
>In article <tsikesD2...@netcom.com>,
>Terry Sikes <tsi...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>There is a very interesting graphic in the February 1995 issue of Byte
>>Magazine. Byte polled attendees of Fall Comdex to asking "Which
>>operating system and processor family will dominate over the next five
>>years?".
>Interesting, but polling Comdex attendees is biased sample for many
>reasons, not the least of which is that many of them have vested
>interests as developers or consultants.
Or how about the fact that (at least in Atlanta) Comdex and WindowsWorld are
one combined event.
-Dan (With images of bill gates stuffing the ballot box :)
--
Dan Newcombe newc...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"And the man in the mirror has sad eyes." -Marillion
Tom Krotchko
>> An old, creaky Win 3.1 still outsells OS/2.
>
>Please, define "sell" Mr. Krotchko.
Sure thing, Mr. McClure. It means "having people pay money for".
>Do you really believe that Microsoft would have voluntarily relaxed its
>monopolistic per-processor contracts w/o the Justice Department's intervention?
No, the market would have decided for Microsoft.
--
Tom Krotchko
<to...@access.digex.net>
Bill Sirinek
Yasuo Ohgaki <yoh...@cassandra.cair.du.edu> wrote:
>Warwick Allison (war...@cs.uq.oz.au) wrote:
>: tsi...@netcom.com (Terry Sikes) writes:
>
>: ...
>: > Windows 95 ~23%
>: > Windows NT ~18%
>: > OS/2 ~15%
>: > MS-DOS/PC-DOS ~8%
>: > MacOS ~8%
>: > Other UNIX ~8%
>: > Win 3.1 ~3%
>: > Cairo Into the noise
>: > Taligent
>: > Workplace
>: > Solaris
>: > AIX
>: > Other
>: What does "Other UNIX" mean? Unix other than those separated out?
>
>Other UNIX?? Sounds like LINUX!! (55,000> CDs each month + downloads
>from net.)
>
>Windows NT is also supports POSIX poersonality (only 1003.1, right?)
>AIX and Soalris are UNIXes.
>Is Taligent and Workplace OS UNIX? (I thought both of them will have
>UNIX personality)
YES! It's about time someone mentioned LINUX! More and more people are
switching to Linux, and it shows, at least in the academic sector. Myself
and some friends have been promoting Linux and have turned a lot of friends
on to it. Linux has the power that NT, OS/2 and Win95 WISH they had! Not to
mention its being ported to other platforms as we speak (Alpha, 680x0,
PowerPC and possibly others).
Shame theres so many "if-its-not-commercial-its-crap" people out there! I
know from experience Linux is quite a bit more bug-free than, say, Solaris.
And its certainly as stable as any commercial unix (I maintain a
heterogeneous cluster of computers running several different vendors'
unixes) if I made purchasing decisions around there, I'd buy PC's to put in
as workstations!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sirinek sir...@rex.cs.tulane.edu
God put me on earth to accomplish a certain number of things
Right now I am so far behind I will never die
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Howard
>Solaris 2.0 was a nightmare -- it's amazing to me that Sun not only
>survived their own incompetance, they continued to grow their
>marketshare. I hadn't seen such a poor first-try since OS/2 1.0.
Just to be fair, when Sun realized that 2.0 was getting nowhere fast
(prior to release) they went ahead with 2.0 but strongly advised their
customers not to buy it (nor did they preload it) but insisted that
only developers use it. 2.1 was much better. I think they must have
realized that making 2.0 what it should really have been would take too
long and were willing to take a chance that calling 2.0 a "developer's
release" would fly.
OTOH, 2.1 wasn't the model of high quality either.
Robert
--
| Robert L. Howard | Georgia Tech Research Institute |
| robert...@matd.gatech.edu | SEAL / ATDD |
| (404) 528-7165 | Atlanta, Georgia 30332 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue |
| is not hereditary." -- Thomas Paine |
Jerry Kuch
James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote:
>to...@access.digex.net (Tom Krotchko) wrote:
>
>> An old, creaky Win 3.1 still outsells OS/2.
>
>Please, define "sell" Mr. Krotchko. If by "sell" you mean "shipped more
>total copies," (this figure is highly susceptable to manipulation [e.g.:
>Windows for Warehouses 3.1]) then yes, Win does "outsell" OS/2. If by "sell"
>you mean "users made a conscious decision to spend their economic resorces
>on a product," (as opposed to having it forced on them, i.e.: 'preloaded')
>then OS/2 "outsells" Win handily.
Numbers please. The number of unsubstantiated claims for OS/2 outselling
everything on the planet that are appearing increases every day.
>Do you really believe that Microsoft would have voluntarily relaxed its
>monopolistic per-processor contracts w/o the Justice Department's intervention
>I, for one, seriously doubt it.
I doubt it too... but the fact that Microsoft was able to largely
state the terms of their settlement with Justice (and the EEC at the
same time) is probably a good indicator of how much power they
actually have. On top of that, the Justice Department or FTC are
always going to move so much slower than any aggressively managed
company that it's usually at least half a decade before anything
happens.
--
Jerry Kuch EMail: gdk...@neumann.uwaterloo.ca
MY GOAL IN LIFE FOR THIS FALL: Acquire the long-awaited Tokyo Marui
remote-controlled Godzilla (from GODZILLA VS. BIOLLANTE) toy... to be
available in Japan in December. It will cost Y49,800. Very expensive.
Z. Zhao
economics.
;-{
CHaley
In all my years of working with computers, i have never met a product
that was so crappy that received so mych hype as windows NT/'95.
Microsoft is VERY good at making a crappy thing so much MORE crappy, and
marketing it for far more than it's worth. In fact, windows in general
reminds me of Jabba the Hutt in Star Wars, its ugly and big and fat, and
it eats all the resources and runs R E A L S L O W. I am not startled
that a college student in finland and a loose collaboration of part time
programmers managed to write the best PC OS 0f 1994...Linux be thy name.
__
/ /\
/ / \ CHaley
/ / /\ \
/ / /\ \ \ home:(505)293-8910 * cha...@m-net.arbornet.org
/ /_/__\ \ \ ch00...@arriba.nm.org * ch00...@pi.lanl.gov
/________\ \ \
\___________\/
Paul JY Lahaie
Terry Sikes <tsi...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Sure it did. Win NT 3.1 was very stable, and by far the best
>first-release OS I've seen. Compare it to the rollout of Solaris. No
>contest.
Perhaps you ran a different release of NT 3.1 than I have seen. The one
I played with crashed, and didn't work often. Was extremely slow (DX50 16MB
RAM). Things did improve though when it went to 32MB of RAM.
- Paul
--
Paul JY Lahaie Internet: pjla...@achilles.net
Achilles Internet
Director of Technical Operations
Oliver Chung
>>
>>Windows for Warehouses 3.1]) then yes, Win does "outsell" OS/2. If by "sell"
>>you mean "users made a conscious decision to spend their economic resorces
>>on a product," (as opposed to having it forced on them, i.e.: 'preloaded')
>>then OS/2 "outsells" Win handily.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Numbers please. The number of unsubstantiated claims for OS/2 outselling
>everything on the planet that are appearing increases every day.
Warp is #1 in 2 issues of PC mag's missing Top Retails chart, PC
mag's editors admitted that in Compuserve (according to posts here
in c.o.o.a), where is Windows?
>>Do you really believe that Microsoft would have voluntarily relaxed its
>>monopolistic per-processor contracts w/o the Justice Department's intervention
>>I, for one, seriously doubt it.
>
>I doubt it too... but the fact that Microsoft was able to largely
>state the terms of their settlement with Justice (and the EEC at the
>same time) is probably a good indicator of how much power they
>actually have. On top of that, the Justice Department or FTC are
Don't be too optimistic on that, one particular judge seems to be
not very satisfied with that settlement.
>always going to move so much slower than any aggressively managed
>company that it's usually at least half a decade before anything
>happens.
---
Oliver Chung
<khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu> __ __ _
+Department of Physics, The Ohio State University+ | |(__' /`_)
+----------> My opinions are my own <------------+ |__|.__)/ /__
Chad Irby
: Perhaps you ran a different release of NT 3.1 than I have seen. The one
: I played with crashed, and didn't work often. Was extremely slow (DX50 16MB
: RAM). Things did improve though when it went to 32MB of RAM.
Despite most of the claims on Microsoft's advertising, the basic
realistic stable version of NT is a 486/33 (or faster) with 32 megs of
RAM (or more).
--
Chad Irby / My greatest fear: that future generations will,
ci...@gate.net / for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
jim frost
>Just to be fair, when Sun realized that 2.0 was getting nowhere fast
>(prior to release) they went ahead with 2.0 but strongly advised their
>customers not to buy it (nor did they preload it) but insisted that
>only developers use it. 2.1 was much better. I think they must have
>realized that making 2.0 what it should really have been would take too
>long and were willing to take a chance that calling 2.0 a "developer's
>release" would fly.
>OTOH, 2.1 wasn't the model of high quality either.
It most certainly was not, nor was 2.2 or even 2.3 without the jumbo
patches. Solaris 2.4, which has been shipping for just a few months,
was the first version I considered moderately stable (by which I mean
that doing moderate to heavy development on it doesn't crash it a
couple of times a day). It was certainly the first version with
performance good enough to consider a switch from SunOS.
I honestly can't believe Sun pushed that product on their customers.
They made me madder than hell, and I'd been a happy Sun customer since
the Sun 3 days.
Someday let me tell you about building threaded servers on Solaris.
jim frost
ji...@world.std.com
--
http://www.std.com/homepages/jimf
Bill Vermillion
Joseph W. Vigneau <jo...@pyramid.res.wpi.edu> wrote:
>In article <950127192043.1927AACUE.malc@quorum>,
>mmalcolm Crawford <m.cra...@dcs.shef.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Umm, and in what way is this different from OpenStep (the NEXTSTEP API
>>implemented on a range of different operating systems, e.g. Solaris), except
>>that NEXTSTEP (the "full" version) is shipping *now*, does everything
>>Taligent and Cairo promise in a year or more's time *now*, and people are
>>using NEXTSTEP to gain significant productivity advantages *now*...?
>Unfortunately, it takes a ton of memory to run !16-24M), and even more to do
>development work on (24-32M) according to NeXT..
Basically the more depth you want in color the more memory.
Gray scale will run in 8 megs quite well. I'm running color in
16 megs and could use a bit more.
It's really not that much more than what a lot of other
products need - though they spec it much lower.
I do some weekly contract work for a place that is upgrading
all the PC Windows machines to 16 meg as the 8 meg seem
limiting.
--
Bill Vermillion - bi...@bilver.oau.org | bill.ve...@oau.org
Robert Stephen Rodgers
Bob Lunney - Medaphis Development <blu...@gateway.bsis.com> wrote:
>In article <3g9cms$1...@convolution.eng.umd.edu>, rsro...@Glue.umd.edu (Robert Stephen Rodgers) writes:
>>When was the last time you bought a commercial app based on Smalltalk?
>>The penetration of Smalltalk is inversely proportional to the cost of the
>>runtime. Visual Basic sold hundreds of thousands more copies than all
>>variants of Smalltalk combined. A hideous outcome that could have been
>>stopped by rational pricing.
>>
>
That sounds pretty interesting. How much was it?
Robert Stephen Rodgers
Oh please... A comment like that could only come from someone who has never
tried it.
p...@umich.edu
> Unfortunately, it takes a ton of memory to run !16-24M), and even more to do
> development work on (24-32M) according to NeXT..
Yeah we NEXTSTEP people keep hearing about the 'ton of memory' etc crap.
#1. Looked at the minimum requirements for WindowsNT? -> 16 M
#2. Looked at what Unix workstation minimum shipping configurations are?
-> 16 M
#3. Looked at what basic PC's minimum shipping configurations are now?
-> 8-16 M (Packard-Bell low-end even, come minimum with 8 megs!).
Christ, buy another 8Megs and open up that second app!
--
Peter Urka <p...@umich.edu>
Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Michigan
Anything to me is sweeter,
Than to see Shock-headed Peter. - H. Hoffmann
larson eric
>>Warp is #1 in 2 issues of PC mag's missing Top Retails chart, PC
>>mag's editors admitted that in Compuserve (according to posts here
>>in c.o.o.a), where is Windows?
>OS/2 for Windows hit #1 for a week in fall '93. Then dropped off the
>charts, not to be seen again until lately. And didn't it go 2,1,1,9?
>It is doing better, though....
=========
OS/2 will spike to number one when the WinOS2 version hits and will stay
there for weeks and weeks. The same will happen when LAN Client is
released. Many, many OS/2ers help off of Warp because it is the "for
Windows" version. Companies will go nuts buying the LAN Client version.
Just this week, our network admin had to visit three machines twice to fix
sniggly "network" problems -- relief is needed for DOS/Windows
(desperately.) There's easily enough discontent with DOS/Windows and the
wait for Chicago for OS/2 to gather in fleets of LAN users.
--
Eric Larson | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
USDA/Agronomy | 190 PABL; 1201 W. Gregory; Urbana, IL 61801
ela...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu | Voice 217.244.3079 Fax 217.244.4419
Fidonet: 1:233/4.1 | My opinions are my own, but correct :-)
Robert Stephen Rodgers
Alan Dail <ad...@infi.net> wrote:
>In article <3g9cms$1...@convolution.eng.umd.edu>, rsro...@Glue.umd.edu
>:When was the last time you bought a commercial app based on Smalltalk?
>:The penetration of Smalltalk is inversely proportional to the cost of the
>:runtime. Visual Basic sold hundreds of thousands more copies than all
>:variants of Smalltalk combined. A hideous outcome that could have been
>:stopped by rational pricing.
>
>used to develop it, but I do believe quite a few Mac developers are using
>SmallTalkAgents.
STA is an example that proves my point (see sentence 2, above).
[....]
>Taligent has to support the existing OSes to gain acceptance, but they
>also have developed their own OS that is fully Object Oriented. Without
>and Object Oriented OS, you are always having to build classes to support
>features of the OS, but this is not always an easy thing to do when the OS
>was not designed with this in mind.
Last I checked, TalOS was going to use the IBM Workplace microkernel. I.e.,
Mach 3.0.
Terry Sikes
>Paul JY Lahaie (pjla...@achilles.net) wrote:
>
>: Perhaps you ran a different release of NT 3.1 than I have seen. The one
>: I played with crashed, and didn't work often. Was extremely slow (DX50 16MB
>: RAM). Things did improve though when it went to 32MB of RAM.
>
>Despite most of the claims on Microsoft's advertising, the basic
>realistic stable version of NT is a 486/33 (or faster) with 32 megs of
>RAM (or more).
Wrong. I'm posting this from a 486DX2/66 with 20 MB, which I've been
using with Win NT for well over a year. Win NT 3.1 was very livable,
Win NT 3.5 runs great. I ran Win NT 3.1 on a 16 MB machine for quite
a while, and it was usable though it did tend to swap a fair amount.
However, 3.5 should work pretty well on such a machine.
--
Terry Sikes | Software Developer++
tsi...@netcom.com | C++ isn't a language, its an adventure!
finger for PGP pub key | "Anyone programming in a 16-bit environment isn't
My opinions - mine only! | playing with a full DEC."
tsc...@syr.edu
>>stable? Not really.
>
>Wonderful how you can generalize from your single experience to the
>entire Win NT user community. Perhaps we should take a vote instead.
>
Vote to OS/2 Warp.
Since I don't have network at home, I setup NT 3.5 just for fun and I would
like to see how good it is.
NT just asked me for my fourth disk after the three setup disks. I got no choice
but terminated the setup but I lose my BootManager without any clue. I have
to find out from the book that I need to make three setup disks from the
CD ROM if mine is not support from the setup procedure (Sound Blaster IDE!?).
Not too difficult to do that and all the procedure were pretty smothly.
Finally login to NT. But it forgets what CD ROM drive I am using now!! I don't
know how to use that drive setup. The hlep document is poor there and the
instruction from the books is not for me either!!
So I don't want to spend my valuable time on it any more and go back to
OS/2 happily.
OS/2 is definitely the best personal OS system by far.
Tsai-Hsin
jpsb
>Apart from the cost of one review copy there is no question of paying for
>anything. Like I said, I'll review whatever lands on my desk, especially an
>important operating system. This goes for most news organisations, and IBM is
>aware of it. My case remains that IBM is simply a victim of its own
>inadequacies, not the media cabal's preference for Microsoft products.
I would have to wonder about your ability to review a OS.
that you would be unwilling to shell out 50 bucks on. You are all
wet on this on! We are talking about a magor OS release from IBM!
Not exactly some local joe, I'd *like* to hear about it, I don't run
OS 2, but i might. Maybe if you in the press would start telling us
what really is out there we in the public would start buying your product.
I for one am SICK of microsoft, microsoft, microsoft everywhere.
Please, do your readers a favor an stop kissing bill gates ass.
That goes for BYTE too, how about a little Unix coverage BYTE?
I picked up a copy of some new internet rag, Unix was not mensioned
once! Not once! Just microsoft, microsoft, microsoft. shit.
jim shirreffs
i speak for myself and only myself
i already know i'm a terrible speller
david raoul derbes
>
>My company's "Director of Technology" made comment today that he figures
>that there is no point to waiting for Windows 95; it makes *far* more sense
>to go straight to Windows NT.
>
>Of course, it begs the question of why MS has bothered to build another
>upgrade to the DOS family; the answer appears more a matter of trying to
>"stampede" users into buying multiple Microsoft upgrades than it does any
>actual user needs.
>
>out some time faintly soon, to provide a commercial alternative to the
>Windows series, if nothing else.
>
>--
>Christopher Browne - cbb...@io.org
I agree with your company's director, and I suspect many others have made
the same call: NT is a much smarter move than Win 95. It is one of many
reasons why I do not believe Win 95 will be the success everyone and their
sister seems to think it will be.
Of course, I think OS/2 is the smartest bet of all.
I can give you a good reason why Win 95 is being pushed, though.
My father, may his memory be blessed, called it "the salami technique".
When a certain would-be world conqueror and mass murderer got going around
1938 on world domination, he didn't attempt to take over the planet at
once. Oh, no. Just a little bit of the Sudetenland, please. Then another
little bite of Czechoslovakia, then a smidge of Poland... Pretty soon,
you get the whole salami.
If the computing community were told, "Move to NT!" (as indeed they were
told two years ago) they'd say (as they pretty much *did* say), "Drop
dead, Bill!"
Ah, but if they are told, "Move to Chicago!" which is (or so it seems) a
much more reasonable solution, perhaps they'll do it. But wait! says
Microsoft, you developers *cannot* sell a package with the "Holy Logo"
(TM) indicating Win 95 *unless* it runs under NT. So, in the first place,
Win 95 is being used to provide motivation for developers to produce NT
apps.
But there is a second, sneakier reason to push Win 95. I believe that
by the time you goose your machine into enough enhancements to run Win
95 effectively, *it will be able to run NT reasonably*.
It seems very likely to me (call it FUD if you like; I do not claim this
is a fact, it is merely an opinion) that Win 95's sole raison d'etre is
as a midwife to give birth to an entrenched NT user base. I do not
expect Win 95 to be around very long.Indeed, there is even a possibility
that it will *never* see shrinkwrap.
David Derbes [lo...@midway.uchicago.edu]
luc...@doc.cc.utexas.edu
>using with Win NT for well over a year. Win NT 3.1 was very livable,
>Win NT 3.5 runs great. I ran Win NT 3.1 on a 16 MB machine for quite
>a while, and it was usable though it did tend to swap a fair amount.
>However, 3.5 should work pretty well on such a machine.
I'll back this up; I ran NT 3.5 on a 486sx 33 with 16mb for a while when
it first came out, and it was plenty. Now, if you want to run VC++ 2.0,
well...er, you need some more. 8-)
I have 24mb now, which is quite comfortable even for VC++ 2.0; for doing
other things though, it almost feels like overkill.
-----
-Lucien S
-Very Very Very Very Very Proud Member of
*****************Team-NT*****************Team-NT*******************
TTTTTTTTTT EEEEEEE A MMM MMM NNN NN TTTTTTTTTT
TT EE AAA MM M M MM NN N NN TT
TT EEEEE AA AA MM M M MM ==== NN N NN TT
TT EE AAAAAAA MM MM MM NN N NN TT
TT EEEEEEE AA AA MM MM NN NNN TT
*****************Team-NT*****************Team-NT*******************
luc...@doc.cc.utexas.edu
david raoul derbes <lo...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>the same call: NT is a much smarter move than Win 95. It is one of many
>reasons why I do not believe Win 95 will be the success everyone and their
>sister seems to think it will be.
PMJI, but I have to agree here. IMO, NT is a much better idea than win95,
primarily because its so superior in design and quality than win95 (going
by what I've read about win95; haven't actually seen it yet).
The long wait coupled with the questionable quality of win95 is going to
hurt it imo; dont forget the at least year-long version 1.0-itis that will
afflict it too...
NT is a better solution than win95 since its much better off WRT to these
things; Its available now, its a very good design, and its coming out of
its version1.0-itis period finally.
Not to mention that a win95 capable machine is just a stone's throw away from
being an NT capable machine (from what I've heard about win95) since its
unlikely that it will be nirvana on a 4mb or even an 8mb machine.
>My father, may his memory be blessed, called it "the salami technique".
Yes this is a tried and true technique for acheiving domination; witness
the new US Congress' piecemeal attack on personal liberties; no frontal
assault, just a methodical whittling away at personal / religious / economic
freedoms... But thats another thread..8-)
>
>It seems very likely to me (call it FUD if you like; I do not claim this
>is a fact, it is merely an opinion) that Win 95's sole raison d'etre is
>as a midwife to give birth to an entrenched NT user base. I do not
Well..as an NT user, I cant say that I'm dismayed at the prospect of an
entrenched NT user base, 8-)) but I think that this is on the right track.
The direction seems to be a merger of the win95 / NT code bases sometime
after Cairo (or whatever).
>expect Win 95 to be around very long.Indeed, there is even a possibility
>that it will *never* see shrinkwrap.
Well, I wouldnt go this far, but IMHO, it will _not_ be the success that
its being cracked up to become, especially if its too big, or too slow..
Again, I haven't seen it; I've only heard about it, so I'm not really sure
about this..
J. Heather Patrick
Alan Dail <ad...@infi.net> wrote:
>That is not what I intended. Clearly NeXT deserves credit for taking
>objects as far as they did. All I was trying to say is that objects top
>to bottom will be even better. In programming under NeXTStep, as long as
>you are using their objects, things are easy. However, there are too many
>other models floating around (at least when I was doing it) display
>postscript, unix, etc. Doing all of these things as object gives you one
>consistant model to program towards.
Explain how having the actual kernel written with objects helps it work
better? It certainly won't help it work faster.
All that is required is an object-oriented _Interface_ to the kernel, and
related routines.
The interface is the key, as far as programming is concerned (and for
many things, as far as the user is concerned, too). That, as I understand
it, is what OpenStep is headed towards.
Michael Shandony
>PMJI, but I have to agree here. IMO, NT is a much better idea than win95,
>primarily because its so superior in design and quality than win95 (going
>by what I've read about win95; haven't actually seen it yet).
>
>The long wait coupled with the questionable quality of win95 is going to
>hurt it imo; dont forget the at least year-long version 1.0-itis that will
>afflict it too...
>
>NT is a better solution than win95 since its much better off WRT to these
>things; Its available now, its a very good design, and its coming out of
>its version1.0-itis period finally.
>
>Not to mention that a win95 capable machine is just a stone's throw away from
>being an NT capable machine (from what I've heard about win95) since its
>unlikely that it will be nirvana on a 4mb or even an 8mb machine.
And....NT runs on more than just Intel x86 (and x86 compatible) systems.
As most of you know, it runs on Intel, Alpha, Mips, PowerPC (beta), SPARC
(in Sun's labs), and PA-RISC (in HP's labs).
====================================================================
Mike Shandony | Telephone: (214) 684-7303
Bell-Northern Research, Inc. | Fax: (214) 684-3748
2201 Lakeside Blvd. MS D0307 | Internet: vanh...@bnr.ca
Richardson, TX 75083-3871 |
====================================================================
The opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of BNR.
====================================================================
David Ramsey
At work we have several Win NT 3.5 machines and on some we have no
problems while on others we have endless problems. (Same type of
machine, nearly identical configurations.) The common theme seems to
be that usesr who run lots of console mode applications can leave the
system in a state where it appears that there is no free RAM and no
free swap - necessitating a reboot.
For example, running several hundred command line compilations for our
common code (that is shared by our applications running on NT, OS/2,
UNIX, and VAX VMS) results in progressive memory leakage leading to a
machine lockup. (We don't use the VC++ IDE because we already have
working Makefiles. We use the VC++ IDE for the NT specific stuff
though.) The problem is repeatable and has been reported. I have no
idea why it occurs but it happens with Microsoft's own OS and
Microsoft's own command line compiler so if they can't get memory
management down pat with their stuff, I have serious doubts about
third party software.
Basically, NT still looks very immature. It has some promise, appears
to lack complete API's needed for real mission-critical type apps, is
easy to install, but lacks functionality in other areas. For instance,
we've had ALOT of trouble with the so-called POSIX subsystem. Function
calls work erratically or not at all and memory utilization appears
horrible. (We had hoped to utilize POSIX for non-GUI code in order to
provide some common level of functionality amongst our target
platforms.)
There are alot of things to like about NT but it lacks the maturity of
something like UNIX or VMS. It looks like it will do well but growth
may take awhile while Microsoft works out problems and adds more cross
platform support. Thus, while I see alot of pro and con stuff on NT, I
tend to remain fairly neutral on it right now. It still hasn't really
proven itself in widespread usage.
--
***********************************************************************
* dra...@neosoft.com * If you love wealth better than liberty, the *
************************ tranquility of servitude better than the *
* animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not *
* your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed *
* you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget *
* that ye were our countrymen. -- Samuel Adams, 1776 *
***********************************************************************
Joseph W. Vigneau
<p...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>Yeah we NEXTSTEP people keep hearing about the 'ton of memory' etc crap.
>
>#1. Looked at the minimum requirements for WindowsNT? -> 16 M
>#2. Looked at what Unix workstation minimum shipping configurations are?
> -> 16 M
>#3. Looked at what basic PC's minimum shipping configurations are now?
> -> 8-16 M (Packard-Bell low-end even, come minimum with 8 megs!).
#4. Looked at the minimum recommended requirements for Linux -> 4M.
With X? -> 8M
With the same amount of memory, Linux/X will destroy NT and just about any
other Unix out there.. I'm not comparing it memory-wise to NeXTstep, as it's
GUI does a helluva lot more than any other out there..
--
jo...@wpi.edu WPI Computer Science '97 Linux!
<a href="http://www.wpi.edu/~joev"> Click Here! </a>
Chris Umbricht, M.D.
war...@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>I think the biggest surprise of all is that there is no clear leader.
>Since the above measured which OS people thought was going to "dominate",
>it is clear that the real answer is that *NO* operating system will
dominate. <
The biggest surprise to me was that 8% answered that the MacOS would
DOMINATE... pretty wierd outlook for a Comdex crowd...
Or something was wierd about the survey.
Brad Clawsie
>****************************************************
>Why do American suppliers not start to preload OS/2?
>
>I think it is because they are totally manipulated by a
>biased press which made good mnoey on windows.
>
Wrong. OS/2 isn't preloaded because people don't want it. Before
getting all flustered by this statement, consider the demographics
of the home PC user, and perhaps even some business users. These
people want to write letters, create spreadsheets, and play with
drawing programs. They don't know shinola about Windoze emulation
modes, or other arcane technical details. They also want to be
able to swap (read:pirate) software from their pals. OS/2, not
being too popular in comparison, certainly precludes this.
For what people want to do, Windoze is perfectly capable of
accomplishing (although a few crashes may transpire along the way!).
OS/2 simply doesn't have the market inertia to convince the typical
home user that they should take a risk and try something new and
innovative. Don't get me wrong, I am not extolling the technical
virtues of MS software (I'm a Solaris man myself!), but the issue
of market presence has never really been about technical strengths. If
it were, we wouldn't be in this Wintel mess to begin with.
Brad
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Clawsie
claw...@qucis.queensu.ca
http://www.qucis.queensu.ca:1999/~clawsieb/info.html
M.Sc Student in Computing and Information Science
Queen's University
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither
advise, nor consent to, arbitrary measures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a
mQBNAi4Asm0AAAECANw0EAnidp+QOQ9OsyF1Q7VTrZmKH9QqwQOLkPK28YEGGmIv
mGPdVbkd5Ro4ucibZUiOgJm3fWgmsAVK5ar/YkEABRO0KEJyYWQgQ2xhd3NpZSA8
Y2xhd3NpZWJAcXVjaXMucXVlZW5zdS5jYT4=
=zJDe
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Darcy BROCKBANK
>In article <3g1fga$t...@life.ai.mit.edu>,
>Pixelated! <pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>>In article <SAMURAI.95...@marge.cs.mcgill.ca>,
>>Darcy BROCKBANK <sam...@marge.cs.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>>>Nobody has asked me what my sig means yet ;-(.
>>
>>OK, I'll byte. what's it mean? Looks like a pseudo-lisp description of
>>an "organism"'s algorithm to find food. <...>
>[SNIP]
>>>(prog (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move eat) eat (senseFood move eat))
>>>rotRight eat) (prog move (prog (prog eat (senseFood move rotRight) eat) loop)
>>>rotRight)) (prog (senseFood (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move move) eat
>>>(senseFood move eat)) rotRight eat) (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move
>No, he's pretty much managed to encapsulate my
>existence - program, sense food, shuffle to lounge,
>eat food, program... :)
>Now if I could only figure out how to work the
>rotRight parameter into it.
It's when you get really depressed about your existence, of looking for
food, eathing it, and shuffling around, and you decide to sit on your
chair and spin in circles (rotating to the right, of course. It's funny
how this particular ant, er, programmer, doesn't like the left at all...
little did I know that my genetic algorithm was capable of predicing
general political trends ;-).
- db
--
(prog (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move eat) eat (senseFood move eat))
rotRight eat) (prog move (prog (prog eat (senseFood move rotRight) eat) loop)
rotRight)) (prog (senseFood (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move move) eat
(senseFood move eat)) rotRight eat) (senseFood (prog (prog (senseFood move
Brad Clawsie
>Well, there are about 80,000,000 Germans, and about three times that many
>Americans (I think). So the German market is not really insignificant, is
>it?
>
>Bernie
>
Whoah, let's get things straight. The deal was a couple of big selling
clone makers in Germany would pre-install OS/2. No one ever said that
ALL the computers in Germany would be pre loaded with OS/2. I'm sure
that the majority of computers sold in both Germany and Australia will
still come with Windoze preloaded. Also, remember that the Euros loved
the Amiga, and look what that did for Commodore.
Brad
Jerry Kuch
Not really... I think that in any crowd larger than about 100 you can always
find some of that special breed of Mac user that is so infatuated with the
Macintosh platform that its developers can have done no wrong, that it can
be totally devoid of any technical inadequacies, and that every buzzword
dropped in conjunction with the Mac in the last five years is the most
revolutionary thing in computing history and entirely the work of Apple.
It also seems that over 80% of this particular breed is technically
ignorant in a nearly complete way.
--
Jerry Kuch EMail: gdk...@neumann.uwaterloo.ca
MY GOAL IN LIFE FOR THIS FALL: Acquire the long-awaited Tokyo Marui
remote-controlled Godzilla (from GODZILLA VS. BIOLLANTE) toy... to be
available in Japan in December. It will cost Y49,800. Very expensive.
Jerry Kuch
In fact I expect that eventually OS/2 diehards will have roughly the same
persecution complexes that many Amiga users had.
Dan Pop
>The difference between Win95 and OS/2 PPC is that lack of OS/2 PPC has
>held up the release of an entire hardware platform. I want better,
Nonsense. The first IBM PReP machine (40P) was launched in October '94.
You can buy it today and run AIX 4.1.1 waiting for other OS's to be
available :-)
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: dan...@cernapo.cern.ch
Mail: CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
Joe Ragosta
ams...@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
>
> Get with the program, man. Your stereotypical image of the media as part of
> Chairman Bill's private coterie is lame. Sure, MS sends out the usual media
> bribes that any other software/hardware company does - free (review) software,
> launch junkets, etc. - but that doesn't mean the media is getting anything
> special out of it. Perhaps IBM should do a little more of this itself. After
> paying for me to fly up to its launch of OS/2 a few months back, IBM still
> hasn't given me a review copy of OS/2, despite repeated requests. My paper
> runs stories from a feature writer who hates OS/2, and I would like to
answer a
> lot of his criticisms, as I was impressed by what I saw at the launch, but I
> can't review it without trying it (we're only allowed to do that with MS
> products ;-)). IBM may have a great product, but if their marketing consists
> only of a bunch of ads on tv sayig "where's the hourglass", their marketing
> department should be shot. A few good reviews from us media sluts and OS/2 may
> end up preloaded on PCs. Gotta have demand, remember.
> --
> ---
True, IBM could do better on marketing, but it's pretty obvious that MS
has gotten a free ride from the media.
To choose just one blatant example, Byte Magazine name a MS vapor product
Product of the Year in last month's issue. (Sorry, I've forgotten which
one it was--there's so much MS vapor out there :-) ). Or, you could
consider the largely positive reviews of Office 4.2 for the Mac--a
worthless set of programs if I've ever seen one.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
doc...@interramp.com
"Microsoft Office 4.2-What you use when you don't have access to good software."
Jagadeesh Krishnamurthy Venugopal
Robert> In article <adail-26019...@h-beaver.infi.net>, Alan Dail
Robert> <ad...@infi.net> wrote:
Robert> When was the last time you bought a commercial app based on Smalltalk?
Robert> The penetration of Smalltalk is inversely proportional to the cost of
Robert> the runtime. Visual Basic sold hundreds of thousands more copies than
Robert> all variants of Smalltalk combined. A hideous outcome that could have
Robert> been stopped by rational pricing.
How unfortunately true! Buying a visual {C++/Basic} product is extremely
inexpensive, but you have to pay through your nose to get a decent smalltalk.
(And parcPlace wants royalties to boot!)
Now if only the smalltalk vendors had been more practical and priced their
offerings on par with C++/Basic compilers from Borland and MS, they would have
garnered a huge chunk of the market. As of now I guess they are only nibbling
at the fringes.
It is really unfortunate, because if there is one language that is really easy
and a pleasure to learn it is smalltalk. Smalltalk has had a great development
environment much before anyone else.
Jagadeesh
ps: This said, EASEL and DIGITALK offer wonderful bargains on their software
for non-commercial educational use. I got a copy of Smalltalk/V for Win @$79.
Easel sells a version of their complete smalltalk environment for 200 dollars.
--
Jagadeesh K. Venugopal | The more you study,
Grad Student, CCS | the more you realize,
Northeastern University | that there is a lot in your field
Boston, MA 02115 | you don't know a thing about.
Joe Sloan
>the new US Congress' piecemeal attack on personal liberties; no frontal
>assault, just a methodical whittling away at personal / religious / economic
>freedoms... But thats another thread..8-)
was trying to achieve much more intrusion and oppressive presence in the
daily life of the citizenry - the new congress is at last beginning to
reverse the mad rush towards "big-brother" government - but, as you said,
that's another thread, and if you want to continue via email, I'll be glad
to hear your arguments...
>Well..as an NT user, I cant say that I'm dismayed at the prospect of an
>entrenched NT user base, 8-)) but I think that this is on the right track.
>The direction seems to be a merger of the win95 / NT code bases sometime
>after Cairo (or whatever).
As for NT, it's a bloated, overpriced single-user OS... I've seen it,
I've tried it, and it leaves me cold....
Long Live UNIX!
jjs
--
Email to: | Running Linux! (Slackware)
j...@dostoevsky.ucr.edu | because a 486 is a terrible
j...@ucrengr.ucr.edu | thing to waste...
Tom Gall
|> That is not what I intended. Clearly NeXT deserves credit for taking
|> objects as far as they did. All I was trying to say is that objects top
|> to bottom will be even better.
This is true. However you must remember even Taligent isn't objects top to
bottom. The Taligent OS, will be Mach 3.0 on the bottom. That certainly
isn't OO. Bad?
Certainly not.
It is interesting that NeXTSTEP is on the same kernal. (Mach 2.5)
There will be a day to do a good technical comparison between Taligent and
NeXTSTEP. Today is not that day. Let's wait till Taligent is shipping!
|> Alan
--
Hakuna Matata!
Tom
#include <std-disclaimer.h>
|o| Tom Gall "Where's the ka-boom? There was supposed to be |o|
|o| IBM Rochester an earth shattering ka-boom!" -Marvin Martian |o|
|o| work: tom_...@vnet.ibm.com (No NeXTMail) home: TG...@eworld.com |o|
Nathan Hand
: NextStep is not an object oriented OS. It is unix with an object oriented
: shell. C++ on top of a non object oriented OS is not the answer. What
: you really need is an OS that is objects from the ground up. This is what
: Taligent is building.
I disagree. New technology means new bugs. Taligent will inevitably
have problems for years until they iron out every last system bug.
Id much rather use a slightly slower but stable system than a speedy
but buggy OOOS (object oriented operating system :).
--
-------------------------------------+----------------------------
Nathan Hand - nat...@bin.anu.edu.au | h930...@student.anu.edu.au
"help, help, im being repressed" | perfection is achieved only
"ahhh, what you gonna do about it" | on the point of collapse
Greg Smith
: In other words, the companies that get the most press are the ones
: that pay the most, directly or indirectly, to the press.
: Please tell me what magazine/paper you write for, so I can avoid it.
The "Christchurch Press", which I get delivered. He copped a bit of flack
recently though for an article that basically got all it's information wrong
about dial-up Internet access in the city. Anyway, there's WAAAAY to much
Windoze bias in their columns. WinVapor here, WinVapor there, blah, blah,
blah.
If it holds up I'm going to write to the editor of the computer section.
(The person in question actually admitted that the editor of the computer
section hated OS/2, not a good move IMO).
Ironically it printed an article on how phoney Billy Goats (sic) newspaper
columns are.
: And you expect us to be impressed with your resourcefulness? You can
: go to a store and *buy* Warp. You can probably mail order it for even
: less. And then you can return it when you're done. In fact, that way
: you'll be guaranteed that you won't be getting a product that has
: been, um, tuned to you particular situation, but instead is what your
: readers are getting. Or is such a consideration not part of
: journalistic "integrity" and "objectivity"?
He's a student at a local university which offered the Student edition of
OS/2 Warp for only $US15!! (less manuals). I decided to take up the offer.
Maybe he should have too.
--
_______________ ___
| regards, Greg Smith | Warp factor 3 / // // // | / |
| gr...@avonhead.equinox.gen.nz | with / // // // |/ |
| smi...@kaka.lincoln.ac.nz | OS/2! / // // // /| /| |
BMW M Power - Aus Freude am Fahren /__//__//__//__/ |__/ |__|
jim frost
>Warp is #1 in 2 issues of PC mag's missing Top Retails chart, PC
>mag's editors admitted that in Compuserve (according to posts here
>in c.o.o.a), where is Windows?
Aren't almost all Windows installations preloaded? Such sales don't
appear on PC Magazine's charts, which compile sales through retail
chains.
jim frost
ji...@world.std.com
--
http://www.std.com/homepages/jimf
Joseph W. Vigneau
>
>Nonsense. The first IBM PReP machine (40P) was launched in October '94.
>You can buy it today and run AIX 4.1.1 waiting for other OS's to be
>available :-)
How much does one of these cost? I would've gone PowerPC on an IBM Power
Personal system, but IBM can't get off their butts and start shipping these
things.. Sorry, IBM, you just lost a customer...
jo...@ibm.net
>>
>>****************************************************
>>Why do American suppliers not start to preload OS/2?
>>
>>I think it is because they are totally manipulated by a
>>biased press which made good mnoey on windows.
>>
>
>Wrong. OS/2 isn't preloaded because people don't want it. Before
>getting all flustered by this statement, consider the demographics
>of the home PC user, and perhaps even some business users. These
I'd rather consider the statements by the U.S. attorney General
rather then launch into yet another home-spun analysis of what
the market wants.
MS engaged in monopolistic practices in the OS market place.
.
>For what people want to do, Windoze is perfectly capable of
>accomplishing (although a few crashes may transpire along the way!).
Of course that would not bother anyone at all. I love to lose my
work -- it let's me rethink and do it over -- maybe even better!
Joseph C. Coughlan, jo...@ibm.net
jo...@ibm.net
>tsi...@netcom.com (Terry Sikes) writes:
>Solaris 2.0 was a nightmare -- it's amazing to me that Sun not only
>survived their own incompetance, they continued to grow their
>marketshare. I hadn't seen such a poor first-try since OS/2 1.0.
Neat OS/2 slam Jim. Unfortunately it's inaccurate.
OS/2 1.0 was stable Jim. You must be thinking of OS/2 1.1.
I depended on OS/2 1.0 to port some UNIX based code to a 386-16
and it worked just fine. My work is published.
I sometimes find your exaggerations annoying. I know you like
MS and NT based on what you write but why not just admit it?
This fake objective analysis is getting old with me.
Onething to remember about real stable NT 3.1 is that
there was no installed base to maintain and it had few real
powerusers or progams running it and discovering bugs.
Another thing I want to know is why you never mentioned the
new and long list of old and unadmitted defects in MS's software
that sudenely appearedin the new MS dewvelopers CD?
It sure was a big deal in our household. Many of these admitted defects
go back to MS C5.x!
It really gets my goat to see you omit such objective comments
regarding the "shrink wrap" MS policy of denying bugs.
I suspect that is why the less than perfect SUN has done well.
They are forthhright about their software and its defects.
SUN just won a large account supplying VISA with systems to
do finincial transactions. Honesty seems to pay for SUN.
I still cannot rely on the WIN3.1 calculator!
>jim frost
>ji...@world.std.com
>--
>http://www.std.com/homepages/jimf
Joseph C. Coughlan, jo...@ibm.net
ams...@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz
> Kevin Brown (ke...@frobozz.sccsi.com) wrote:
> : In other words, the companies that get the most press are the ones
> : that pay the most, directly or indirectly, to the press.
>
> : Please tell me what magazine/paper you write for, so I can avoid it.
>
> The "Christchurch Press", which I get delivered.
Well done Greg. If you cared to read the thread before opening your mouth you'd
find this excellent piece of expose is already been mentioned
> He copped a bit of flack
> recently though for an article that basically got all it's information wrong
> about dial-up Internet access in the city.
The relevance of this escapes me so I'm not really gonna bother with it, except
to say one error does not equate with "all its information" (do learn where
apostrophes go).
> Anyway, there's WAAAAY to much
> Windoze bias in their columns. WinVapor here, WinVapor there, blah, blah,
> blah.
Like I've said, gimme a product and I'll give you coverage. Windows does get
more coverage than other operating systems. We are a general metropolitan
daily, catering to a general readership. Our job is not to prosetylise about
OSes, but to give information. The majority of our readers are Windows/Dos
users. Are you going to complain that we don't have a weekly Solaris feature?
>
> If it holds up I'm going to write to the editor of the computer section.
Please do Greg.
> (The person in question actually admitted that the editor of the computer
> section hated OS/2, not a good move IMO).
Now, now, Greg. Maybe you want to go read the original post again. I said we
get material from a feature writer who hates OS/2, not that the computer editor
hates OS/2.
>
> Ironically it printed an article on how phoney Billy Goats (sic) newspaper
> columns are.
Exactly how is this ironic? And what do you understand (sic) to mean? Common
usage has it meaning that the phrase or words preceding it, while incorrect,
are in the quoted original. However, there is nothing in the article about Bill
Gates' articles about "Billy Goats". So, Greg, are you trying to be
deliberately misleading, or are you just stupid?
And if you're so concerned with our bias towards Microsoft, perhaps you might
want to mention a few snippets from that article. "Software is not the only
product Microsoft over-hypes and publishes late." And "The Press declined the
offer [to buy the columns], mainly because it was not happy to pay Microsoft's
expected exhorbitant rates for simply free advertising". All this in an article
positioned on the same page as a news story on the mounting list of bugs in
MS's Word 6 for Mac.
It's just so easy to buy off the media with a few promotional stunts isn't it
Greg?
>
> He's a student at a local university which offered the Student edition of
> OS/2 Warp for only $US15!! (less manuals). I decided to take up the offer.
> Maybe he should have too.
Oh, so it's ok to use special editions, but not ones supplied by the producers?
> | regards, Greg Smith | Warp factor 3 / // // // | / |
> | gr...@avonhead.equinox.gen.nz | with / // // // |/ |
> | smi...@kaka.lincoln.ac.nz | OS/2! / // // // /| /| |
> BMW M Power - Aus Freude am Fahren /__//__//__//__/ |__/ |__|
Writing from a totally unbiased point of view are you Greg?
--
---
James Baker, AMS...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Snail mail P.O.Box 34-011, Christchurch, New Zealand
Voice and Fax +64-3-379-2265
------------------------veni, vidi, volo domum redire-----------------------
Oliver Chung
>khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Oliver Chung) writes:
>>Warp is #1 in 2 issues of PC mag's missing Top Retails chart, PC
>>mag's editors admitted that in Compuserve (according to posts here
>>in c.o.o.a), where is Windows?
>
>Aren't almost all Windows installations preloaded? Such sales don't
>appear on PC Magazine's charts, which compile sales through retail
>chains.
>
>jim frost
Isn't that the precise reason why I wrote the above post? One
post said that when preloads (which basically means the customer
has no choice/knowledge of buying the OS) are not counted, OS/2
outsells Windows.
The other poster claimed there is no fact to support, and I posted
the above as rebuttal.
---
Oliver Chung
<khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu> __ __ _
+Department of Physics, The Ohio State University+ | |(__' /`_)
+----------> My opinions are my own <------------+ |__|.__)/ /__