marc@mercury.sybase.com (I am Marc E. Strohwig) (05/19/89)
This is the primary news group for Microsft 'windowing'
systems (MS-Windows & OS/2 PM). Most (if not all) of the traffic
coming across this group is for various incarnations of Windows. There
has been virtually no traffic reguarding OS/2's PM.
Query: Why?
Is PM to new ?
Is the environment to costly to develop/deploy under ?
Is the current market too small (MS-DOS vs. OS/2, 8088/86 vs.80286/386) ?
You just haven't thought about it ?
You dislike the OS/2 environment ?
Your awaiting Windows 3.0 (The mini-OS/2 || super-Windows) ?
Your application doesn't require the power of OS/2.
or
Is is that OS/2's PM cannot currently connect to the outside world
over any non-LAN MAN network (TCP/IP, DECnet, SPX/IPX,...)?
Your feedback on why you have chosen MS-Windows over PM (if
you had a choice) for your application development/deployment would give
us a better understanding as to where these environments are going.
(I'm also just curious)
Thanx,
_Marc
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We don't guarantee, any work caused by or arising out of the failure
of the owner to comply with instructions or recommendations."
Marc E. Strohwig - "Oppinions ?? Mine, mine, mine!!"
Sybase, Inc. marc@sybase.com
Emeryville, CA {pacbell, lll-tis, pyramid,sun}!sybase!marcbillc@mirror.UUCP (Bill Callahan) (05/22/89)
In article <4316@sybase.sybase.com> marc@mercury.sybase.com (I am Marc E. Strohwig) writes: > > This is the primary news group for Microsft 'windowing' >systems (MS-Windows & OS/2 PM). Most (if not all) of the traffic >coming across this group is for various incarnations of Windows. There >has been virtually no traffic reguarding OS/2's PM. > >Query: Why? Quite simple for me, really: I'm developing a Windows application. More to the point, we're doing it in Windows rather than PM/OS/2 because most of the PC's out there are DOS machines. To run our App, all you have to do is have Windows installed and type 'win app' and it's off and running. If and when people start switching over in droves to OS/2, then we'll probably port our application to PM. But right now, that's not where the market is, and it's not even clear that the market will be there any time soon, maybe ever. Bill
jxh@cup.portal.com (Jim - Hickstein) (05/23/89)
> This is the primary news group for Microsft 'windowing' > systems (MS-Windows & OS/2 PM). Most (if not all) of the traffic > coming across this group is for various incarnations of Windows. There > has been virtually no traffic reguarding OS/2's PM. > Query: Why? We DO use OS/2 and PM, but my personal activity in this area has been light lately, due to other duties. However, I will answer some of these questions from my side of the fence. > Is PM to [sic] new ? Undoubtedly. But that's what I like about it. I dove in both feet first, and started playing with it at SDK 1.05. Lots of neat stuff! I hope that traffic will pick up as others on the net get it and start running into the things I already figured out so I can give them the answers and sound smart. > Is the environment to [sic] costly to develop/deploy under ? Not my money. I tried to buy a couple of Suns, but they were shot down. OS/2 was a second choice that will turn out to have been just as expensive in the long run, what with memory being the price it is, alas! > Is the current market too small (MS-DOS vs. OS/2, 8088/86 vs.80286/386) ? We are developing a turnkey system for sale in conjunction with our product, which far outweighs it, literally and figuratively (a satellite network), so our "market" could be said to be captive, in the sense that no one who doesn't buy our satellite network will want our PM application to run it. In this sense, we are uncoupled from the "market" arguments raging outside. But this doesn't mean I don't have an opinion! (Thought you'd get off light, eh?) The market for 8086 machines was small once. Wait. > You just haven't thought about it ? See above about the Suns I wanted. > You dislike the OS/2 environment ? I LOVE IT! IT'S AN OPERATING SYSTEM! DEATH TO ANARCHY-DOS! (lo, these ten years are getting old). > Your [sic] awaiting Windows 3.0 (The mini-OS/2 || super-Windows) ? What? (I should read news more often...) > Your application doesn't require the power of OS/2. It requires the power of something that can do I/O, such as a VAX 8xxx, but has the budget of a PC. It's a reasonable compromise. > Is is that OS/2's PM cannot currently connect to the outside world > over any non-LAN MAN network (TCP/IP, DECnet, SPX/IPX,...)? It's early, yet. Our financial people screamed at me for buying even ONE machine that could run it. Two of them, to talk to each other, would be out of the question. One of these days, a customer will demand the ability to manage a 10000-site VSAT network from more than one PC (in more than one place on the globe) and then the financial guy and I will engage in battle once again. At that time, the actual transport mechanism will be moot, as long as my application can talk to its peers somehow. LANMAN may be the link needed for NetView connectivity, but I'll be old and grey (I'm 29 today) when IBM gets all THAT out the door. Just my two cents worth. -Jim Hickstein OS/2 PMSDK Masochists Group :-) VSAT Systems, Inc. San Jose, CA jxh@cup.portal.com ...!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!jxh
mms00786@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (05/31/89)
One reason for a small developer like me is that I can't drop out of school, write an operating system, sell it to IBM and thereby acquire enough money to buy OS/2 and a machine to run it on. But I am sure I am in the minority; most people must have a couple grand lying around to buy the memory and software etc... Milan