bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) (04/27/91)
In article <1991Apr26.211100.7830@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes: >The absolute best way to guarantee acceptance of any version of OS/2 is >to bring the price in line with competitive OS's. If OS/2, MSC, and SDK >were $400, total, it'd sell like proverbial hotcakes. >Compare ESIX S5R3, which includes a development system (compiler, assembler, >libraries, include files), TCP/IP networking, the X Window System, and >too much more to mention here, with OS/2. [prices deleted] >... ESIX, at $825, is the clear winner. Okay: *r = retail price, *s = "street" price, or what one would expect to pay, *e = edu price, and ~ means best guess. Prices from vendors in latest PC Rag and local campus computer store. All below probably "need" a 386 w/ 4mb RAM and 60mb HD's. OS/2 Dev cost: OS/2 SE 1.3 $150 *r ~$90 *e MS-C 6.0 $300 *s $265 *e OS/2 SDK ~$400 *s $350 *e ----------- total: $850 $705 edu Windows Dev cost: DOS 4.0 $75 *s $75 *s Windows 3.0 $90 *s $80 *e MS-C 6.0 $300 *s $265 *e MS Windows SDK $325 *s $260 *e ----------- total: $790 $680 edu Alt Win Dev cost: DOS 3.3 $60 *s Windows 3.0 $90 *s Borland C++ $325 *s ----------- total: $475 (edu pricing N/A) What does this mean? Clearly, for small developers and hackers, Windows is currently the way to go. With OS/2 2.0, Windows apps *should* be able to run, so small programs and stuff of the like would probably be built in Windows first. Also, most of the companies that build such apps need the *large* installed base right now to stay afloat. However, for big programs and those that need the multi-threaded, protected VM, and multitasking of a real OS, (ie. PageMaker, SAS, Mathematica, Excel, etc.) it would probably make sense to build these in OS/2 instead of stuffing and pounding it into Windows. The prices above do not take into account the fact that ESIX has TCP/IP. However, ESIX currently needs seamless integration into Novell and other PC based LAN systems to penetrate the PC market, while TCP/IP is available in many forms to DOS/Windows and OS/2 users. Also, while the target audience of the Windows-OS/2 products and that of X-Windows/UNIX systems on 386's do intersect, they are mostly different. I could not recommend X-Windows/UNIX systems to most people. Until implementations like the NeXT become mainstream UNIX, UNIX is too cryptic and cumbersome. Many people do not *need* are *want* to have multi-user capability on their 386's; it would be dead weight. DOS/Windows and OS/2 on the otherhand, I can envision on most anybody's desk. -- Bill Chin internet:bchin@umd5.umd.edu PC/IP, Computer Science Center NeXTmail:bchin@is-next.umd.edu U-Maryland, College Park *Standard Disclaimers Apply*
kevin@msa3b.UUCP (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) (05/02/91)
bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) writes: >In article <1991Apr26.211100.7830@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes: >>The absolute best way to guarantee acceptance of any version of OS/2 is >>to bring the price in line with competitive OS's. If OS/2, MSC, and SDK >>were $400, total, it'd sell like proverbial hotcakes. >Okay: >*r = retail price, *s = "street" price, or what one would expect to pay, >*e = edu price, and ~ means best guess. >Prices from vendors in latest PC Rag and local campus computer store. >All below probably "need" a 386 w/ 4mb RAM and 60mb HD's. > OS/2 Dev cost: > OS/2 SE 1.3 $150 *r ~$90 *e > MS-C 6.0 $300 *s $265 *e > OS/2 SDK ~$400 *s $350 *e > ----------- > total: $850 $705 edu > Windows Dev cost: > DOS 4.0 $75 *s $75 *s > Windows 3.0 $90 *s $80 *e > MS-C 6.0 $300 *s $265 *e > MS Windows SDK $325 *s $260 *e > ----------- > total: $790 $680 edu > > Alt Win Dev cost: > DOS 3.3 $60 *s > Windows 3.0 $90 *s > Borland C++ $325 *s > ----------- > total: $475 (edu pricing N/A) Alt Win Dev cost: DOS 3.3 $60 *s Windows 3.0 $80 *e << Borland C++ $95 *e << -------------------------------------- TOTAL (with ed prices) $235 edu In fact, DOS 3.x is often bundled with a clone, at no additional charge, giving an effective educational price for Win development at $175. -- Kevin Kleinfelter @ DBS, Inc (404) 239-2347 ...gatech!nanoVX!msa3b!kevin English Lesson: THEIR home is over THERE. THERE is one house. THEY'RE not home. "Its" & "their" are like 'his'. "They're" == "they are." "It's" == "it is." If you can do regular expressions, you can handle a natural language. Syntax!
margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) (05/03/91)
In <8493@umd5.umd.edu> bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) writes: > What does this mean? Clearly, for small developers and hackers, > Windows is currently the way to go. With OS/2 2.0, Windows apps > *should* be able to run, so small programs and stuff of the like > would probably be built in Windows first. On the other hand, the company writing for OS/2 might hit the market sooner, since with the flat model they don't have to worry about dealing with segments and 64k limits. Not to mention the fact that the native OS/2 app (running on OS/2) will be much faster than the Windows app (running either on OS/2 or on Windows). Not to mention long filename support, extended attributes, etc. I know which one *I'd* buy. (My only problem with OS/2 2.0 is that I don't have any Windows applications to try out under it. Everything I use runs native OS/2. :-) Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (csnet)
keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John Keating) (05/03/91)
In <1626@msa3b.UUCP> kevin@msa3b.UUCP (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) writes: > Alt Win Dev cost: > DOS 3.3 $60 *s > Windows 3.0 $80 *e << > Borland C++ $95 *e << > -------------------------------------- > TOTAL (with ed prices) $235 edu >In fact, DOS 3.x is often bundled with a clone, at no additional charge, >giving an effective educational price for Win development at $175. Now, many clones also bundle Win3. Subtract another $80 dollars. (Now, mind you, the Borland C++ price is still educational (and I think upgrade), but the price is still fairly low.) If we're lucky, clone manufacturers will start bundling OS/2 2.x with their systems. John -- +---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------+ | Looking for genealogical histories of | | keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu | | Keating, Migan, Pope, Hobbs, Wyland. | | John William Keating, III | ++---------------------------------------+----+ +-----------------------+ | "My heart is stone and still it trembles |--| "If you were right, | | The world I have known is lost in shadow." | | I'd agree with you!" | +---------------------------------------------+ +-----------------------+
tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) (05/03/91)
> bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) writes: >> What does this mean? Clearly, for small developers and hackers, >> Windows is currently the way to go. With OS/2 2.0, Windows apps >> *should* be able to run, so small programs and stuff of the like >> would probably be built in Windows first. margoli@watson.ibm.com writes: > On the other hand, the company writing for OS/2 might hit the market sooner, > since with the flat model they don't have to worry about dealing with segments > and 64k limits. Not to mention the fact that the native OS/2 app (running on > OS/2) will be much faster than the Windows app (running either on OS/2 or on > Windows). Not to mention long filename support, extended attributes, etc. > I know which one *I'd* buy. That's from a user's viewpoint, though. When you consider that there will soon be 5 million Windows machines out there, and that OS/2 2.0 will only run on a 386 or better, you can bet that the number of OS/2 users will be between 10% and 20% of the Windows users. If I was starting development on a new piece of software, I certainly would think twice about ignoring 80-90% of the market just for a small ("much faster"? Well, everything is relative, I guess) performance gain. I could probably achieve at least a similar gain by spending some time designing and optimizing the code well. This is not to say that OS/2 isn't good, but market realities will dictate that most development effort will be concentrated on Windows apps, especially since they will now also be able to run on OS/2. [ \tom haapanen --- university of waterloo --- tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu ] [ "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Wim Bonner) (05/04/91)
In article <1991May3.115757.508@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >run on a 386 or better, you can bet that the number of OS/2 users will be >between 10% and 20% of the Windows users. If I was starting development One thing to think about here, not really to say one way or another, but definitely think about, is that people who run OS/2 will be "using" os/2. How many people Using windows are just using it as a task switcher, or glorified DOS Shell, to continiue using DOS? Wim. -- | wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu | The Loft BBS | 27313853@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu | (509)335-4339 | 72561.3135@CompuServe.com | USR HST Dual Standard HST/V.32
lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) (05/04/91)
In article <1991May3.171742.9966@serval.net.wsu.edu> wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Wim Bonner) writes: >One thing to think about here, not really to say one way or another, but >definitely think about, is that people who run OS/2 will be "using" os/2. How >many people Using windows are just using it as a task switcher, or glorified >DOS Shell, to continiue using DOS? ...or paper weight/book end. How many of us have multiple copies of Windows that we don't use? I got four copies included with new machines. It's getting harder to find a machine that doesn't get a MS mouse and Windows 3.0 tacked on to it. Sure, there are X million copies of Windows 3.0 sold to date, but how many of them were sold by 'force'? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kyler Laird I'm the NRA/NRA-ILA lairdkb@mentor.purdue.edu
yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger) (05/06/91)
I am willing to give OS/2 a try if I can upgrade it from my MS-DOS 4.01. The only real question for users will be to wait for MS-DOS 5 or OS/2 2.0? I have a MS-DOS 4.01 from a clone machine, will IBM/Microsoft allow a upgrade to OS/2 for $99 or something along that line. If not, I'm not willing to spend money to buy a copy of OS/2. OS/2 also works with x286 machines, but I think really slow, unless you got 4-6 meg of memory. I don't think I would use x286 12 mhz machines for mult- tasking more than 2-3 applications. It would really bog down the operating system. Why would I want OS/2? For the multi-tasking threads, of course. I run Windows 3.0 (it didn't come with my machine, I brought it seperately), for telecommunications, wordprocessing, program development, and I keep running into "Application Errors" messages. Worst, is trying to install TSR into Windows and it complete dies. OS/2 best's feature is tighter control on multi-tasking features. Better than OS/2? I would like a copy of SunOS on my machine, Unix is *NOT* hard. There may be 200+ commands, but you don't use no more than 10-20 of them. (similar to DOS) Unix provides utilities (such as vi) and it's not hard to learn them. OS/2 is still single-user, multi-tasking, while Unix is mult-users and multi-tasking. True, I may be the only user, I still like unix for it's power. I'm reading a good copy on Unix, AT&T System 5, Release 4. Since Unix won't be available for PCs yet, I would give OS/2 a try. 1.x (except 1.3) was garabage, I haven't seen the OS/2 2.0 yet. Does OS/2 requires a hard disk reformat? Yes, if you want to include extended filenames. ARGG!!! Might have to backup 150 meg of hard disk space. ARG! -- -- Robert aka Crimson Avenger (yee@rpi.edu or crimson_avenger@mts.rpi.edu) Once a hacker, always a hacker. (usere3jp@rpitsmts.bitnet)
larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) (05/06/91)
In <1991May3.171742.9966@serval.net.wsu.edu>, wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Wim Bonner) writes: >One thing to think about here, not really to say one way or another, but >definitely think about, is that people who run OS/2 will be "using" os/2. How >many people Using windows are just using it as a task switcher, or glorified >DOS Shell, to continiue using DOS? I don't think anyone could hope to avoid this. However, the point that OS/2 2.0 is trying to make is that you don't HAVE to give up your (sometimes quite large) DOS investment to switch to the new system. As more and more OS/2-only applications come out, more people will start using them. Okay, so Mr. G.I. Luvwindows says, "But no one is going to develop strictly for OS/2." My reply is that if the internal IBM response is any indication, watch out Bill Gates... ...Now, I don't want to hear anyone start whining about this ;) , but (internally) there are 688 packages for OS/2 (a package can be anything: application, toolkit, etc.) which do various things. This is from a company that has traditionally been mainframe oriented. I strongly suspect that companies are going to look harder at OS/2 than before when 2.0 is released (if for no other reason) for the advanced capabilities that it provides over DOS and Windows. Cheers, Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LARRYS@YKTVMV.BITNET OS/2 Applications and Tools larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com IBM T.J. Watson Research Center larrys@eng.clemson.edu Yorktown Heights, NY Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too seriously.
rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (05/07/91)
In article <19910502.141008@the-village> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes: >In <8493@umd5.umd.edu> bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) writes: >> What does this mean? Clearly, for small developers and hackers, >> Windows is currently the way to go. With OS/2 2.0, Windows apps >> *should* be able to run, so small programs and stuff of the like >> would probably be built in Windows first. > >On the other hand, the company writing for OS/2 might hit the market sooner, >since with the flat model they don't have to worry about dealing with segments >and 64k limits. Not to mention the fact that the native OS/2 app (running on >OS/2) will be much faster than the Windows app (running either on OS/2 or on >Windows). Not to mention long filename support, extended attributes, etc. >I know which one *I'd* buy. However, OS/2 running Windows applications removes a lot of the pressure to write strictly OS/2 apps. If you write a Windows version, it can be run by the miniscule amount of users who run OS/2 (currently) _and_ the huge market of Windows users. The big companies can afford to write one of each, but for someone with limited resources, I know which one I'd write for maximum return on investment. -- Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold
smustain@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mike Mustaine) (05/07/91)
I dunno, IBM's always been hot on OS/2. Last summer, when I co-oped for them the rage was OS/2 1.3, which was gonna come in and sweep away all the unbelievers. IBMers have always had a very pro-IBM point of view. There's nothing wrong with this (in fact, I think it's one of the reasons why the company can do such great things), but, at the same time, I don't trust 'em. I'll start believing in the magic of OS/2 2.0 if it's as hot as Windows 3.0 a year after its release. I'll develop for it when I can get a C++ compiler for it, with complete libraries, Petzold's "Programming OS/2", and another few inches of documentation for $95+plus tax, which is what I've got invested in Windows development tools. Mike -- Mike Mustaine |"I did what I did, and I do what Starving College Student (tm) | I do, because I'm Evel Kneivel, smustain@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu | and I don't question that." smustain@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu |
feustel@netcom.COM (David Feustel) (05/07/91)
I'm using Win/3 right now. I expect to switch completely to OS/2 v 2.0 when it is commercially available. I *do* wish IBM would add a KillThread system call, though. -- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631 EMAIL: netcom.com
jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) (05/07/91)
From article <025gl3d@rpi.edu>, by yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger):
> Release 4. Since Unix won't be available for PCs yet, I would give OS/2 a
What? Unix is available for PCs just check out comp.unix.sysv386. There
are many companies that sell Unix for PCs. Or did you mean sysV won't be
available for PCs? If so, there are still several companies that sell
sysV for the PC (Dell, Everex, UHC, and Microport come to mind) with some
more expected by the end of the year.
john gay.jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) (05/07/91)
> What? Unix is available for PCs just check out comp.unix.sysv386. There > are many companies that sell Unix for PCs. Or did you mean sysV won't be > available for PCs? If so, there are still several companies that sell > sysV for the PC (Dell, Everex, UHC, and Microport come to mind) with some ^^^^ Of course I meant system V release 4 here. > more expected by the end of the year. I apologize about burning the extra bandwidth... john gay.
larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) (05/09/91)
In <1991May6.230021.24665@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, smustain@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mike Mustaine) writes: > >I dunno, IBM's always been hot on OS/2. Last summer, when I co-oped for them >the rage was OS/2 1.3, which was gonna come in and sweep away all the >unbelievers. IBMers have always had a very pro-IBM point of view. There's >nothing wrong with this (in fact, I think it's one of the reasons why the >company can do such great things), but, at the same time, I don't trust 'em. > >I'll start believing in the magic of OS/2 2.0 if it's as hot as Windows 3.0 >a year after its release. I'll develop for it when I can get a C++ compiler >for it, with complete libraries, Petzold's "Programming OS/2", and another >few inches of documentation for $95+plus tax, which is what I've got invested >in Windows development tools. Yeah, right. I suppose that you think I'll believe that you got Dos, Windows 3.0, the compilers, and all of the books you have for $95+tax. Oh...I didn't think so. Borland C++ for Windows by itself costs that much, AND only if you're upgrading. Cheers, Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LARRYS@YKTVMV.BITNET OS/2 Applications and Tools larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com IBM T.J. Watson Research Center larrys@eng.clemson.edu Yorktown Heights, NY Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too seriously.
rdippold@lajolla.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May6.170411.9423@watson.ibm.com> larrys@yktvmv writes: >Okay, so Mr. G.I. Luvwindows says, "But no one is going to develop >strictly for OS/2." My reply is that if the internal IBM response is any >indication, watch out Bill Gates... If my previous experiences with IBM software is any indication, I want nothing of applications software written by them (to name just one, I still have night- mares about DisplayWrite), if you're talking here about things that might become available to the users. If you're not, I still don't think that internal OS/2 applications developed by a company where OS/2 is gospel is much of an indicator. On the other hand, I seriously want to try OS/2 2.0 (I almost got a beta version when you had it available on your BBS, before the damned lawyers messed things up again), which looks like it's finally what we got promised way back in 86/87 (?). If it's decent, the applications will start appearing, inexorably. I just don't think that internal use of OS/2 at IBM provides any usable parallel for the real world. -- Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold
ckinsman@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Chris Kinsman) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May8.190947.12194@watson.ibm.com> larrys@yktvmv writes: >In <1991May6.230021.24665@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, smustain@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mike Mustaine) writes: >> >>I dunno, IBM's always been hot on OS/2. Last summer, when I co-oped for them >>the rage was OS/2 1.3, which was gonna come in and sweep away all the >>unbelievers. IBMers have always had a very pro-IBM point of view. There's >>nothing wrong with this (in fact, I think it's one of the reasons why the >>company can do such great things), but, at the same time, I don't trust 'em. >> >>I'll start believing in the magic of OS/2 2.0 if it's as hot as Windows 3.0 >>a year after its release. I'll develop for it when I can get a C++ compiler >>for it, with complete libraries, Petzold's "Programming OS/2", and another >>few inches of documentation for $95+plus tax, which is what I've got invested >>in Windows development tools. > >Yeah, right. I suppose that you think I'll believe that you got Dos, >Windows 3.0, the compilers, and all of the books you have for $95+tax. >Oh...I didn't think so. > >Borland C++ for Windows by itself costs that much, AND only if you're >upgrading. > ACtually I believe the $95 price is also the educational price. The books may have been more and he probably got Win3 with his machine so I would say he isn't to far off. Chris -- Chris Kinsman KINSMAN@WSUVM1 Washington State University 22487863@WSUVM1 Computing Service Center ckinsman@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu Computing Resources Laboratory 76701.154@compuserve.com
swyatt@chopin.udel.edu (Stephen L Wyatt) (05/09/91)
Ok... all this theory about which is better is really neat and all, but how about real world questions? I use turbo c++, procomm, word perfect, etc. for school. I also use some window's applications like qvt4.55 term thingy to call into the mainframe. I would use window's all the time, since I'd love to me able to switch from one task to another, but the whole thing is just too slow compared to running it outside the window's environment (btw- I have a 386-33 4 megs w/ memory cache and 25ms HD) ... now 2 questions-- will running os/2 allow me to run all the previous stuff I have and windows stuff at the same time? what is the speed comparison between a normal application under dos (standalone) and with os/2 with some other task in memory also? and since I bought dos 4.01 last fall, can I get an upgrade? how much? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- swyatt@udel.edu !!! no disclaimer...I blame everything I say on someone else ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu (Spiro the Spiny Goldfish) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May8.190947.12194@watson.ibm.com>, larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) says: > >In <1991May6.230021.24665@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, >smustain@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mike Mustaine) writes: >> >>I dunno, IBM's always been hot on OS/2. Last summer, when I co-oped for them >>the rage was OS/2 1.3, which was gonna come in and sweep away all the >>unbelievers. IBMers have always had a very pro-IBM point of view. There's >>nothing wrong with this (in fact, I think it's one of the reasons why the >>company can do such great things), but, at the same time, I don't trust 'em. Actually - I worked in an OS/2 development division last summer, and the people there weren't all that excited about 1.3. It's faster than Windows, and has less reliability problems - but we all knew Windows was better marketed, and even a kludgy DOS multitasking is still multitasking. I really didn't see anyone "hot on OS/2" at that time, since 2.0 was very far from completion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael E. Dahmus MXD118@PSUVM / dahmus@endor.cs.psu.edu 504 Beaver Hall Phone 862-5141 UNIX is for EUNUCHS! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
woan@exeter.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S Woan) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May8.190947.12194@watson.ibm.com> larrys@yktvmv writes: >Yeah, right. I suppose that you think I'll believe that you got Dos, >Windows 3.0, the compilers, and all of the books you have for $95+tax. >Oh...I didn't think so. > >Borland C++ for Windows by itself costs that much, AND only if you're >upgrading. Of course Turbo Pascal for Windows is only $99 for people who have owned any other Borland language product, so for the $50 that many of us paid for Windows under MS's extremeley generous upgrade plan (I used the 1.1 runtime with Balance of Power for my upgrade) plus $99, you could have a pretty nice Windows development platform. For those in higher education, wasn't there a $99 offer for Actor too at one time. Personally I don't even see why we are discussing OS/2 2.0 until it's finally released... I am sure it will be really great, but why don't we all wait until it's released before saying what it will or won't include and how it will perform. Perhaps we could prune the newsgroups line too to take this out of comp.os.msdos and any windows group too. -- +-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+ +------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+ + Ronald S. Woan woan@cactus.org or woan@austin.vnet.ibm.com + + other email addresses Prodigy: XTCR74A Compuserve: 73530,2537 +
smustain@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mike Mustaine) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May8.190947.12194@watson.ibm.com> larrys@yktvmv writes: >In <1991May6.230021.24665@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, smustain@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mike Mustaine) writes: >> [my original post cut] >>a year after its release. I'll develop for it when I can get a C++ compiler >>for it, with complete libraries, Petzold's "Programming OS/2", and another >>few inches of documentation for $95+plus tax, which is what I've got invested >>in Windows development tools. > >Yeah, right. I suppose that you think I'll believe that you got Dos, >Windows 3.0, the compilers, and all of the books you have for $95+tax. >Oh...I didn't think so. > >Borland C++ for Windows by itself costs that much, AND only if you're >upgrading. > >Cheers, >Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LARRYS@YKTVMV.BITNET >OS/2 Applications and Tools larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com Note that I did NOT say that I had a complete environment for $95. I got DOS for free with my PC, and I spent $135 on Windows (but I got the MS mouse with it). I _did_ spend only $95 for my complete development, and I didn't upgrade. The $95 is Borland's educational price for BC++, available from any university. To start developing for OS/2, I'll have to but OS/2 2.0 SE for what, $150? Ok. Now, I don't need to buy PM, so we're at about the same price for DOS+Windows as we are for OS/2. Fine. Execpt the OS/2 SDK, plus MSC 6.0a is gonna add a few hundred (thousand?) onto that. I don't have that kinda money, sorry. To spend that money for what, an installed user base of 300,000 or so? I'd rather write for the Amiga and the Atari ST, they've both got a bigger userbase. Until OS/2 PROVES itself, by selling like hotcakes, and some _affordable_ development tools come out for it, I'll "just say no." Of course, this is all moot, as I'm running a 12MHz '286. And no, I don't have $400 for a 386sx-16, either. :-) Mike -- Mike Mustaine |"I did what I did, and I do what Starving College Student (tm) | I do, because I'm Evel Kneivel, smustain@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu | and I don't question that." smustain@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu |
smustain@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mike Mustaine) (05/10/91)
> >Actually - I worked in an OS/2 development division last summer, and the >people there weren't all that excited about 1.3. It's faster than Windows, >and has less reliability problems - but we all knew Windows was better >marketed, and even a kludgy DOS multitasking is still multitasking. I >really didn't see anyone "hot on OS/2" at that time, since 2.0 was very far >from completion. Well, we were mainly using them as glorified 3270's to connect to 3090's (IMS [ugh!] System Test) but a lot of the folks there loved it, and I remember reading one of the IBMnet newsgroups (OS2GOSPEL?) where there was a lot of pro-OS/2 stuff, and of course, the OS/2 disciples would raid the Windows newsgroups and start OS/2 vs. Windows flame wars. -- Mike Mustaine |"I did what I did, and I do what Starving College Student (tm) | I do, because I'm Evel Kneivel, smustain@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu | and I don't question that." smustain@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu |
hd7x@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Sanjay Aiyagari) (05/10/91)
In article <17089@chopin.udel.edu>,swyatt@chopin.udel.edu (Stephen L Wyatt) writes: > will running os/2 allow me to run all the previous stuff I have and windows > stuff at the same time? what is the speed comparison between a normal > application under dos (standalone) and with os/2 with some other task in > memory also? > > and since I bought dos 4.01 last fall, can I get an upgrade? > how much? I heard that IBM announced a $99 upgrade to OS/2 2.0 from DOS or Windows! If this is true, many of us should be eligible for two upgrades! (whatever use that is...) Sanjay Aiyagari (hd7x@vax5.cit.cornell.edu)
lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May8.210437.24333@qualcomm.com> rdippold@lajolla.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >If my previous experiences with IBM software is any indication, I want nothing >of applications software written by them (to name just one, I still have night- >mares about DisplayWrite) The new DisplayWrite is being written by XyQuest, makers of XyWrite - that wonderfully quick and powerful word processor with the loyal (and wierd) following. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kyler Laird I'm the NRA/NRA-ILA lairdkb@mentor.purdue.edu
rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (05/10/91)
In article <12151@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes: >In article <1991May8.210437.24333@qualcomm.com> rdippold@lajolla.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >>If my previous experiences with IBM software is any indication, I want nothing >>of applications software written by them (to name just one, I still have night >>mares about DisplayWrite) > >The new DisplayWrite is being written by XyQuest, makers of XyWrite - that >wonderfully quick and powerful word processor with the loyal (and wierd) >following. Really! That sounds like an excellent idea, for them to bring in some app- lications developers. Maybe you _can_ put a Laborghini engine in a Pinto. Come to think of it, the Patriot Partners deal might produce some decent results, as well. -- Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold
larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) (05/11/91)
In <1991May8.210437.24333@qualcomm.com>, rdippold@lajolla.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: > >In article <1991May6.170411.9423@watson.ibm.com> larrys@yktvmv writes: >>Okay, so Mr. G.I. Luvwindows says, "But no one is going to develop >>strictly for OS/2." My reply is that if the internal IBM response is any >>indication, watch out Bill Gates... > >If my previous experiences with IBM software is any indication, I want nothing >of applications software written by them (to name just one, I still have night- >mares about DisplayWrite), if you're talking here about things that might >become available to the users. If you're not, I still don't think that >internal OS/2 applications developed by a company where OS/2 is gospel is much >of an indicator. DisplayWrite is a gross application, I'll agree. But it is NOT indicative of other OS/2 applications. Internally, OS/2 is not gospel, even though it appears that way. More people use AIX and DOS than OS/2. So, my point is still valid. There ARE applications/toolkit/etc. being developed internally, showing that people are starting to recognize it as a good environment for development work. >On the other hand, I seriously want to try OS/2 2.0 (I almost got a beta >version when you had it available on your BBS, before the damned lawyers >messed things up again), which looks like it's finally what we got promised >way back in 86/87 (?). If it's decent, the applications will start appearing, >inexorably. I just don't think that internal use of OS/2 at IBM provides any >usable parallel for the real world. Legal issues are a pain, aren't they? I don't like it any more than you do, and I have talked to many other IBM'ers who don't like it either. We are pushing and pushing to get it back on the BBS, but until those issues are addressed, there's nothing we can do. Cheers, Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LARRYS@YKTVMV.BITNET OS/2 Applications and Tools larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com IBM T.J. Watson Research Center larrys@eng.clemson.edu Yorktown Heights, NY Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too seriously. ------------------------- Note headers follow -------------------------- From larrys@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Fri May 10 13:53:31 1991 Received: from sequoia.watson.ibm.com by ibmman.watson.ibm.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL 1.2.1/) id AB0028; Fri, 10 May 91 13:53:31 -0700 Received: by SEQUOIA.watson.ibm.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL 1.1.4/) id AA0039; Fri, 10 May 91 13:53:23 -0700 Message-Id: <9105102053.AA0039@SEQUOIA.watson.ibm.com>