bert@helix.nih.gov (Bert Tyler) (05/10/91)
> BTW: to those who keep insisting that OS/2 has a "miniscule" following > (that word is a direct quote from someone. Yeah, you know who you are), > think again. Just because IBM doesn't wear its sales figures on its > sleeve like some sort of badge ("Hey mon, look whoat I deed" - said with > your best Jamaican accent. ;), doesn't mean that OS/2 is doing poorly. IBM has loosened up a little bit in talking about sales figures in this case. A friend of mine who manages a PC group for one of IBM's large accounts just received from his IBM rep a copy of a handout that IBM apparantly gave out during their April 15th meetings. The handout is titled "IBM Briefings Outline OS/2 Strategies and Directions April 15, 1991". On the third page, in a section titled "Customer Support of OS/2" is the following bullet: "Today there are approximately 600,000 OS/2 copies installed worldwide and IBM believes that by the end of 1991 there will be more than one million OS/2 copies installed worldwide." I'm assuming that the marketing folks that distributed that memo included the copies of OS/2 used internally by IBM in that figure - I would have. The memo does say "installed" rather than "sold", and it is in IBM's interest to quote the largest figure possible. For reference, independent research agencies like the Gartner Group all seem to be quoting total installed base figures of more like 300,000 for OS/2. At any rate, IBM is estimating future sales of OS/2 at 400,000 copies over the next eight months. As a comparison, Microsoft's Brad Silverberg has stated that Microsoft sold 2.75 million copies of Windows 3.0 during its first nine months (2.25 million sold through retail channels, 0.5 million sold to OEMs and bundled with their systems). Yes, the general feeling is that OS/2 has, to date, sold exceptionally poorly. OS/2 2.0 has the potential to reverse this trend - when it is released in seven months or so. As a certified member of cynics anonymous, I feel obliged to point out that this is exactly what a lot of folks were saying OS/2 1.3 would do last fall, and it certainly hasn't done so. Bert Tyler tub@cu.nih.gov bert@helix.nih.gov
resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick) (05/11/91)
In article <1466@nih-csl.nih.gov> bert@helix.nih.gov (Bert Tyler) writes: [Stuff Deleted] >Yes, the general feeling is that OS/2 has, to date, sold exceptionally >poorly. OS/2 2.0 has the potential to reverse this trend - when it is >released in seven months or so. As a certified member of cynics anonymous, >I feel obliged to point out that this is exactly what a lot of folks were >saying OS/2 1.3 would do last fall, and it certainly hasn't done so. I heard the same about 1.3, and thought to myself "BullS##t!". Until OS/2 supports the folks who have a LOT of money invested in DOS software for their PC's there isn't much attraction. Sure, you can run DOS programs in the compatibility box, but only one at a time and not concurrently with OS/2 applications, unless you are in the DOS box. I like OS/2, and have been running it for 18 months. My requirements of a system are much different than Joe Users': I'm a programmer, so when I need something I don't have I write it. OS/2 does what I need, with a minimal amount of applications software. This, as I am sure you can empathize with, is much different than what a user would want from his OS. Now I just wish they'd release 2.0! :) Cheers! Steve -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- resnicks@netcom.com, steve@camphq, IFNA: 1:143/105.0, co moderator for comp.binaries.os2 Real life: Steve Resnick. Chief Software Architect, Process Scientific, Inc Flames, grammar and spelling errors >/dev/null The Asylum OS/2 BBS - (408)263-8017 12/2400,8,1 - Running Maximus CBCS 1.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------