keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) (09/19/90)
Here's a question for the net: I was looking through some magazines lately and came up with these (rounded, from memory) figures: OS2 SE/PM: $295 Windows: $129 MS-DOS: $ 65 ---- ---- $295 $194 A difference of only $101. For an operating system that leaps as far ahead of MSDOS as OS2 does, and for a better integrated GUI, that seems an awful small price to pay. This brings up a few questions in my mind. Why would anyone buy Windows when such a better alternative is available for a comparative price? Also, why doesn't Microsoft try to push OS2 more? I can see how they would be afraid to at this time, considering how Windows 3.0 has taken off, but why didn't they before? And will they in the future? Disclaimer: I have used both OS2 and Windows 3.0, and they are both (in my eyes) good products. I am not Windows bashing here.
keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) (09/19/90)
In article <4227@rex.cs.tulane.edu> I wrote: > >I was looking through some magazines lately and came up with these (rounded, >from memory) figures: > >OS2 SE/PM: $295 Windows: $129 > MS-DOS: $ 65 > ---- ^^^^^^ ---- > $295 |||||| $194 \ / And this is for 3.3, add another $50 for 4.0, and who know show much for 5.0?
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (09/20/90)
In article <4227@rex.cs.tulane.edu> keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) writes: >Here's a question for the net: > >I was looking through some magazines lately and came up with these (rounded, >from memory) figures: > >OS2 SE/PM: $295 Windows: $129 > MS-DOS: $ 65 > ---- ---- > $295 $194 > >A difference of only $101. For an operating system that leaps as far ahead >of MSDOS as OS2 does, and for a better integrated GUI, that seems an awful >small price to pay. > >This brings up a few questions in my mind. Why would anyone buy Windows >when such a better alternative is available for a comparative price? While the quality of the OS is an important consideration (and OS/2 is a much better OS than Windows + DOS), the quality of available applications is an even bigger factor. Things like Ami Pro, Corel Draw, Winword, and such don't exist for OS/2. Yet. >Also, why doesn't Microsoft try to push OS2 more? I can see how they would >be afraid to at this time, considering how Windows 3.0 has taken off, but >why didn't they before? And will they in the future? If OS/2 2.0 runs Windows binaries like MS claims, I think you'll see a *very* big push when it comes out. Right now, though, MS basically got rivals Lotus and Wordperfect to devote resources to OS/2, then came out with Windows 3 and left them holding the (empty) bag with no Windows 3 products... Aaron Wallace
twagner@baobab.berkeley.edu (Tim Wagner) (09/20/90)
John Keating writes:In article <4227@rex.cs.tulane.edu>, keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) writes: |> Here's a question for the net: |> |> I was looking through some magazines lately and came up with these (rounded, |> from memory) figures: |> |> OS2 SE/PM: $295 Windows: $129 |> MS-DOS: $ 65 |> ---- ---- |> $295 $194 |> |> A difference of only $101. For an operating system that leaps as far ahead |> of MSDOS as OS2 does, and for a better integrated GUI, that seems an awful |> small price to pay. |> |> This brings up a few questions in my mind. Why would anyone buy Windows |> when such a better alternative is available for a comparative price? |> |> Also, why doesn't Microsoft try to push OS2 more? I can see how they would |> be afraid to at this time, considering how Windows 3.0 has taken off, but |> why didn't they before? And will they in the future? |> |> Disclaimer: I have used both OS2 and Windows 3.0, and they are both (in my |> eyes) good products. I am not Windows bashing here. People I have spoken to suspect that MS is waiting for version 2.0, and possibly another hardware base before really marketing OS/2 with a vengeance. The 1.x versions thus playing a sort of "extended beta-test" role in their mind (though probably not in IBM's). Also, they seem to have an evolutionary goal for current DOS/Windows users, rather than a throw-away strategy. Speaking of which, net-readers, does anyone know whether 2.0 has been officially announced/released? Tim Wagner UC Berkeley twagner@sequoia.Berkeley.EDU Programming Environments Research Group * Standard Disclaimers apply to this posting
ballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) (09/20/90)
In article <27980@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> twagner@baobab.berkeley.edu (Tim Wagner) writes: > >Speaking of which, net-readers, does anyone know whether 2.0 has been >officially announced/released? > In join announcements Monday (Sept 17) IBM and Microsoft redefined their respective roles in the development of OS/2. Included in the press releases was a statement that OS/2 2.0 would be released by IBM to "selected customers" before the end of this year and would be generally available in 1991. Other parts of the announcement included that IBM now has primary development responsibilty for OS/2 1.x and 2.0, with MS doing the future portable OS/2. Also announced cross-licensing for OS/2, DOS, and Windows. Alan Ballard | Internet: ballard@staff.ucs.ubc.ca University Computing Services | Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG University of British Columbia | Phone: 604-228-3074 Vancouver B.C. Canada V6R 1W5 | Fax: 604-228-5116
bnathan@ncratl.Atlanta.NCR.COM (Bob Nathan) (09/20/90)
keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) writes: >Here's a question for the net: >This brings up a few questions in my mind. Why would anyone buy Windows >when such a better alternative is available for a comparative price? How about because DOS programs work under WIN and DONT under compatibility box? (n.b. this from a guy who just had his disk trashed by WIN!? what am I saying?) (At least OS/2 never trashed my disk.)
steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) (09/22/90)
In article <1990Sep19.171840.9384@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >Right now, though, MS basically got rivals Lotus and Wordperfect to devote >resources to OS/2, then came out with Windows 3 and left them holding the >(empty) bag with no Windows 3 products... This isn't true. For seven years, a group of people at Microsoft have been pushing Windows. More recently, another group of people at Microsoft started pushing OS/2. Lotus, WordPerfect, and some others looked at the long run and said "Forget Windows. OS/2 is going to blow it away." In the long run, this is still true. Although people convulsed with laughter whenever they saw Windows 1.X and 2.X, version 3.0 is good enough it has caught on. But this caught Lotus and WordPerfect by surprise; they never thought Windows would amount to anything. For now, at least, Windows is selling very well, so they are scrambling to get products ready. There never was a secret plan to trick Microsoft's rivals. Microsoft has been developing for both platforms all along, and encouraging everyone else to do the same -- but for six years, everyone considered Windows to be a joke. -- Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== ::::: uunet!microsoft!steveha steveha@microsoft.uucp ` \\==|
tholen@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (David Tholen) (09/22/90)
In article <624@ncratl.Atlanta.NCR.COM>, bnathan@ncratl.Atlanta.NCR.COM (Bob Nathan) writes: > How about because DOS programs work under WIN and DONT under compatibility > box? (n.b. this from a guy who just had his disk trashed by WIN!? what am > I saying?) (At least OS/2 never trashed my disk.) Please be careful with blanket statements like this. I have many, many DOS programs that work just fine in DOS mode (a.k.a. the compatibility box). The OS/2 documentation clearly spells out which programs are most likely to fail in DOS mode, such as communications programs, but I'd like to note that ProComm works just fine in DOS mode. True, I have encountered DOS programs that do fail in DOS mode, but they're in the minority. Incidentally, I believe that the compatibility of the "compatibility box" will be improved in OS/2 version 2.0, which will utilize the virtual 8086 capabilities of the 80386 processor. At least ill-behaved DOS programs won't bring down the whole system, as they can under version 1.X, which has to put the processor into real mode to run DOS programs.
CCMK@lure.latrobe.edu.au (Mark Kosten - Computer Centre, La Trobe Uni.) (09/22/90)
In article <4227@rex.cs.tulane.edu>, keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) writes: > Here's a question for the net: > ... > This brings up a few questions in my mind. Why would anyone buy Windows > when such a better alternative is available for a comparative price? > > Also, why doesn't Microsoft try to push OS2 more? I can see how they would > be afraid to at this time, considering how Windows 3.0 has taken off, but > why didn't they before? And will they in the future? Windows is a DOS program, and as such is supported on the zillions of DOS machines out there with little trauma. Plus, it works with a piddly amount of memory (as little as 1MB), has quite a large number of existing Windows programs that are compatible with it (sort of), and the 386 mode uses the 386 to run virtual DOS windows more effectively than OS/2 does, which is still a 286 program. When OS/2 version 2.0, the 386/486 version, is released things might move a bit more quickly. Anyway, I hope so! Mark Kosten, phone: +61 3 479-2767 Computer Centre, AARNet (internet): ccmk@lure.latrobe.edu.au La Trobe University, ACSnet: ccmk@lure.lat.oz.au Bundoora, 3083 X.25 (PSI): 2347300000::ccmk Australia
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (09/23/90)
In article <57630@microsoft.UUCP> steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes: |Lotus, WordPerfect, and some others looked at the |long run and said "Forget Windows. OS/2 is going to blow it away." In the |long run, this is still true. But Steve, haven't you heard? MS and IBM are close to filing divorce. IBM is going to get OS/2. In retaliation, MS has threatened to revoke the planned crippling of Windows that would have been required to avoid embarassing OS/2. Namely, Windows could get a high performance filesystem and real multitasking. At that point, what would be the difference between the two as far as the user is concerned? |There never was a secret plan to trick Microsoft's rivals. Microsoft has |been developing for both platforms all along, and encouraging everyone else Hm. Where's Word for OS/2? Where's Powerpoint for OS/2? Where's Project for OS/2? -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Freedom is dead, long live privacy!
patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) (09/24/90)
In article <4227@rex.cs.tulane.edu> keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) writes: >Here's a question for the net: > >I was looking through some magazines lately and came up with these (rounded, >from memory) figures: > >A difference of only $101. For an operating system that leaps as far ahead >of MSDOS as OS2 does, and for a better integrated GUI, that seems an awful >small price to pay. > >This brings up a few questions in my mind. Why would anyone buy Windows >when such a better alternative is available for a comparative price? Well, the difference is not only in the price of the software. In order to effectively run OS/2 you'd need a 386 with, oh, lets say 3 Meg of memory and at least 20 Meg of disk space. Windows would probably run as well in 2 meg of memory and it needs only 6 meg of disk space. (I'm basing this on running both on a 3 Meg Compaq Portable and seeing the speed differences). The other issue to look into is support for said systems. The last I knew, printer driver (and other hardware driver) support for OS/2 was rather limited. Software availability is somewhat limited as well, though you will be able to find programs to support the major things on PM, such as desktop publishing, word processing, spreadsheet operations, and data-base support. I'm sure there are other issues that I've not mentioned, but I believe that OS/2 and PM are still a "rich mans" game. -- "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." William Shakespeare Patrick Deupree -> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (708) 328-3800 (Please note there are both a patrick and a patrickd at this site)
jls@hsv3.UUCP (James Seidman) (09/25/90)
In article <1990Sep23.065916.10069@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <57630@microsoft.UUCP> steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes: >|Lotus, WordPerfect, and some others looked at the >|long run and said "Forget Windows. OS/2 is going to blow it away." In the >|long run, this is still true. >But Steve, haven't you heard? MS and IBM are close to filing divorce. >IBM is going to get OS/2. In retaliation, MS has threatened to revoke >the planned crippling of Windows that would have been required to avoid >embarassing OS/2. Namely, Windows could get a high performance filesystem >and real multitasking. At that point, what would be the difference >between the two as far as the user is concerned? Actually, this isn't what I've heard recently. I understand that MS and IBM have "made up" and come up with a coordinated plan. That plan is to push Windows as the standard platform. Look for IBM to start bundling Windows with its PS/2's and the like. You'll probably still see OS/2 on the high-end systems, but IBM has finally realized that they can't singlehandedly push something completely big and bloated (like OS/2) beyond something only mildly big and bloated (like Windows) in today's marketplace. Now, maybe Steve has some inside information that we don't (how about it, Steve?), but everything I've heard supports Windows dominating over OS/2. Not to mention what you see by just comparing the sheer numbers of units sold... -- Jim Seidman (Drax), the accidental engineer. UUCP: ames!vsi1!headland!jls ARPA: jls%headland.UUCP@ames.nasa.arc.gov
steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) (09/26/90)
In article <1990Sep23.065916.10069@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >Hm. Where's Word for OS/2? Where's Powerpoint for OS/2? Where's Project >for OS/2? I have no authority to comment on unreleased products, but I think I might point out to you that there is a Software Migration Kit that allows Windows products to be ported to OS/2, but there is no kit that works the other way around. Also, I have read in _PC Week_ that OS/2 2.X will run Windows binaries. -- Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== ::::: uunet!microsoft!steveha steveha@microsoft.uucp ` \\==|
ballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) (09/26/90)
In article <57717@microsoft.UUCP> steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes: >I have no authority to comment on unreleased products, but I think I might >point out to you that there is a Software Migration Kit that allows Windows >products to be ported to OS/2... If the SMK works as well as it is supposed to ("a few days" to port an application is the claim), I really have to ask why there is still no released Word for PM, a year after WFW was released. I realize the people from Microsoft who respond in this newsgroup don't get to control these decisions (and really appreciate your participation by the way...), but Microsoft's credibility with respect to OS/2 is getting less day by day. Alan Ballard | Internet: ballard@staff.ucs.ubc.ca University Computing Services | Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG University of British Columbia | Phone: 604-228-3074 Vancouver B.C. Canada V6R 1W5 | Fax: 604-228-5116
Hubert Lai <LAIH@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (09/27/90)
In article <9738@ubc-cs.UUCP>, ballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) says: > >If the SMK works as well as it is supposed to ("a few days" to port >an application is the claim), I really have to ask why there is still no >released Word for PM, a year after WFW was released. Microsoft has been showing Word for PM for over a year. I've seen it.
steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) (09/27/90)
In article <4966@hsv3.UUCP> jls@headland.UUCP (James Seidman) writes: >Now, maybe Steve has some inside information that we don't (how about it, >Steve?) Sorry, but no. I don't have any inside information. I formed all my opinions by reading _PC Week_, _Infoworld_, and that press release. If I did have inside information I would not post it -- I signed a nondisclosure agreement. -- Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== ::::: uunet!microsoft!steveha steveha@microsoft.uucp ` \\==|
tholen@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (David Tholen) (09/27/90)
In article <90269.183207LAIH@QUCDN.BITNET>, LAIH@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Hubert Lai) writes: > Microsoft has been showing Word for PM for over a year. I've seen it. I'd like to have seen it. Microsoft had a counter at a computer fair held on campus recently, and I asked the representative about Word for PM. He wouldn't comment about an unannounced product. Microsoft also had a booth at a local computer show about a week later. Once again I asked about Word for PM, but the representative claimed ignorance and referred me to their 800 number. I haven't tried the 800 number yet, but I fully expect to be told that they won't comment about an unannounced product. In contrast to Microsoft's zippered lips, the representative from WordPerfect said, without hesitation, that their PM version should be out by next summer.
ajayshah@aludra.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) (09/27/90)
(On a long thread connected with OS/2) In case you haven't heard the news yet, OS/2 is dead. Microsoft is "putting all it's wood behind one arrow" (to borrow a phrase from Scott McNeally) and putting everything into Windows 3.1, 4, 5... Expect two windows releases for every Intel microprocessor! IBM is going to extend OS/2 on intel hardware (Why!!!!????). Microsoft plans to eventually redo OS/2 in C in a architecture independent way, so as to keep it's foot in the OS door. Considering it took 3 years for 'em to get a barely acceptable OS/2 v2 running, I'm not holding my breath. I think 2 years more is too much time given competition from NeXT (especially NeXTStep) and SPARC-MIPS Unix boxes. IBM has started offering NeXTSTEP as an option on PS/2.. interesting world, ain't it?? >Did you hear the joke about the scientist whose wife had twins? > - He baptized one and kept the other as a control. Good one! -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Ajay Shah, (213)734-3930, ajayshah@usc.edu The more things change, the more they stay insane. _______________________________________________________________________________
oppenhei@umd5.umd.edu (Richard Oppenheimer) (09/28/90)
In article <90269.183207LAIH@QUCDN.BITNET> LAIH@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Hubert Lai) writes: >In article <9738@ubc-cs.UUCP>, ballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) says: >> >>If the SMK works as well as it is supposed to ("a few days" to port >>an application is the claim), I really have to ask why there is still no >>released Word for PM, a year after WFW was released. > >Microsoft has been showing Word for PM for over a year. I've seen it. I don't see how that qualifies as being released. -- Computer Science Center Richard Oppenheimer University of Maryland oppenhei@umd5.umd.edu (office) College Park, Maryland ,USA richard@wam.umd.edu (home) ****** My employer cares not what I think and knows not what I say. ********
TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) (09/28/90)
I consider it a generalization to say that OS/2 needs a fast 386 and an nn megabyte of hard disk. I have OS/2 1.1 running on a fast AT compatible, and it flies - I have no problems with its performance. In fact, I switch to DOS box and run benchmarks (SI, Landmark,etc) and they report very small degradation. Regards, -turgut
spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) (09/28/90)
In article <90270.162249TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET> TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) writes: >I consider it a generalization to say that OS/2 needs a fast 386 and an nn >megabyte of hard disk. I have OS/2 1.1 running on a fast AT compatible, and >it flies - I have no problems with its performance. In fact, I switch >to DOS box and run benchmarks (SI, Landmark,etc) and they report very >small degradation. >Regards, -turgut Of course they report very small degredation, because the OS/2 "compatability box" just switches off OS/2 completely. It makes no attempt to multitask or otherwise intervene in the operation of the DOS box like Windows does. That is why, in OS/2 (unlike Win 3 on a 386), in a DOS box, you can't cut and paste, you can't multitask, you can't put the DOS box in a window, and you can't run more than one DOS box. Today, this is a good argument for Windows. If and when OS/2 2.0 has multiple widowizable DOS boxes, then it will have caught up to Windows.... Joel Spolsky spolsky@cs.yale.edu Silence = Death
TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) (09/28/90)
Joel: Not quite - I have seen background tasks run in the OS/2 sessions while you are tinkering in the DOS box. For example, I can view the results in the DOS page of a ray traced picture, and have the ray tracer start working on the next picture in an OS/2 partition. Similarly, I can print while working in the DOS page. OS/2 only stops the DOS box when you switch away from it - it doesn't stop OS/2 processes while you are in the DOS box. (I think I read this in Gorton Letwin's book too).. Regards, -turgut
db3l@ibm.com (David Bolen) (09/29/90)
In article <26395@cs.yale.edu> spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) writes: >In article <90270.162249TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET> TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) writes: >>I consider it a generalization to say that OS/2 needs a fast 386 and an nn >>megabyte of hard disk. I have OS/2 1.1 running on a fast AT compatible, and >>it flies - I have no problems with its performance. In fact, I switch >>to DOS box and run benchmarks (SI, Landmark,etc) and they report very >>small degradation. >>Regards, -turgut > > >Of course they report very small degredation, because the OS/2 >"compatability box" just switches off OS/2 completely. It makes no >attempt to multitask or otherwise intervene in the operation of the >DOS box like Windows does. I can't argue that having "multiple windowizable DOS boxes" with OS/2 2.0 won't be better than the current DOS box, but OS/2 is definitely multitasking when you are running in the DOS box. True, you can have only a single DOS box on an OS/2 1.x system, but any OS/2 applications will continue to execute in the background. Only the DOS box itself is required to be in the foreground to run. > That is why, in OS/2 (unlike Win 3 on a >386), in a DOS box, you can't cut and paste, you can't multitask, you >can't put the DOS box in a window, and you can't run more than one DOS >box. Today, this is a good argument for Windows. If and when OS/2 2.0 >has multiple widowizable DOS boxes, then it will have caught up to >Windows.... Cut and pasting doesn't really have anything to do with multitasking, but more with how the window manager controls the input to applications. In terms of multitasking, OS/2 has the better tasking model, with a fully preemptive scheduler (it *actively* takes the CPU away from tasks when they use up their timeslice). Windows, on the other hand, requires cooperation on the part of applications to periodically yield the CPU. True, if you are simply comparing how many DOS windows you can run at once for Windows 3.0 and OS/2 1.x, Windows comes out ahead. But OS/2 is built on a better base, and with 2.0 will catch up in the multiple DOS task area. -- David
bobt@microsoft.UUCP (Bob TANIGUCHI) (09/29/90)
In article <9738@ubc-cs.UUCP> ballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) writes: >If the SMK works as well as it is supposed to ("a few days" to port >an application is the claim), I really have to ask why there is still no >released Word for PM, a year after WFW was released. > The SMK is currently in prerelease. Really, it hasn't hit what would be considered "beta" release even now. I'd feel bad about this comment if the SMK were truly released, given it's state of prerelease, and hence the non-release of PM Word are all fairly related events. Bob Taniguchi Systems Product Marketing