-=> Quoting Torsten Balle Koefoed to All, [28 Sep 99  15:27:08] <=-

 TBK> Hi there !

 TBK> Take a look at:

 TBK> http://www.byte.com/column/BYT19990920S0002

You're right on, Torsten! In fact it's worth featuring here for wider
dissemination. Here it is:


> Office Suites Arrive
> By Bill Nicholls,
> Sep 22, 1999 (12:40 PM)
> URL: http://www.byte.com/column/BYT19990920S0002
>
> Rodney Dangerfield gets more respect than OS/2.  Linux gets all the
> press, Microsoft gets all the hate mail, OS/2 gets ignored.  But
> somehow, OS/2 users keep on running this relatively unknown and little
> respected system.  Why?  "Success has many fathers, but failure is an
> orphan."  The failure of OS/2 to capture large market share has many
> causes, but here are the main ones:
>
> IBM failed to build a powerful marketing and sales force with a
> consistent image for OS/2, even with a three-year delivery lead.
>
> Press reports with very few exceptions parroted the Microsoft marketing
> lines:
>
> "OS/2 is hard to install."  "OS/2 has no applications."  "Windows 4,
> oops, 95 is the future."
>
> IBM was locked out of many pre-load operations by Microsoft business
> tactics and failed to make a significant effort to solve that obstacle.
>
> The government failed to correct the illegally built Microsoft monopoly
> when the Justice Department won their first lawsuit.
>
> Despite those major and many minor obstacles, OS/2 went on to win the
> hearts of about five million users in the early 90s.  Many were
> employees of large corporations who standardized on OS/2.  But just as
> many were won over by one simple fact:  Like a Maytag, it just keeps on
> running.
>
> It Just Keeps Running Unlike Windows 3.1 and 95, the user is always
> surprised when OS/2 freezes because it is a very rare event.  Reinstalls
> are almost never needed even when beta software manages to freeze the
> machine.  From OS/2 2.1 on, Windows 3.1 programs ran better inside
> WinOS2 with fewer hangs than native Windows 3.1.  DOS apps ran in a
> window alongside OS/2 and Windows 3.1 apps, and all were multi-tasked
> preemptively without problems.
>
> With all those benefits, how was OS/2 bested by a late and technically
> inferior OS from Microsoft?  The basic answer is:  See the above list.
> My purpose here is not to detail what happened, as that would fill
> columns.  What I want to write about is where OS/2 is today, answers to
> 2a and 2b, and why many people strongly prefer OS/2 to Windows 95, 98,
> or NT.
>
> As I write this, OS/2 exists in three versions:  2.1, 3.0, and 4.0.
> Versions 3 and 4, known as collectively as WARP, are still supported by
> IBM with enhancements, fixpaks, and new and updated peripheral driver
> code.  You can see that when you visit IBM's OS/2 driver site, OS/2
> Device Driver Pak Online".
>
> IBM's OS/2 supports almost every card and peripheral type, from
> CD-Recordable to WAN - X.25 adapters, even eleven USB products.  This
> includes a respectable 338 disk and SCSI adapters, a huge list of 805
> display adapters, and an astonishing 1,318 printers and plotters.
>
> Fixpaks available for all countries for WARP 3 and 4 are available from
> the "Fixes, Drivers, Files and News" page:  "Software Updates".
>
> The update process is fully automated and can be run under Netscape for
> OS/2 from 2.02 to the latest 4.61, or IBM's own Web Explorer 1.1.  They
> can also be downloaded and applied manually from hard or floppy disk.
> The READMEs are informative and helpful, and best of all, OS/2 fixpaks
> can be backed out if there is a problem.
>
> Let's take on issue 2a, "OS/2 is hard to install."  In the early 2.0
> beta days, the OS/2 install was not a thing of beauty.  It took me three
> tries with 30-plus diskettes each time to get a properly configured
> install of the beta, but only the first time.  However, after loading
> two betas and the release of 2.0 from floppies, when IBM announced that
> 2.1 was available on CD, I ran to my local dealer and purchased a single
> speed SCSI CD reader and 8-bit controller for a measly $315.  It was
> worth every penny.  The 2.0 and 2.1 installs could be a trial if you had
> never done one before, or occasionally even if you had.  By WARP 3, the
> install was two floppies and a CD, which required no fiddling unless you
> had, as I did, unusual or cheap peripheral cards.  Even in that case,
> all it took was adding the right driver to the second disk and adding a
> line for that driver in the floppy config.sys.  Then the boot disk
> simply detected your card, loaded the driver, and copied the install to
> the hard disk, starting the install automatically.  Quite simple.  Note
> that in no case do you have to install DOS and a CD driver first, like
> Microsoft requires for Windows 95, 98, and NT.
>
> That turns out to be why even today the "hard to install" mantra
> remains.  Most journalists installed OS/2 only once, condemned it for a
> hard install, and went back to rewriting Microsoft press releases as
> news.  The point that a lot of them missed was that you only needed to
> install OS/2 once, then you just run and run and run.  A few journalists
> reported this accurately, but were largely outshouted by the less
> thorough majority.
>
> OS/2 Has No ApplicationsEven in the beginning, this was untrue.  OS/2
> 2.1 shipped with a full set of Windows 3.1 standard software, and ran
> almost every piece of 3.1 software written.  When Windows 95 finally
> arrived, not surprisingly, it was not compatible with OS/2, and not by
> accident.  Microsoft really feared OS/2 back then as they knew it was
> technically better than Win 95.  Microsoft had even found their own
> developers using OS/2 rather than Microsoft tools.  After that fact was
> publicized, OS/2 at Microsoft lasted exactly as long as it took Bill
> Gates to write a memo.
>
> Native OS/2 software is available, but from smaller vendors with budgets
> to match.  The user had to be willing to make a small effort to find the
> software while being bombarded by misinformation from Microsoft.  It was
> not an easy time for OS/2 vendors mostly ignored by the press, but they
> persisted and delivered functional and reliable software.  Most of the
> OS/2 software has been available since 1992 from Indelible Blue.  Their
> current catalog runs to 72 pages and is online as well.
>
> Fast forward to 1998.  Windows 95 and 98 own the desktop market, 80
> percent of the users expect to reboot their systems daily or more
> frequently, Hewlett-Packard and other peripheral vendors go to a
> "Microsoft Only" philosophy for their new products.  Now using or
> talking about OS/2 gets you only strange looks and derision.  Still, a
> small but vociferous group of OS/2 supporters has begun to take the
> future of OS/2 into their own hands and a very few farsighted vendors
> are including OS/2 versions of their software.
>
> IBM, possibly realizing they had blown it with OS/2, rallies to Java as
> their battle cry in an effort to derail the Microsoft juggernaut.
> Though their Java performance is top drawer and runs well in OS/2, the
> fact is poorly reported.  Nothing new there.  Climbing on the Microsoft
> bandwagon, the software division offers a good small business software
> package for NT, but pointedly omits supporting OS/2, a different
> division.  The hardware group won't pre-install OS/2, either desktop or
> server.  IBM continues to provide good hardware and software except in
> the desktop arena, where they play politics with the future of OS/2.
> Only the OS/2 server version gets resources for further development.
>
> In 1998, the Star Division of a German company released Star Office 4.0
> for 32-bit Windows, Solaris, Mac, Linux, and OS/2.  It is now free for
> personal use via download, or $40 with CD and printed manual.  In 1999,
> Star Office was upgraded to 5.1, compatible with Office 97.  Commercial
> use is an inexpensive $499 for five users, any combination of versions.
> I've begun using it on OS/2 and Linux with success.  It will load and
> run in a 32-Mbyte OS/2 system.  A 48-Mbyte memory is good and 64 Mbytes
> is plenty.  A Lotus Office Suite is also available from the Lotus
> division of IBM.  A Java office suite is available from Applix.
>
> Despite IBM's internal politics and corporate-only support, the OS/2
> users are taking control of its future.  Websites supporting Warp have
> long been an active part of the Internet, but now user groups and
> developers have organized major shows.  WarpStock 98 follows the 97
> event and OS/2 users and developers rallied to show the public why they
> care.  WarpStock 99 in Atlanta, scheduled for Oct. 16 to Oct. 17,
> continues the yearly show and Warp Expo West is in Southern California
> on Sept.  18.  Had the Internet been this pervasive in 1992, OS/2 could
> have built its own support base in the three years before Microsoft
> shipped Windows 95.
>
> Recently, Sun Microsystems bought Star Division and now makes Star
> Office available without registration for download, or as a CD for $9.95
> plus shipping.  Get Star Office.
>
> The Little Engine That Can OS/2 with native applications from a variety
> of vendors is easily capable of running everything you need for a small
> business, or as the desktop part of a large one.  A lot of it is
> available as a package from Star Division, able to exchange documents
> with Office 97 users, and far less vulnerable to e-mail viruses.
> Netscape is being regularly upgraded by IBM -- 4.61 is in final beta as
> I write, and I am actively running it in the background without worrying
> about a crash.  Java support is also very good and IBM is providing
> current version 5 of Lotus/Domino, as well as Apache server and
> Websphere for OS/2.
>
> IBM may be finally realizing that an orphan OS that refuses to die and
> gets grass root user support despite Microsoft's 90 percent share of the
> desktop might possibly have some value.  Even now as IBM rushes to
> embrace Linux, OS/2 continues to get some support.  It's possible that
> the major problem for IBM is, and has always been, how to make a profit
> selling an OS one unit at a time and supporting end users.  If they
> figure that out, anything is possible.
>
> Next Time:  "Year 2000?  A Simple and Inexpensive Backup."
>
> Bill Nicholls was educated as a physicist, but early in his college
> career became seduced by the computing side of the force.  Since then,
> he has badgered mainframes, minis, and micros into mostly doing what he
> wanted, though with varying degrees of difficulty.  Software has always
> been his primary interest, from writing an OS to applications.  Don't
> ask him to do another payroll, though.
>
>
> Above article (c) BYTE Publications, 1999.

Good Modeming!  /\oo/\


... FidoNet-Mail: 1:382/92 or E-mail: Bat.Lang@92.ima.infomail.com

--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
114/441
387/770