Hi Rick:
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  While I think we agree on most points,
let me clarify a perspective or two.
RC>Lack of good/proper drivers is NOT an IBM nor OS/2 problem.  Your
RC>chipset works great under Win 3.1x simply because the system didn't
RC>change hardly at all over a four year period.
I must beg to differ.  That the probelm is not unique doesn't mean that
it isn't a problem.  Since the playing field is quite uneven, parity
is advantage for Microsoft.
RC>Please make up your mind here.  In the above paragraph you report that
RC>IBM has invested an obscene amount of money in OS/2, yet you later
RC>stated:
RC>MC>investment in their product) on an OS/2 version of TSE Pro.  After
RC>MC>all, if IBM isn't willing to invest what it takes to make OS/2 a
RC>MC>market contender, why should a software developer?  Food for thought.
My mind is made up:  IBM's isn't.  My advice to IBM is the same as Colin
Powell's to Bush & Clinton:  don't fight a battle that you don't intend to
win decisively.  The large investment to date in OS/2 would lead me to
believe that IBM has an incentive to win the battle decisively.  Yet look
at how this differs from IBM's actions:
1.  Lou Gerstner says OS/2 has a year to get profitable or it's toast.
    Wow.  Talk about a confidence booster.  Think that statement encouraged
    a few hundred application developers to line up at the OS/2 door?
    I don't think so.
2.  Covering 90% of the drivers would be easy and solve the largest single
    source of user dissatisfaction.  IBM continues to pour millions of
    dollars into nun & ballerina commercials, but can't ante up a few
    technicians to scour the BBS's and online forums to gather this
    material in one place!
3.  IBM is treating the indivual PC market like the corporate computing
    market:  with glitzy ads.  You can get people's interest with that,
    but what hold's them is Walking the Walk -- not Talking the Talk.
    Better Windows than Windows is true only if you can get OS/2 up
    without a lot of fuss.  Corporate IT departments cover this by
    gathering the necessary drivers internally:  Who does this for the
    individual PC user?
    Now look at an interesting counterpoint:  SemWare has a following
    of people that ARE as intensely loyal as OS/2's following.  Did they
    get it through marketing hype?  NOT!  They got it by delivering
    superior value, ease of use, and UNMATCHED customer service & support.
    They got it through making tough decisions about where to invest
    in the total product, emphasizing functionality, performance, and
    usability over packaging and advertising.
    Don't get me wrong.  I think IBM needs to tell the world its story.
    I just think they'd be more successful investing in cleaning the
    story up before they broadcast it.
RC>Overall though, I agree with you. IBM has an excellent product in OS/2.
I agree, though I'm not convinced that it's superior to NT.
RC>My DOS QEdit is working for me as it'll run easily in 3 of
RC>the 4 systems. But I want ALL FOUR! 
No argument from me.  In fact, I'd love to see the world forget its worries
about text editing and make SemWare the household word.  (Ever notice how
rarely someone asks for a 'facial tissue'?  They say
"Hand me a Kleenex, please.")
But I think reaching this point of pervasiveness requires keen attention
to business fundamentals.  Neither Semware nor any other software
developer can afford to let the intensity of feeling about a market
overshadow making a good business decision.  Let's face it:  To you and
me, the impact of a software developer making a bad decision is we lose
support for a product we like;  to the software developer, the impact is
he loses a livelihood for himself and the people who work for him.
SemWare has made an awful lot of right decisions,  even some very very tough
ones in the early days of TSE.  I trust they'll continue to do so.
Regards,
Mike Chambers
---
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ          TSE Pro: Text Editor of Champions
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff151/a]
---------------