CompuServe Thread

#OS/2

9 messages in this thread
#189577From: Christian BusseMar 19, 1995 1:51 PM
Well, all reviews of OS/2 (which is available) show that it's better than Windows 3.x and comparisons with Windows95 betas show that it's about as good as that but W95 won't be available for some time (last date I've heard was November 95, maybe it's gonna be 1996 yet) – not even the pre-release version is at the moment. The problem is that IBM haven't committed themselves to bring W95 compatibility into OS/2, so people are putting off their purchase decisions until some definite statement is made (and then will buy Windows 96 anyway…). Maybe Pournelle is right in saying IBM should GIVE OS/2 to anyone who wants to have it and see to it that it be ported to PowerPC ASAP to have success… Cheers, // Christian "ELP" Busse \X/ near Frankfurt, Germany
#189679From: Tom JonesMar 20, 1995 4:40 PM
Christian > Maybe Pournelle is right in saying IBM > should GIVE OS/2 to anyone who wants to have it and see to it that it be > ported to PowerPC ASAP to have success… Shhhhh….they might be reading here, looking for the secret of Commodore's success. Yes, that is exactly what any good practical german businessman or japanese kairetsu determined to conquor their market segment _would_ do, but thank goodness IBM is an ami company and therefore too short sighted to see this. The wisdom of Wall street is to drive your customers away with greedy nickel and dime gouging for every little service you do them and only worry about making a profit this afternoon, never thinking for a moment about next year, much less five years from now. IBM is really not one bit wiser than Commodore was. Tom alternate: jonest@hfsi.com I never met a man I didn't like…Will Rogers
#189693From: Eduard JosephMar 20, 1995 7:40 PM
>> IBM is really not one bit wiser than Commodore was. Any company is wiser than Commodore, IBM still around. Even ATARI is wiser than Commodore. Any doorknob is wiser than Commodore. In other words nothing is dummer than Commodore, Commodore is the absolute and perfect 0 for marketing strategy. If it exists is wiser than Commodore.
#189925From: Tom JonesMar 22, 1995 9:01 PM
Well Ed, how can I argue with that? It has been suggested that Commodore's final claim to fame may lie in their inclusion in MBA testbooks as the definitive study of how not to run a computer manufacturing business, but I think they will have some competition for that title too: Honeywell, NCR, Sperry-Rand, Bull….. Tom alternate: jonest@hfsi.com I never met a man I didn't like…Will Rogers
#190014From: Alex BakerMar 23, 1995 6:57 PM
Well, by those standards, then at least NeXT was dummer than C=. They brought their machine out later, sold fewer, and died sooner. Which makes Steve Jobs dummer than C=. (Though he still exists, and designed/marketed the NeXT.) I believe that Commodore still technically exists. It is in liquidation, and is not currently producing/marketing computer, however, as a legal entity, it still exists and is being run by the trustees. (Who in the opinion of some are dummer than anybody.) – Alex…. Still Whap!'n after all these years
#190114From: Eduard JosephMar 24, 1995 5:30 PM
>>Which makes Steve Jobs dummer than C=. (Though he still exists, and >>designed/marketed the NeXT.) Well, I guess what he did for Apple does not count. Plus, NEXT STEP is still around. I don't think a 1 year old corpse to be count as a running company (not producing anything). I repeat there is NO dummer than CBM-I, just as dumb is all anyone could sink into. CBM-I is the absolute 0. Eudard Joseph CBM < negative infinity
#190063From: BILL LEACHMar 23, 1995 11:42 PM
IBM has not been "MicroSlothing" its customers with OS2 — One of the many reasons why OS2 is much more popular than the Gates sweetheart PC press wants to say. An additional reason for OS2's popularity might just be that software vendors in systems development work seem to find that their products port to OS2 and work not only in the development environment but even in the field too! These same vendors typically report having given up on WNT. -bill
#190113From: Eduard JosephMar 24, 1995 4:54 PM
>>These same vendors typically report having given up on WNT. Which vendors? We are having problems finding GOOD software for OS/2. Even our backup software although functional is incredibly limited in functionality, support of tape drives, etc. Eduard J.
#190177From: Dale LarsonMar 25, 1995 9:33 AM
Which backup software are you using? dale@iam.com http://www.iam.com Intangible Assets Manufacturing