#'non-standard' computers
32 messages in this thread
" If they don't want to be isolated technologically from the rest of the
world…they'll follow current standards."
But the WANT to be isolated from the rest of the world. They've been that way
for a long time.
" The world will not change for the Chineese…the Chineese will join
the rest of the world…or be left further behind."
I think you underestimate the Chinese.
Bob Comer — Cheyenne, WY USA
Team OS/2
Bob,
It's not the Chinese who are (or aren't) underestimated. I believe
you're underestimating the rest of the world.
For example, do you honestly believe that if the Chinese decided to
adopt some obscure OS and 3.25" floppies for their machines…the rest of the
world would suddenly dump MS-DOS/Windows and 3.5" floppies and jump on the
Chinese bandwagon?
Or do you think the Chinese are smart enough to realize that there are
standards in place for the world community…and if they wish to join that
community (business wise) they'll also adopt those standards?
Don
"I believe you're underestimating the rest of the world."
?
"For example, do you honestly believe that if the Chinese decided to adopt some
obscure OS and 3.25" floppies for their machines…the rest of the world would
suddenly dump MS-DOS/Windows and 3.5" floppies and jump on the Chinese
bandwagon?"
Heavens no. Just like them not joining our bandwagon, we wouldn't have to join
their's.
" Or do you think the Chinese are smart enough to realize that there are
standards in place for the world community…and if they wish to join that
community (business wise) they'll also adopt those standards?"
You seem to assume that there has to be a global computing standard. I on the
other hand, don't think there is one now, and there wont be one for some time
to come.
Bob Comer — Cheyenne, WY USA
Team OS/2
Bob,
I don't assume there has to be a global standard…I presume there IS a
global standard. For business desktop machines that is.
If 80 to 90% of the market isn't 'standard'….I sure don't know what
is. And when it comes to large companies…I suspect that number is much
closer to 95%.
Don
"I don't assume there has to be a global standard…I presume there IS a global
standard. For business desktop machines that is."
There's just to many differences in your standard for me to call it a
standard…
"If 80 to 90% of the market isn't 'standard'….I sure don't know what is."
I don't know either, there isn't one yet.
" And when it comes to large companies…I suspect that number is much closer
to 95%."
Actually, with the bigger companies, OS/2 has more of a following than you give
it credit for, and your forgetting totally about UNIX and other platforms. I'd
say Win probably doesn't even have 75% there. (My company has 60% OS/2, 35%
Win/DOS, and 5% other. Admitted, we aren't that big, but I know of big
companies that are exclusive OS/2.
Bob Comer — Cheyenne, WY USA
Team OS/2
Bob,
You seem to keep forgetting the word "desktop" UNIX isn't a desktop OS
unless you're talking engineering workstations. Typical business apps don't
need UNIX.
OS/2 is DOA at *most* large companies. As a matter of fact, I saw an
interesting quote in PC Week (or Info World) a few weeks ago (and nothing to
dispute it in later editions). According to the quote, IBM has stated they
will NOT make another Intel version of OS/2. Warp and the NetWork Edition are
it.
Here in Denver (only 125 miles South of you)…OS/2 is mainly selling
to individuals for use on their home machines. It has very little corporate
penetration. For example, the City (Denver) evaluated it…and decided not to
use it, but to use Windows or Windows NT for the vast majority of their small
networks. We use UNIX for all of Safety (police, fire and sheriff) multi-user
apps, but desktops are 100% DOS or Windows. Everything currently running under
Novell is being moved to NT where possible.
Talking to places like CompUSA (their government sales office, not
their retail operation)…they sell next to no OS/2. AT&T likewise, they don't
sell OS/2 at all, nor do they support it. If a customer (and AT&T has the
state contract) wants OS/2…they've got to find someone else to support it for
them other than AT&T.
Don
>>According to the quote, IBM has stated they will NOT make another Intel
version of OS/2. Warp and the NetWork Edition are it.<<
WHAT!?!?!?!?!
Mr. Zombie
Paul:
>> WHAT!?!?!?!?!
Don't worry. What Don posted isn't true. IBM clearly refuted the article in
question. The whole thing was just another piece of industry FUD.
Wayne (Team OS/2)
Wayne,
I've yet to see that rebuttal…and I've been looking for it.
Don
Don:
>> I've yet to see that rebuttal…
I'll see if I can track down a copy for you. Unfortunately, my hard drive is
nearly full, so I have to keep AutoPilot's history files at a minimum.
Wayne (Team OS/2)
Paul,
That's what the article text said…and I've yet to see a rebuttal from
IBM. I have seen statements from IBM that they may or may not port OS/2 to
work with Win95 Apps…but they're concentraing on getting a PowerPC version
out.
Don
Don-
See Wayne's message. He says they've thoroughly rebutted.
Mr. Zombie
> I have seen statements from IBM that they may or may not port OS/2 to .
>work with Win95 Apps…but they're concentraing on getting a PowerPC
>version out.
Here's an Update from Information Week May 8,1995 pg 18…
"Sources say IBM hopes to deliver the Win32 support by January, or five months
after the slated August delivery of Microsoft's Windows 95."
"…IBM will likely ship Warp for Power in September… Without integrated
support for Novell Netware and other networking systems…" They'll be added
"later".
/ / / //ANDRE
Don:
>> According to the quote, IBM has stated they will NOT make another Intel
version of OS/2. Warp and the NetWork Edition are it.
IBM refuted that claim here on CompuServe. IBM also posted a copy of a letter
they sent to the editor of the magazine in question. That letter stated in no
uncertain terms that IBM was continuing the development of x86 OS/2 as well as
the PowerPC version.
BTW, the information for that article came from "sources close to Microsoft."
Why would you believe anything Microsoft has to say about IBM, and vice-versa?
Wayne (Team OS/2)
Wayne,
The source quoted in the article was an IBM executive, not anyone from
MicroSoft. I'll go look in the IBM fora and see if I can find the
rebuttal…because if I do…it'll be the first time I've seen one.
Don
Don:
>> The source quoted in the article was an IBM executive, not anyone from
MicroSoft.
We must be talking about different articles, then. The one I read clearly
quoted "sources close to Microsoft." If you're talking about the article that
quoted York from IBM, then I haven't read that one myself; although, I have
read some discussion about it here on CIS.
In any case, IBM has stated several times in the OS/2 fora that they have no
plans to end development of Intel OS/2. In the most recent "sources close to
Microsoft" case, they sent a letter to the editor of that magazine and posted a
copy of said letter in the OS/2 User's forum. Their resolve seemed quite clear
to me.
Wayne (Team OS/2)
Well, if the guy was an IBM executive, and made a statement that OS/2 for
Intle machines was ended, he may indeed be close ot Microsoft by now
<grin>
Alex:
>> Well, if the guy was an IBM executive, and made a statement that OS/2 for
Intle machines was ended, he may indeed be close ot Microsoft by now
Considering how sharp the axe has been at IBM, you may be right! <G>
Wayne (Team OS/2)
Denver… Isn't that where that silly airport couldn't go online for months
after deadline? Maybe the City should have made a different evaluation! <bg>
" You seem to keep forgetting the word "desktop" UNIX isn't a desktop OS
unless you're talking engineering workstations. Typical business apps don't
need UNIX."
There's a fine line between "desktops" and "workstations" now, they getting
fairly close. (We had a "desktop" that outperformed our "workstation" by a
good margin.)
"OS/2 is DOA at *most* large companies."
I think your wrong on that. I know of several that were OS2 to begin with, and
stayed, and I know of some that converted to OS/2 in the last 2 months.
" As a matter of fact, I saw an interesting quote in PC Week (or Info World) a
few weeks ago (and nothing to dispute it in later editions)."
Those two mags are pure Windows pablum, and I don't trust what either says.
"IBM has stated they will NOT make another Intel version of OS/2. Warp and the
NetWork Edition are it. "
This was publiched in Infoworld, as well as, a euro mag. IBM responded to that
article, you just probably didn't see the response. I read it in a couple of
different places, but I didn't save the text.
btw, the source that the euro mag quoted was a person closely connected with
MS. I wish I wouldn't have pruned my AP log 2 days ago. 🙁
I know personally, of at least 3 different versions based on this "level" of
code, and I know they are working on another "level" (Warp 4.0)
"Here in Denver (only 125 miles South of you)."
Actually, it's only 99 miles, but who's counting. 🙂
"It has very little corporate penetration."
Check the banks. 🙂
"Talking to places like CompUSA (their government sales office, not their
retail operation)…they sell next to no OS/2."
Have they tried? (No)
Bob Comer — Cheyenne, WY USA
Team OS/2
Bob:
>> "OS/2 is DOA at *most* large companies."
I didn't believe that one either. I understand that someone on FidoNet has
composed a rather extensive list of major corporations that use OS/2. I am
seeking a copy of that list as we speak. From the limited information I've
gathered so far, OS/2 seems to have a strong presence in the financial and
large-scale database fields as well as a considerable LAN/WAN following.
>> IBM responded to that article…
Don't you wish you would have kept the response? I know I do. I've asked for
a reposting of the rebuttal in the OS/2 User forum.
Wayne (Team OS/2)
"I am seeking a copy of that list as we speak."
I hope you can get the list, as I wouldn't mind seeing it myself.
"Don't you wish you would have kept the response? I know I do. I've asked for
a reposting of the rebuttal in the OS/2 User forum."
Yep, I wish I did too. 🙁
Bob Comer — Cheyenne, WY USA
Team OS/2
I used to think desktops were getting close to workstations and the line was
blurred. I don't any more. My current theory is thus: The boxes that are many
times as fast today and cost many times more today are workstations.
Workstations become obsolete every year, and desktops are often as fast as
workstations a few years old. They don't come anywhere close to current
workstations. Desktops remain suited to the purposes they were purchased for
over years. Workstations often are more economical to upgrade regularly than
to maintain for years, due to the nature of the work they are used for.
dale@iam.com http://www.iam.com
Intangible Assets Manufacturing
That explainations sounds a bit too subjective, but I'll buy the definition. It
does seem that it follows the pattern pretty well.
In our case, this "desktop" didn't last very long at all, but that was due to
an OS issue, not hardware. It had WinNT on it, and while it ran all the
Windows programs it needed too, it didn't run any of the DOS ones, nor did it
run the GPIB card either. (OS/2 wouldn't have fit any better either due to the
stupid design of one of the DOS programs.)
Bob Comer — Cheyenne, WY USA
Team OS/2
Bob:
I agree. OS/2 is not DOA. I work with several major utilities in the NE. Each
have at least 2000-3000 workstations (PCs). They all are dumping DOS for OS/2.
Windows just doesn't hack it with engineers. Engineers in utility companies
make up the bulk of the PC user's, not secretaries or bean counters.
..Andy from Harding NJ
That would all depend on how well the Chinese were faring economically.
If the Chinese economy were booming, you would find U.S. entrepenuers
(sp?) snapping up those little 3.25" disks and computers as fast as they
could find them. Especially if they were needed to run the software,
communicate, and deal with the Chinese.
I've never seen a "boomer" (one who is trying to cash in on new trend, or
following the "boom"), let something like a dedication to current
standards stop him/her.
They would simply own both machines….
When people smell money, it's amazing what they will buy.
Much like all those IBM folks and Mac folks who bought that non standard
computer to do video work. They didn't dump their dos/Mac computers, they
simply added an Amiga/Toaster and got to work.
However, I still wouldn't see it translating into increased availability
of apps for the general use Amiga.
Alex,
On a small scale…perhaps. On a large scale…I am in complete
disagreement with you.
I don't believe China can boom without fitting in…thus by default,
they'll follow current standards. you see…they're 20 years (at least) behind
the times as far as technology for the masses…definately not in a leading
position where they can dictate anything.
Don
I don't know for sure… If the Chinese adopt the Japanese model of
protecting the areas where they can't compete, and then competing where
they can, they could pull it off.
The biggest draw back I see, is that there is not any world class major
buisness software for the Amiga. Networks for the Amiga are not at the
level of the dos machines. All this infrastructure would have to be built
to use the Amigas, or any non-standard format computer effectively in
large businesses.
However, if for some reason the government insisted on it, they would
probably manage to create the software, etc. Funny the things you can do
with a centralized government. (And a death sentence for disagreement…
<grin>)
"Networks for the Amiga are not at the level of the dos machines."
Is that a slur on Envoy?
-ash
Kyfho
No, it is a statement about our being able to connect easily to LANTastic,
Vines, WfWG, etc., and the fact that our Netware is very dated, and that we
don't do AppleTalk anymore (except on an emulator).
dale@iam.com http://www.iam.com
Intangible Assets Manufacturing