🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <5h7kkq$69s@client3.news.psi.net> - os2@mistik.express.net
(Mustafa Soysal MS57)25 Mar 1997 04:34:34 GMT writes:
}
}In article <c0.9w.2FVPFB$02w@picard.cds-inc.com>,  <replyto> wrote:
}>In <5h1uga$7li@client2.news.psi.net>, os2@mistik.express.net (Mustafa Soysal MS57) writes:

}>small office/home office market as well as the consumer market, but OS/2
}>came from an organization that has always been devoted to developing
}>products for the big corporate market.    Small businesses have little use
}>for things like Communications Manager/2, or CICS/2, for example.   The
}
}You have no idea what small businesses have a use for.

Sounds like you didn't either.


}>SOHO/consumer efforts have always been a lower priority, looking at the
}>history of OS/2.
}
}The history from a point between 2.1 and 3.0....They did fine with their
}efforts during 2.0 and early 2.1.

You can't have it both ways.  Either they didn't market and sell or they
did.  And I think you're forgetting the entirely forgettable Warp 3
marketing effort.

}>
}>I'm sorry your fax/data utility failed, but you can't blame the lack of demand for
}>such a niche product on OS/2 as you have done in previous posts - I'd be surprised
}
}You have a reading comprehension problem.  I said IBM lied about the
}number of OS/2 sales and witheld information that most of the sales went
}to banks and insurances.  There were no more than about 10,000 real
}buyers be it small businesses or home office users, yet IBM was claiming
}1 mio sales at that time.  And I said, even today, there is no market of
}1mio real buyers outside of IBM's "channel marketing", and writing
}applications other than the bank or insurance market will see no market.
}(Not even small business applications)

I can see where people might have a problem comprehending what you write. 
"They did good"  "They didn't sell shit".  Got a source for your 10,000
sold?  I have empiricle evidence that there are many more copies than that.
 Or the 10,000 users all go to my old website every other day.

}>if you sold many more copies of such a thing on any platform. You obviously 
}>have an axe to grind with OS/2, and seem to go out of your way 
}
}You would have an axe to gring with IBM if they weren't able to bring
}out a stable version that can run more than 24 hours stable (that's the
}most stable it got, after dooming the system to do pretty much nothing
}dropping another line of business). And if you invested about $20K in
}hard cash into the OS/2 software platform, not counting your time and
}efforts, you would not been writing with the ignorance you did when this
}damned OS can't run straight for a day if it is busy with anything.  It
}isn't good for anything, not even terminal emulation for some people if
}they are using certain video cards (Matrox for example).  

Funny.  I run OS/2 and have just that video card, Matrox Millenium 4Mb.  I
have ran a multi-node BBS while running DOS games and keeping PPP up for
email.  By the way, my fax program always runs fine here.  I have run my
own newsserver and am currently running my own mail server.
Just what kind of "busy with anything" are you talking about?  If you can't
run your app more than 24 hours, I'd suggest hiring a decent programmer to
see what the problem is with your app.  'Cause it ain't OS/2 that's to
blame.

}If you ask IBM what runs without problems, you won't get an answer,
}because everything is having problems with OS/2.  I have gone out of my
}way to help nail down problems with them, my phonebills to IBM ranked
}about $100/mo, wasted several days of my weks trying to restore the
}system after it wiped out disks, reinstalling software etc., the system
}is futile if you make any heavy use of it.  There is nothing mission
}critical you can do with this system.

Perhaps the reason you get nowhere with tech support is you talk the way
you write.  Nobody could follow that.  So first you bitch because IBM sells
to banks and insurance companies, then you tell how nothing mission
critical could run on OS/2.  Everything has problems on OS/2, eh?  I
suspect only if the system is running whatever app you spent $20K
developing, and apparently developing badly.

}If you report a problem, they say they never heard of it, yet I found
}people on the net who have been told the same although I had opened PARs
}on these same problems.  It is a damned lying machine that is selling us
}OS/2.  No more.

Yep, IBM has actually only sold three copies to a school in Missouri.  And
they have a staff of 30 keeping the systems running.  All just tto lure you
into wasting money on someting you clearly don't have the inclination for.

}>you want to say that no one can succeed by writing software for OS/2, I'm
}>one of many examples that will prove you wrong.
}
}Oh please do tell us about your banking and insurance market software
}that you sold to your cousins.  If anybody could claim any success on
}OS/2 application market, that might be the Keller group, even then,
}there is the global village story....

I think that BackAgain/2 is a success story.  But then, it was written by
someone with an understanding of computers and OS/2.  Not an amateur who
has trouble connecting thoughts on a single page...


Later!
Gary

To Reply Via Email, Simply Remove The "-" Character From My Reply-to
Darn Junk Mailers Anyway...