🚀 go-pugleaf

From: Owner-OS2News@teamos2.org

Subject: OS2News: OS/2 Frequently Launched Criticisms, 1/30/96

OS/2 Frequently Launched Criticisms (version 1.3 1/30/96)

This is the OS/2 Frequently Launched Criticisms (FLC).  This document 
answers the list of the most often launched attacks on OS/2.  Many subjects
merit a FAQ (Frequently Answered Questions), but for some reason, people are
less inclined to ask information-seeking queries about OS/2 and more likely
to launch information-free diatribes against it.

So, the FLC is here as an answer to the oft-repeated attacks against the 
OS/2 platform and is offered to inform those who launch them as well as to
aid those who find themselves trying to defend OS/2's place among computing
solutions.

Please send *factual* corrections to forsythe@onramp.net

1. (2/15/95) OS/2 is slow.

2. (1/31/95) OS/2 swaps a lot.  OS/2 uses too much memory.

3. (10/24/95) OS/2 doesn't run my Windows apps or runs them slowly.

4. (7/26/95) There are no native OS/2 apps.

5a.  (2/15/95) OS/2's native apps aren't as "good" as Windows apps.
 b.  (2/15/95) The equivalent to MS-Office isn't available for OS/2.
 c.  (2/15/95) OS/2 apps are 'one version' behind' the one for Windows.

6. (10/24/95) OS/2 is impossible to install.

7. (2/15/95) Windows works on this hardware -- why doesn't OS/2?

8. (7/26/95) Warp's features are unstable.

9a. (7/26/95) Doesn't Windows 95 provide me with the same capabilities as
OS/2?
 b. (10/25/95) Isn't the Windows 95 interface prettier/better?
 c. (10/26/95) Warp can't run the new Windows 95 programs!

10a.  (2/15/95) OS/2 advocates are too abusive, too obsessive, too this, 
		too that.
  b.  (2/15/95) OS/2 is stupid.  OS/2 users are losers! Microsoft R00LZ!

11.  (2/15/95) 32-bit?  Multitasking?  Who needs it?

12. (2/15/95) Windows NT is technically superior to OS/2.

13. (2/15/95) Why shouldn't I use Linux, or some other UNIX variant?

14. (1/30/96) Isn't OS/2 a dead product -- or practically dead?

============================================================================
1. (2/15/95) OS/2 is slow.

Is OS/2 slow? The answer depends on the criteria you use. If you say OS/2 is
slow at *loading* Windows applications, you are right. On the other hand,
*running* a Windows program under OS/2 allows that Windows program to use
more memory and run on the HPFS -- possibly making it acutally *run* faster
once it has been loaded.

What about native OS/2 apps?  Some people say that the native OS/2 apps are
slower than their windows counterparts.  In some cases, this is incorrect.
Time trials of Micgrografx Designer 3.1 for OS/2 showed that it ran faster
than Designer 3.1 for Windows.  In other cases, it is misguided.  AmiPro for
OS/2 is slower than AmiPro for Windows, but it has more capabilities than
AmiPro for Windows, such as a background printing thread.

So the real questions is,"Slower doing what?" It's hard to compare Windows
and OS/2 "doing the same thing" because OS/2 is usually doing much more
"under the hood" even when they are performing the same function.  At first,
this may seem like a problem, but soon you realize that you can do *so much
more* than the "same function" under OS/2.  With OS/2's multitasking, you
*don't* have to wait for your app to finish printing to use your system (or,
frequently, even the same app).  With OS/2, you don't have to worry about
"XYZ app" and "PDQ app" interacting in strange, unpredicatable ways.  Not
surprisingly, other operating systems offering comparable levels of
functionality run at about the same speed.

Finally, many people do not realize that there is a difference between
running a Windows application in seamless (window-on-the-OS/2-desktop) mode
and running it in its own full-screen session.  Windows programs in a
full-screen session run with almost no performance difference at all.

============================================================================
2. (1/31/95) OS/2 swaps a lot.  OS/2 uses too much memory.

This was a common complaint about OS/2 from users of Windows 3.1.  The
fact is that OS/2 does a lot more than Windows 3.1 and it should not be
surprising that it needs more memory.

Then came Windows 95.  Windows 95 requires nearly the same amount of RAM
to run as OS/2.  Now you no longer hear complaints about "needing 16
megs of RAM."  What you don't hear is that despite a comparable memory
footprint, Windows 95 offers little more than it's predecessor, Windows
3.1 and it still far from the sophistication of OS/2.

OS/2 represents a great deal of new technology that is not available on
any other single platform (see #9a) and its swapping behavior and memory 
requirements are going to be affected by these advanced capabilities.

============================================================================
3. (10/24/95) OS/2 doesn't run my Windows apps or runs them slowly.

OS/2's Windows support is designed to allow you to move into the world of a
32-bit "workstation" OS without losing your investment in Windows apps.
Linux and Windows NT are its first and second most popular peers in the
32-bit arena and they are even worse in this respect.  Linux has a Windows
subsystem that is currently so feeble it barely runs Solitaire.  Windows NT
runs most Windows 3.1 apps, but usually more slowly than OS/2.  Also, many
users don't realize that some Windows applications that misbehave when
running seamless (windows-on-the-OS/2-desktop) run flawlessly in a
full-screen Windows session.  What about Windows 95, you ask?

Currently, Microsoft has a list of 200 of the most popular Windows 3.1 apps
which do not run properly -- or at all -- on Windows 95.  Furthermore,
users risk potential problems running Windows 3.1 apps on Windows 95
without gaining much actual benefit (see #9a).  New "Windows-95-only" apps
are discussed in section #9c.

Even compared to Windows 95, OS/2 does a very good job of running Windows
applications. Furthermore, unlike either Windows 3.1 or Windows 95, it runs
them in their own protected memory area, lets them run in separate sessions,
and pre-emptively multitasks them.  If the resource limitations, lack of
multitasking in Windows 3.1 or (16-bit apps on) Windows 95, and lack of
crash-protection are not problems for you, then you will get your best
compatibility and speed running your Windows 3.1 apps on the platform for
which they were designed: Windows 3.1.  While Windows 95 does alleviate some
Windows resource problems, only OS/2 offers you any actual advantages in the
way it runs Window 3.1 apps.

============================================================================
4. (7/26/95) There are no native OS/2 apps.

It requires almost no investigative effort to discover that this is
completely false.  The existing base of OS/2 1.x apps run flawlessly on OS/2
2.x and above.  You don't have to take my word as to the value of the 1.x
app base, Microsoft has (quietly) produced modules to allow them to run on
Windows NT.

Even if you ignore the thousands of apps available from the days of 1.x
there are still thousands of OS/2 apps available with more on the way.  If
you consider that OS/2 2.0 was not available until mid-1992 and a typical
development cycle for a major app is at least 18 months, you would expect
the second wave of OS/2 apps to appear in late 1995 -- which is exactly
what is happening.

Many people use the selection in computer retail stores (CompUSA, Computer
City) as a gauge of app availability.  Not surprisingly, most of them find
few, if any, OS/2 apps on the shelves at these stores.  This is a statement
about the competative nature of retail and the relatively unsophisticated
customer base who make up the bulk of retail software sales.  While these
stores can serve as a place to make convenient purchases of items such as
serial cables, diskettes or the latest DOS game, their prices and selection
are poor.  Well-informed buyers of computers and software know they can get
the best selection and best prices via mail-order.  Mass-market computer
stores don't carry much OS/2 software for the same reason they don't carry
*any* Windows NT or UNIX software: the people who run these OS's are
unlikely to be in their core customer base in the first place.

It should also be noted that thanks to the recent Microsoft acquisition
rampage, some Windows titles are actually disappearing from the market,
reducing the number.  If Microsoft suceeds in controlling the Windows
application market, the Windows market will cease to benefit from the
diversity and competition which will still exist in other OS markets.

============================================================================
5a.  (2/15/95) OS/2's native apps aren't as "good" as Windows apps.
5b.  (2/15/95) The equivalent to MS-Office isn't available for OS/2.  
5c.  (2/15/95) OS/2 apps are 'one version' behind' the one for Windows.

These are also plainly false or misleading.  In many cases, there are far
better tools under OS/2 than Windows.  There are several office products
suites for OS/2.  The most popular is Lotus Smartsuite.  Some OS/2 apps are
"one version behind" the one for Windows.  Some are not.  Some, usually the
better ones, do not have Windows versions at all.  

============================================================================
6. (10/24/95) OS/2 is impossible to install.

OS/2 is easy to install.  It struggles or fails to work on some hardware
(see #7).  This is no different from its peers in the 32-bit OS world.
When someone decides to install Windows NT, for example, they consult the
"Hardware Compatibility List" to make sure that it will work.  With the
Warp release, IBM has also released such a list.  The fact that so many
people have had difficulty installing OS/2 is regrettable, but is also
testament to the variety of people who are deciding to install it.  The
second most popular 32-bit PC OS is Linux -- another source of installation
horror stories.  The distant third, Windows NT, still more installation
horror stories.  None of these OS's is actually hard to install nor are
they considered by knowledgable people to be unstable or particularly
incompatible with "typical systems."  What makes Linux and Windows NT
different is that they are almost always installed by computer
experts.  OS/2's success in generating a broad appeal has put it in the
hands of people who have tried to install it on questionable hardware or
poorly chosen configurations (see #7 for more details).

Windows 95, which benfits from a core of real-mode technology, was promised
to be the easiest-to-install OS ever.  Ironically, the hype backfired and
the product has come to symbolize impossible-to-install software.

Finally, keep in mind that installation is something you only have to do
once.  The resource limitations, low-tech architecture and poor stability
of Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 aren't compensated for by the fact that it's
easy to install.

============================================================================
7. (2/15/95) Windows works on this hardware -- why doesn't OS/2?

OS/2, being a 32-bit "protected-mode" Intel OS, cannot call most ROM BIOS
routines because they can only run in "real mode".  Instead, it must rely
entirely on its native driver support.  Whereas manufacturers can shield
DOS apps from chip bugs, board bugs and non-standard implementations by
addressing these in the BIOS, OS/2 must deal with them unassisted.  Many
users are unaware of number of hardware bugs that are smoothed over by
manufacturer-supplied Windows and DOS code.  Third-party drivers for this
hardware are going to be much more sensitive to unpublished hardware bugs
and cost-cutting spec violations.

In addition to being able to rely on the BIOS, DOS and Windows stress the
system in different ways.  A sustained data transfer, for example, is
rarely going to exceed 64K bytes.  Control registers are never going to
accessed in an unexpected order -- because only one process is querying
the hardware.

These and similar issues are difficult enough to understand -- even for
most developers -- so its not surprising that many users are skeptical of
the "its the hardware" defense of OS/2's compatibility problems.

============================================================================
8. (7/26/95) Warp's features are unstable.

It is not easy for an OS/2 application to crash, or even hang, the system.
Most of the time, crashes and hangs are related to hardware and drivers.  An
OS/2 program can "hang" the user-interface briefly, but this does not halt
multitasking.  Also, the system will detect the hang and offer you the
opportunity to kill the offending program without disturbing other tasks.
Serious system instability can be induced by driver bugs because the drivers
often contain code that runs at protection Ring 0.  Ring 0 code is free to
do whatever it wants to the system!  This is also a problem with Windows NT.

Most OS/2 drivers are developed -- at least in part -- by the OEMs, and they
vary in quality with the OEM's commitment to the customer (caveat emptor!).
Most drivers are very good, and a lot of people have absolutely no trouble
with OS/2's stability.

Frequently, the problem is generated by a particular Windows or DOS program.
OS/2 must provide very complex subsystems to support older DOS applications
- especially games, which are notorious for their incompatibilities.  In
supporting DOS applications (in this case, we can consider Windows a type of
DOS application), there is a trade-off between stability, speed and
compatability.  OS/2 choses the middle road and holds itself nicely.  Still,
with tens of thousands of existing DOS apps, there are a few cases it cannot
handle.  Windows NT offer more stability, but with a great penalty in
compatability and speed.  According to information available at this time,
Windows 95 offers very good compatibility with existing DOS and Windows 3.1
apps, but with some programs showing a speed degradation and no protection
at all from "badly behaved" applications.

Experience has shown that most "mission critical" DOS and Windows apps run
smoothly under OS/2's compatability.

============================================================================
9a. (7/26/95) Doesn't Windows 95 provide me with the same capabilities as
	      OS/2?

In a word: No.

Operating systems are the technological foundation upon which users do
their computing activities.  Over time, as your needs and the available
apps become more sophisticated, new features appear on the OS.  At this
point one has to decide whether it's worth upgrading.  Overall, Windows 95
is *supposed* to offer the same kind of benefits as OS/2.  Despite widely
held perceptions of Windows 95 this isn't really true at all.

Windows 95 does not protect applications by giving each its own memory 
space.  OS/2 does.  Each OS/2 process is given a separate memory space which
is not accessable by other processes.  On Windows 95, and program can 
destroy the integrity of any other program or the system itself.  On OS/2, a
program attempting to access memory beyond its assigned boundaries will be 
halted by the system.

Windows 95 reduces -- but does not eliminate -- the dependance on
"conventional memory" (memory below 640K).  Many DOS and Windows programs 
require at least some memory in the address space below 640K.  If your 
DOS or Windows system loads too many of these programs, it runs out of 
space, no matter how much total memory you have on your computer.  OS/2 
never had any dependencies on this memory space.  For DOS and Windows, each 
session is given its own virtual machine where the individual DOS program 
will see the entire "conventional memory" space available.

Windows 95 does not re-emptively multitask 16-bit Windows applications. 
This is something that many users don't realize: Windows 95 will not run 
their Windows 3.1 applications any differently than Windows 3.1 did.  With 
OS/2, you can pre-emptively multitask a 16-bit Windows application.  If a 
16-bit Windows app is performing a lot of activity, OS/2 will pre-empt it 
and allows other tasks time to run.  Windows 95 will not.

Windows 95 reduces -- but does not eliminate -- Windows resource 
limitations.  Again, OS/2 allows you to create a new session if you want to 
run several resource-hungry Windows apps.  Windows 95 has moved some 
resources around to give them more space, but it has not eliminated the 
problem.  An individual OS/2 Windows session may also run out of
resources, but you can solve the problem by launching another with its
own complete set of resources.

While Windows 95 is capable of pre-emptively multitasking 32-bit apps, this
capability is disabled during the execution of 16-bit code.  This includes
any system calls from a 32-bit app into the predominantly 16-bit operating
system. The result of this is that the 32-bit pre-emptive multitasking may 
be rendered useless without careful consideration of what applications you
are running.  OS/2 multitasking is not blocked by any kind of program. 
Whether you are running DOS, Windows or older OS/2 programs, OS/2 will 
multitask them smoothly.  Windows 95 multitasking will only work effectively
if there are no 16-bit applications constantly interfering with it.  Even 
then, the multitasking will be sporadic and perform poorly.

The real story on Windows 95 multitasking will not be known until users have
had an opportunity to replace their current apps with new 32-bit apps.  In 
light of OS/2's superior 32-bit architecture, someone planning to buy a new
set of 32-bit apps would be better off upgrading to OS/2 and buying OS/2 
apps instead.

Windows 95 offers improvements for people who are either happy with or stuck
with Windows 3.1.  OS/2 can not only offer more actual enhancements to the
way in which Windows 3.1 programs run, but provides a "workstation" class
operating system on the *same hardware*.  This gives OS/2 something that
Windows 95 will never have: a future.  Even Microsoft has made it clear that
Windows 95 will be obsolete in about three years from now.  For people who
began using OS/2 in 1992, Windows 95 was obsolete three years *ago*.

9b. (10/25/94) Isn't the Windows 95 interface prettier/better?

As Star Trek's Mr. Spock eloquently pointed out,"Beauty is transitory."
Saying that Windows 95 has a better-looking interface is a personal
opinion.  Furthermore, deciding to buy -- or not to buy -- an operating
system on the merits of its icons or the look of its pull-down menus
brings into question the decision-maker's understanding of what an
operating system really does for you.

This brings up the more important point of which GUI is more powerful.  In
these types of discussions, you must first separate *familiarity* from
*capability*.  If you've ever tried to a new text editor program, you know
what I mean.  At first, you don't know how to use the functions you want,
such as "cut and paste".  This makes the new editor seem hard to use and
less powerful.  It is this percieved difficulty that makes many computer
programmers fanatically devoted to ancient and obscure text editors.

It is also the same reason why many people find the OS/2 GUI "hard to use"
or "lacking in features" when they first encounter it.  The fact is, that
the OS/2 GUI is *more powerful* than any flavor of the Windows GUI
available.  Many people don't realize that it is highly configurable and
can even be setup to be similar to the Windows 95 GUI.

If you've explored the capabilities of the OS/2 GUI and you still don't
like it, you can *replace it*.  There are several shareware and freeware
alternatives available offering simpler and less resource-hungry
desktops.  In addition there are a couple of commercial OS/2 desktop
systems such as the widely-praised Object Desktop from Stardock Systems.

9c. (10/26/95) Warp can't run the new Windows 95 programs!

The primary answer to this complaint is,"So what?"  The secondary answer
is that in the event that Windows 95 programs become really important,
OS/2 could be fitted to run them (at least the ones that run on WinNT).

Why aren't Windows 95 programs important?

The reality is that there aren't very many Windows 95 programs available
and even the number promised releases fails to meet the number of
currently shipping OS/2 apps.  Even more disappointing have been reports
from reviewers that the new 32-bit apps don't offer the user any
noticable advantages over the 16-bit apps they are replacing.
Admittedly, the quantity and quality of available 32-bit Windows 95 apps
is bound to increase, but the same it true for OS/2, which already has a
significant support lead.

============================================================================
10a.  (2/15/95) OS/2 advocates are too abusive, too obsessive, too this, 
		too that.

10b.  (2/15/95) OS/2 is stupid.  OS/2 users are losers! Microsoft R00LZ!

OS/2 is an operating system, not a sports team.  Yes, OS/2 advocates would
like to see it "win" and some of them would like to see Windows "lose".
Many of the flame sessions in the advocacy groups on the Internet resemble
the same kind of pointless, heated debates you sometimes hear in sports 
bars. These exchanges may be fun for the participants, but ultimately have
nothing to do with whether or not OS/2 is a good operating system.  People
who evaluate the OS based on that kind of traffic are even more clueless 
than the people who post it.

============================================================================
11.  (2/15/95) 32-bit?  Multitasking?  Who needs it?

If you have to ask, you might not understand the answer.  Maybe you've
never had a Windows application fail because it ran out of "conventional
memory" on a machine with many, many megabytes of RAM.  Perhaps you don't
fully understand the difference between having several apps loaded
simultaneously and having several apps loaded and actually doing something
simultaneously.  Most productivity apps spend their time doing nothing,
waiting for you to hit a key.  Applications which do considerably more
between events are unknown in the Windows 3.1 world because they can't
exist -- it's little wonder that Windows users don't understand the utility
of multitasking.  Then again, if these features *are* of no use to Windows
users, why did Microsoft labor so hard to add them to Windows?

The advantages of the 32-bit memory model are also a point of confusion. 
With the 16-bit memory model, no buffer may be larger than 64K bytes.  Can a
16-bit app work with more than 64K of data?  Of course it can, but only by 
slicing that data into 64K pieces.  This juggling act is inefficient and a 
cause of many bugs and limitations in 16-bit systems.  Due to a tremendous 
effort on the part of developers, these technical horrors have been hidden 
-- with varying degrees of success -- from users.  32-bit memory model frees
developers from this unecessary effort, simplifies software architecture 
making it less prone to bugs and removes the arbitrary limitations imposed 
by 64K buffer limits.

Another important point on this subject is that something does not have to
be absolutely necessary to be useful.  A user of, say, Microsoft Word 6 may
point out that this Windows application provides the writer with very
advanced capabilities despite being a 16-bit single-threaded application.
Then again, William Shakespeare wrote some of the greatest works of English
literature without any wordprocessor at all.  The point is that it is not
gratuitous to use technology to enhance a capability you already have.

A 32-bit, multitasking operating system provides a basis for even more
effective versions of the computer tools Windows users use today, as well
as entirely new tools they may not have considered.

============================================================================
12. (2/15/95) Windows NT is technically superior to OS/2.

This is true in several significant ways.  It has a secure file system, 
multiuser capability plus a few other architectural fine points.  Despite
these advantages Windows NT is still outsold nearly 10 to 1 by OS/2. Why?

Probably because NT's advantages over OS/2 already exist in a more 
stable, more supported, more powerful and more popular operating system:
UNIX. UNIX allows you to access these "server" capabilities and offerers a
large number of advantages over NT.  Among them are these key points:

     1. It has a relatively standard API.  Properly-written code from
        one UNIX variant usually ports fairly easily if not effortlessly
        to another UNIX variant.  Win32 code can't be ported to anything.
        NT is the only OS that uses it (see #9d).

     2. Whatever is on your wish list for a multi-user OS, can be found in
        some kind of UNIX solution.  Want a great object-oriented GUI?
        Use NeXTStep.  Want apps from mainstream ISV's?  Use SCO.  Want
        it for *FREE*?  Get Linux.
 
     3. The most primative X-Windows GUI is better than the wretched
        Windows NT GUI.

     4. The UNIX world, unlike the Windows world, benefits from 
        competition.

In the previous item (#11), I pointed out that technical advantages which 
might not seem necessary, can be worthwhile anyway.  Unfortunately, many of 
the advantages offered by NT or UNIX are not like this.  For example, if you
don't really need a multi-user operating system, having one anyway isn't
going to benefit you at all.  Similarly, if you don't have a network, having
powerful network capabilities does not enhance your capabilities.  Without
these requirements, Windows NT provides roughly the same function as OS/2
but requires twice as much memory and disk space to do so.

============================================================================
13. (2/15/95) Why shouldn't I use Linux, or some other UNIX variant?

Some of the reasons were covered in the previous item, but wait, there's
more...

Most UNIX variants running on small systems -- NeXTStep is a prime example
-- are running in "vertical market" applications.  These are niche,
mission-critical applications for which the application software was
specifically designed (OS/2 also makes a strong showing in this arena).
Chance are, though, that if you were considering developing one of these
vertical market applications, you would be highly aware of what each OS has
to offer your solution.  What if you are looking for an OS to support
general, day-to-day operations?  Consider this checklist:

     1. Does your setup involved more than two computers?

     2. Does configuring sendmail fill you with anticipation, rather 
        than dread?

     3. Have you read the "UNIX Haters Handbook" and decided it was all 
        bunk?

     4. Have you avoided needing to use DOS or Windows apps?

     5. Is Usenix the focal point of your social life?

     6. Do you believe it's perfectly reasonable for all Interprocess
        Communication to go through the file system?

     7. Do you write most of the software you use?

     8. Do college students write most of the software you use?

     9. Do expensive consultants write most of the software you use?

    10. Does $3000 seem like a reasonable price for a typical
        shrink-wrapped software package?

    11. Could you get a directory listing at a command prompt if "dir"
        didn't work?

If you answered "no" to all the the questions above, forget UNIX entirely. 
"Yes" answers to these questions don't mean you should rush out and get 
Linux, however.  The point is that UNIX is not a commodity operating system.

By far, the world's most popular OS is DOS.  If you consider Windows+DOS
an operating system, then it ranks second.  While UNIX, in all of its
forms, probably ranks third, it is an entirely different world from DOS
and Windows.  Part of the philosophy of OS/2 is that you shouldn't be 
forced to give up the investment in DOS and Windows software just to move 
up to a "Workstation class" OS.

============================================================================
14. (1/30/96) Isn't OS/2 a dead product -- or practically dead?

Rumors of OS/2's death have been greatly exaggerated.  Despite a lot of
hype from Microsoft, OS/2 remains the most widely used 32-bit OS for
the Intel platform by a *large margin*.  Recent announcements about "an
explosion" in the sales of Windows NT have brought sales of that
Microsoft product from pathetic to feeble -- particularly compared to
OS/2 sales.  In this light, why are so many people, from average net
users to highly-regarded newspapers declaring OS/2 "dead" over and over
and over again?  There are several reasons.

One reason is that while OS/2 can be considered popular in some
contexts (such as in comparison to Windows NT), it is a "minority
operating system" in other contexts (such as in comparison to 16-bit
Windows).  Because many casual computer users have never seen OS/2 it's
not difficult for them to believe that "nobody bought it."  Keep in
mind that many of these people have never seen UNIX or Windows NT
either.  If you were to tell them that these platforms were also "dead"
they would also -- in all likelyhood -- believe you.  So who is telling
all of these trusting souls that OS/2 is dead?

Aside from the *obvious* Microsoft advocates there are forces in the
industry -- even within IBM itself -- that would like to see OS/2 "go
away" and everthing on the PC become Windows.  Why?  It depends on who
you are talking about.

In the case of ISV's (Independant Software Vendors), it is simple
economics.  Development of OS/2 (or Mac or UNIX) versions of their
products costs extra.  Even using tools which allow multi-platform
development involves the costs of obtaining and learning those tools.
Many Windows-based software companies haven't bothered to port their
products to the MacIntosh and many would prefer to ignore OS/2 as well.
What keeps them anxious about OS/2 is its slow but steady increase in
user base despite Microsoft's best efforts to clobber it with competing
products.  That's where the press comes in.

Most people understand that magazine, like any other business, thrive by
selling a product to a customer.  The common misconception is that this
product is information and the customer is the reader.  This is not the
case.  The product offered by magazine is *consumers who read their
magazine* and the custmer is *advertisers*.  Most magazines make most of
their money off of advertising revenue.  Like any business, the magazine
tries to tailor its product (in this case, readership) to the needs of
its customer (in the case vendors of *Windows software*).  If you are an
ISV who has bet heavily on Windows 95, which magazine would you prefer
for your ads: the magazine telling people that OS/2 is better or the
magazine telling everybody that "despite the technical superiority of
OS/2, you should buy Windows 95."

Although many forces in the industry would like to see the software
market coalesce into one big, happy Microsoft Windows World, "minority"
platforms such as Apple MacIntosh, UNIX (particularly Linnux) and OS/2
will maintain strong following among users whose needs are specifically
matched to each product.  IBM deploys enterprise-wide solutions for many
of its customers, and in some cases, having a proprietary OS to deliver
is a key advantage.  Thus, even though some in IBM believe that it
should get out of the OS business, OS/2 remains a working part of IBM's
product arsenal and it not going to be tossed away.  This is
particularly true as the PPC market evolves.


-------------------- 
Originally by:                Charles Forsythe <forsythe@onramp.net>

Substantial contributions by: Joris S. Zwart <jozwa@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl>

With help from:               Tom Ross <tross@onramp.net>
                              Chris <che2cbs@cabell.vcu.edu>
                              David Jackson <djackson@sting.demon.co.uk>



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Forsythe     | In cyberspace, EVERYONE CAN HEAR YOU SPAM.
forsythe@onramp.net  |