Dec 302017
OS/2 2.0 articles from magazines (taken from search of Computer Select CD-ROM).
File OS2TXT.ZIP from The Programmer’s Corner in
Category OS/2 Files
OS/2 2.0 articles from magazines (taken from search of Computer Select CD-ROM).
File Name File Size Zip Size Zip Type
OS2.TXT 78669 24438 deflated

Download File OS2TXT.ZIP Here

Contents of the OS2.TXT file

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #10 *****

Journal: PC Magazine May 12 1992 v11 n9 p32(1)
* Full Text COPYRIGHT Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. 1992.
Title: OS/2 apps: waiting for Godot? (software companies reluctant to
develop OS/2 applications) (Brief Article)
Author: Barr, Christopher.
Company: International Business Machines Corp. (Products).
Ticker: IBM.
Product: OS/2 2.0 (Operating system) (Computer programs).
Topic: Operating systems
Applications Programming
User Needs
Market Analysis
Software Publishers.
Feature: illustration

Record#: 12 069 368.
Full Text:

OS/2 Apps: Waiting for Godot?

There may be more than a thousand OS/2 2.0 applications, but you've probably
only heard of a handful of them. Most of the big software houses are
reluctant to divert precious funds and programming resources away from the
hot market for Windows apps. After all, they'll run under OS/2 anyway. This
reluctance is wide-spread--even as the heads of some of these companies claim
they would kill to loosen Microsoft's grip on the industry.

Borland was one of the first major software vendors to support OS/2 2.0
publicly. The company announced a version of Borland C++ and ObjectVision
for OS/2. But Borland is "bootstrapping with ObjectVision," according to a
Borland official. The company has not decided whether to devote additional
development dollars to converting its bread-and-butter applications, such as
Paradox, dBASE, and Quattro Pro, to OS/2.

Lotus executives Jim Manzi and John Landry are evasive about exactly when any
Lotus apps will be optimized for OS/2 2.0, though they say products are in
the works. The likely first candidates are Lotus 1-2-3 and Freelance, which
should get 32-bit versions this summer.

Computer Associates, second only to Microsoft in the number of retail Windows
applications on the market, plans to write for OS/2 2.0, but primarily in
vertical programs like database servers and applications that connect micros
to mainframes. According to Anders Vinberg, senior vice president of
research and development, "OS/2 2.0 is a more robust development environment,
but there is not a compelling desktop retail demand."

Even Paul Grayson, chairman and ceo of Micrografx, is cautious. Micrografx
is developing the OS/2 graphics kernel in partnership with IBM and will soon
ship PM Draw, a port of Windows Draw. "It was easy to make the port, but
it's a lot more expensive to market and advertise a product than to port it,"
he says. Although Micrografx announced plans to bring Charisma, Designer,
and Picture Publisher to OS/2, this may not happen anytime soon. Says
Grayson, "If OS/2 takes off, we'll commit more funds. But if it's a slow
burn, we'll concentrate on a single application."

You'll know OS/2 2.0 is a success when Microsoft begins developing OS/2 2.0
applications. When CEO Bill Gates was asked what it would take for Microsoft
to write for OS/2, he said 2 million copies of OS/2 sold in the first
year--"but they'll sell less than 10 percent of that."--Christopher Barr

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #55 *****

Journal: PC Magazine May 12 1992 v11 n9 p107(1)
* Full Text COPYRIGHT Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. 1992.
Title: Can OS/2's shell help crack its market? (new Workplace Shell
feature in OS/2) (Column)
Author: Zachmann, William F.

Abstract: IBM's OS/2 2.0 operating system will either be a great success or
an enormous failure, and much of the future of the computer giant
is riding on whether the product does well in the market. OS/2
2.0 replaces the Presentation Manager graphical interface found in
earlier versions with a new 'Workplace Shell' (WPS) that more
closely resembles the Macintosh desktop metaphor. WPS presents a
new learning curve and may be disconcerting to new users; the
6.167 beta release of OS/2 suffered from some rough edges, but the
problems were largely transitional. OS/2 2.0, unlike earlier
versions, is aimed not solely at high-end workstations and servers
but at end users in general; its more accessible interface is very
important to IBM's marketing plans. It offers an attractive
desktop graphical interface and is likely to be popular with users
who are uncomfortable with both Windows and the DOS command line.
Company: International Business Machines Corp. (Products).
Ticker: IBM.
Product: OS/2 2.0 (Operating system) (Design and construction).
Topic: Operating systems
Software Design
Graphical User Interface.

Record#: 12 076 680.
Full Text:

Can OS/2's Shell Help Crack Its Market?

More Mac-like than the Mac itself, OS/2's desktop environment, the Workplace
Shell, will be pivotal in making or breaking IBM's enhanced operating system.

It's "put up or shut up" time. Either OS/2 will effectively challenge
Windows' claim as the sole heir to DOS, or else it will go the way of TopView
and the PCjr, very possibly taking IBM Corp. down with it.

The new Workplace Shell (WPS) is one of the most controversial aspects of
OS/2 2.0. It will be a key factor in determining whether OS/2 2.0 succeeds
or fails. Was it a mistake for IBM to add this strange new desktop
environment to OS/2 at the eleventh hour?

Not at all. On the contrary, the WPS is one of OS/2 2.0's key strengths. It
will prove to be a great competitive advantage.

The WPS first appeared with the 6.167 beta release of OS/2 2.0 distributed
last October. Unlike the previous release (6.149), which was rock solid,
6.167 had some rough edges. It was unstable and incomplete, and broke some
things that had worked in the previous version.

The WPS was also initially disconcerting, at least to some OS/2 supporters
who were already accustomed to the OS/2 Presentation Manager interface. The
combination of the new object-oriented paradigm of the WPS with the
instability of the 6.167 beta led some to believe that OS/2 2.0 would have
been better off without the WPS.

The problems with 6.167, however, were transitional and were solved.
Furthermore, nearly everyone who tries the WPS finds that the more they use
it, the more they like it.

That's not at all surprising, since the WPS, which borrows the Mac's
file-folder approach, is far more powerful and easier to use than the
Windows-like interface of OS/2 1.x's Presentation Manager. Like the
Macintosh, the WPS presents data files, programs, devices, and folders as
objects to be manipulated directly by the user. It goes beyond the Mac by
providing features such as "menus on demand" via the right mouse button. In
addition, the WPS's drag-and-drop capabilities insulate users from
hierarchical file structures. And its entertainment and productivity
accessories go beyond Windows' accessories.

The Mac-like qualities explain why IBM held up even the internal distribution
of OS/2 2.0 betas that included the WPS until after IBM had concluded its
extensive development and cross-licensing agreements with Apple last
September. The WPS goes much deeper into Apple's claimed intellectual
property rights territory than Microsoft Windows does--and Apple is suing

Windows brought some of the capabilities of the Macintosh to IBM and
compatible systems, but it has always fallen well short of the Mac in being
easy to learn and use. The WPS equals and arguably exceeds what the Mac has
to offer in this respect.

Were OS/2 aimed only at high-end workstations and servers, no one would care.
OS/2 2.0, however, is meant to be a standard desktop operating system in the
home as well as in the office, which makes the Mac-like accessibility of the
WPS very important.

The WPS offers an attractive desktop GUI for the more than 90 percent of DOS
users who still don't use Windows. It offers an easy entr[[acute]]ee to
people who aren't using computers at all. It offers a more powerful GUI
paradigm for Windows users. After you've used the WPS, even the improved
interface of Windows 3.1 seems clunky and boring by comparison.

IBM took a bold step by building the WPS into OS/2 2.0. That gamble is
likely to pay off. It will help to make OS/2 2.0 attractive to users who are
uncomfortable both with the DOS command line and with Microsoft Windows. It
will finally make IBM and compatible systems "as good as the Macintosh" and
as easy for nontechnical people to use.

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #149 *****

Journal: Computer Shopper May 1992 v12 n5 p143(2).
Title: An you thought the PCjr was a dog!: debut of Big Blue's new OS/2 -
they say 'wow,' I say 'bow wow.' (Column)
Author: Levitan, Arlan.

Abstract: Microsoft is bringing even more pressure to bear on IBM by
reducing the retail price of DOS 5, but this is a minor part of
the competition between the two computer giants. IBM is said to
have plans to market its newly-released OS/2 2.0 by sending IBM
employees door-to-door with copies of the operating system and
instructions to give a copy to anyone willing to listen to a
15-minute pitch. This may be the only way that IBM can create an
installed base that will ward off competition from Microsoft
Windows 3.1. Users who receive a free copy of OS/2 2.0 will find
that it is almost worthless. It is over-packaged,
over-documented, and should not be installed on anyone's
Company: International Business Machines Corp. (Products)
Microsoft Corp. (Marketing).
Ticker: IBM; MSFT.
Product: OS/2 2.0 (Operating system) (Usage).
Topic: OS/2
Operating Systems
Pricing Policy

Record#: 12 076 668.

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #154 *****

Journal: Computer Shopper May 1992 v12 n5 p156(2).
Title: IBM may be down, but not out: plenty of fight left in Big Blue for
major 1992 counterattack. (Column)
Author: Wohl, Amy.

Abstract: 1991 was a disappointing year for IBM as revenues and earnings
fell below expectations. Late changes to the design of OS/2 2.0
caused the operating system's ship date to slip and delivery of
the system had to be rescheduled to Mar 1992. Changes at IBM seem
overdue, but the huge computer company moves at a very slow pace,
and to truly change the company, IBM customers would need to be
changed at the same time. Technical people at IBM and at IBM
customer companies need to be retrained to think in terms of
smaller systems in cooperative processing environments. Despite
the company's problems, it shows potential for success even in the
new industry environment. OS/2 is still appealing to many
customers, and its attempts to gain market share are further aided
by the fact that Microsoft Corp will not be able to release a
comparable operating system, NT, until OS/2 2.0 has been on the
market for nine to 18 months. This will give IBM an edge that
Microsoft may find insurmountable.
Company: International Business Machines Corp. (Marketing).
Ticker: IBM.
Topic: Industry Analysis
Customer Relations

Record#: 12 159 101.

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #394 *****

Journal: PC Magazine April 28 1992 v11 n8 p184(2)
* Full Text COPYRIGHT Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. 1992.
Title: Windows NT: the next big step for Windows. (Microsoft Windows NT
operating system)
Author: Petzold, Charles.

Abstract: Microsoft Corp's Windows NT operating system is a 32-bit operating
system which the company hopes to release by the end of 1992 as a
challenger to IBM's OS/2 2.0. The 'NT' stands for 'new
technology.' Windows NT has been designed for portability and will
run on 80386 and 80486 machines as well as DEC workstations based
on MIPS microprocessors. The product will feature a full 32-bit
kernel capable of handling pre-emptive multitasking and multiple
processors. It will run 16-bit Windows programs as well as a
32-bit version of Windows and will offer DOS compatibility.
Windows NT uses the Win32 application programming interface (API)
specification with an improved Graphics Device Interface (GDI).
Advantages of Windows NT will include smooth compatibility with
16-bit Windows, hardware portability and relative ease of
development. Windows NT could be a formidable competitor to Unix
as well as OS/2.
Company: Microsoft Corp. (Product development).
Ticker: MSFT.
Product: Microsoft Windows NT (Operating system) (Design and construction).
Topic: Product Development
Software Design
Operating Systems.

Record#: 12 011 638.
Full Text:

WINDOWS NT: The Next Big Step For Windows

by Charles Petzold

The most puzzling question raised by Windows NT is, Why do we need yet
another operating system when things are confused enough as they are?

Well, when the idea for NT was born, the landscape was very different.

Windows NT (for new technology) is the current name for the new portable
32-bit operating system from Microsoft. For its primary application
environment, Windows NT will feature an enhanced 32-bit version of Windows.
Like Unix, Windows NT has been designed to be portable; the first versions
will run on 80386 and 80486 machines and DEC workstations based on the MIPS
R3000 and R4000 chips. Beta versions of Windows NT have gone in limited
distribution to developers and Microsoft is predicting the retail release by
the end of 1992.


The Windows NT project began at Microsoft about three years ago under the
direction of Dave Cutler, a key designer of VMS (Virtual Memory System) at
Digital Equipment Corp. Windows NT was originally intended to be OS/2 3.0: a
32-bit version of OS/2 that could be ported fairly easily to other
microprocessors, particularly RISC machines and multiprocessor boxes. This
involved redesigning the kernel and writing it in C rather than assembly
language, as well as porting the OS/2 Presentation Manager to a 32-bit

Around the fall of 1990, the Windows NT project changed direction. OS/2
sales were going nowhere and Windows 3.0 sales were going through the roof.
IBM and Microsoft split company; IBM took over OS/2 2.0 but left OS/2 3.0 in
Microsoft's hands. Soon after, Microsoft abandoned Presentation Manager and
decided to put a 32-bit version of Windows into Windows NT instead. What had
been called at various times "OS/2 3.0" and "NT-OS/2" then became known as
"Windows NT."

As it stands now, Windows NT will feature a full 32-bit kernel that can
handle multiple processors and preemptive multitasking. Unlike the
cooperative nonpreemptive multitasking found in Windows today, Windows NT
will not allow one program to hold up the system. Although the primary
application environment will be a 32-bit version of Windows, Windows NT will
also run existing 16-bit Windows programs and DOS programs. Windows NT is
designed to conform to the POSIX standard (a form of Unix often required for
government contracts) and meet government security ratings. Some OS/2
compatibility may also be in Windows NT, although the extent of this seems to
change with the winds.


Windows NT is the first implementation of what Microsoft dubs Win32. Win32
is not a product itself but a specification for an application programming
interface (API). Win32 is a lot like Win16 (the current Windows API) but
expanded to 32 bits with some enhancements.

The most notable enhancement is full preemptive multitasking and
multi-threading. As with OS/2 programs, Windows NT programs can split
themselves into several threads of execution that run simultaneously. Win32
also redefines the internal Windows keyboard and mouse input model to be
asynchronous among applications. This means that a Windows NT program can
receive keyboard and mouse input while another program is still processing
earlier user input. No Windows NT program can hang the rest of the system.

The Windows Graphics Device Interface (GDI) is also being significantly
improved. Many of the graphics features that made the OS/2 Graphics
Programming Interface (GPI) so wonderful--including the graphics rotation
made possible by matrix transforms, the complex curves made possible by
Bezier splines, and useful tricks with lines and areas made possible with
PostScript-type paths--are all part of Win32, as well as support for
halftones and device-independent color. These enhancements bring the Win32
GDI nearly up to the graphical standards established by GPI.

At some point, the Win32 API will also find its way into a DOS-based version
of Windows, but this is not expected until 1993. This DOS-based version of
Windows will require an 80386 or 80486 and will feature the entire Win32 API
(including multi-threading) with the exception of some government security

The ability to continue to run a Win32 version of Windows on top of DOS is
good news for DOS and Windows users who are not yet ready to make the leap to
a new operating system. The good news for developers is that Windows NT
executables are intended to run without modification under this DOS version
of Windows.


Windows NT illustrates the lessons Microsoft has learned from the problems
with OS/2. While it is occasionally reasonable to ask programmers to make

big leaps--such as the leap from DOS character-mode programming to Windows
graphical programming--you cannot come back a couple years later and ask them
to migrate their Windows code to the significantly different OS/2
Presentation Manager.

Many software vendors and corporate programmers had to choose between
developing for Windows and developing for Presentation Manager. The larger
installed base for Windows made the choice obvious, resulting in few
available Presentation Manager applications (and, therefore, fewer reasons
for users to buy it).

Clean breaks are great in theory, but this industry has become so large that
it often moves slowly and cautiously. What we now value are continuity,
consistency, and compatibility. Developers have invested much time and
energy in creating Windows applications. To preserve this investment,
Windows must have a clear future growth path, and that (in part) is Windows

Unlike the OS/2 Presentation Manager, Win32 is a straightforward extension of
the current Windows API. Although translating a 16-bit Windows program to a
32-bit Windows program will not be quite as easy as translating a 16-bit
Presentation Manager program to a 32-bit Presentation Manager program, it
will be much easier than converting a 16-bit Windows program into a 16-bit or
32-bit Presentation Manager program.

And because Windows NT features Windows as its application environment,
getting Windows NT to run existing 16-bit Windows programs should also be
easier, cleaner, more compatible, and more efficient at getting Presentation
Manager to run them.


As two graphics-based 32-bit operating systems, Windows NT and OS/2 2.0 stand
face-to-face in the market. On the one hand, Windows NT will have to catch
up with OS/2's maturity and its growing (but belated) acceptance among users.
On the other hand, the support of a 32-bit Windows API in Windows NT should
give developers much less grief than Presentation Manager and thus prompt the
early availability of Windows NT applications.

Because of its portability to non-Intel architectures, Windows NT could also
be a formidable competitor to Unix. The Windows NT and Unix sideshow may
prove very interesting.

The most intriguing question of all may be whether Windows NT or anything
else can dislodge DOS from its long-standing reign on the desktop.

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #395 *****

Journal: PC Magazine April 28 1992 v11 n8 p192(1)
* Full Text COPYRIGHT Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. 1992.
Title: 32-bit GUI alternatives: no contest. (Unix-based graphical user
Author: Zachmann, William F.

Abstract: Interactive Systems Inc and The Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) both
offer 80386-specific versions of the Unix operating system that
offer graphical user interfaces built into the Unix X Window
system. SCO's Open Desktop includes a complete GUI along with
networking services, the ability to run many DOS applications and
compatibility with some shrink-wrapped Unix programs. Not all DOS
programs will work under Open Desktop, and hardware requirements
are heavy: each user will need at least a 200Mbyte hard disk, half
of which is required for the operating system itself. Sun
Microsystems recently acquired Interactive's Unix business for the
Intel architecture, and its SunSoft division plans to ship the
Solaris 2.0 version of Unix in 3rd qtr 1992. Solaris 2.0 will run
on both Sun's SPARC reduced-instruction-set-computing architecture
and on 386 and 486 processors. NeXTstep 486 is NeXT Inc's new
80486-compatible version of the operating system used on Next
workstations. It will require a 486 with eight to 16 megabytes of
RAM and will occupy 120Mbytes of hard disk space in its user
version and a whopping 400Mbytes in its developer version.
Product: Motif (Graphical user interface) (Design and construction)
Open Desktop (Operating system) (Design and construction).
Topic: 32-Bit
Software Selection
Operating Systems
Graphical User Interface

Record#: 12 011 640.
Full Text:


by William F. Zachmann

IBM's OS/2 2.0 and Microsoft's Windows NT get the lion's share of attention
when the topic is 32-bit GUI (graphical user interface) operating systems for
Intel architecture. But Unix was well ahead of both of these in the race to
bring 32-bit GUI capabilities to Intel-based systems.

Both Interactive Systems and Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) began shipping
386-specific versions of Unix in 1987: the 386/ix and the Xenix 386,
respectively. Before long, both companies moved to more standard offerings
based on Unix International's Unix System V specification (previously AT&T's
SVID specification). Other vendors have subsequently entered the fray.

Prior to 1990, however, the total number of 32-bit Unix installations on
Intel-architecture systems was small. Most of these were used strictly in
character mode. Despite the inclusion of basic GUI capabilities conforming
to the X Window protocol, these early 32-bit Unix versions for IBM PC
compatible systems did not offer a practical GUI environment for more than a
handful of users.

In 1989, that began to change with the introduction of SCO's Unix System
V/386 and its Open Desktop graphical operating system environment. Open
Desktop was the first 32-bit Unix GUI for Intel architecture that was
packaged in a form accessible to ordinary users and that carried a realistic
promise of available shrink-wrap software.

Based on Unix System V, Version 3.2, Open Desktop includes a complete GUI,
networking services, and the ability to run many though not all DOS
applications. Since Open Desktop will run Windows only in Real mode, it is
not a practical environment for Windows.

Open Desktop's system requirements are heavy. It requires an ISA, EISA, or
MCA system with at least an 80386 and 8MB of memory. The operating system
itself requires 100MB of disk space; in practice, each user will need at
least a 200MB hard disk.

The GUI is built on the X Window system and uses the OSF/Motif Window Manager
and Desktop Manager. OSF/Motif is very similar to Windows in behavior, but
has the three-dimensional look of the OS/2 2.0 Workplace Shell. OSF/Motif is
priced at $1,295 for one to two users, and currently there are not many
popular PC apps on the platform.

The primary rival to SCO's Open Desktop is likely to be SunSoft's Solaris
2.0, which is scheduled to ship in the third quarter of 1992. SunSoft, a
subsidiary of Sun Microsystems, recently acquired Interactive Systems' Unix
business for Intel architecture systems. SunSoft also brings Sun's
workstation version of Unix for the RISC-based SPARC (Scalable Processor
Architecture) processor to the Intel desktop as well. Updated to Unix System
V, Version 4, Solaris 2.0 will have the advantages of both the broad base of
applications already developed for Sun workstations and the implementation of
Unix System V, Version 4, at its foundation. Resource requirements for the
Solaris will probably be similar to or slightly greater than those for SCO's
Open Desktop.

Another Unix-related contender is the NeXTstep 486, from NeXT. Built on the
Macintosh operating system kernel, the object-oriented NeXTstep is an Intel
architecture version of the much praised (if little bought) operating system
developed for Steve Job's NeXT computers. NeXTstep will require an 80486
with 8MB to 16MB of RAM. The user version will occupy 120MB of disk space;
the developer version will need a whopping 400MB.

What are the prospects for these and other Unix-related 32-bit GUI operating
systems on the Intel desktop? Probably no more than modest success. All
require system resources well beyond what OS/2 2.0 does. They even make
Windows NT look like a comparative lightweight in that regard. None offers
more than limited backward compatibility for DOS and Windows software. All
cost more than OS/2 2.0, and Windows NT is likely to be priced well below
them, as well. NeXTstep, for example, costs $995; OS/2 costs $195.

SCO's Open Desktop, SunSoft's Solaris 2.0, and NeXT's NeXTstep 486 will have
some success, particularly in shops where Unix is already used in one form or
another. They will probably enjoy success in vertical markets with custom
applications; in fact, OS/2 2.0 will have to compete strongly with them for
this market. But between the system resource demands and the lack of
mainstream applications, these 32-bit contenders have a way to go before they
provide any serious competition.

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #555 *****

Journal: The New York Times April 21 1992 v141 pB10(N) pC10(L) 18 col in.
Title: High hopes for the new OS/2. (IBM's OS/2 2.0 operating system)
(Personal Computers) (Column)
Author: Lewis, Peter H.

Abstract: IBM's OS/2 2.0 operating system is highly impressive and robust
but its market acceptance can be stymied by its power
requirements. The minimum configuration for operating the new
OS/2 includes 4Mbytes of RAM, a 60Mbyte hard disk and an Intel
80386SX-based or higher microprocessor. While IBM had made sure
that the new version is easy to install and use, the automatic
installation process needs 31Mbytes of hard disk space. With a
40Mbyte hard disk, which is what the average PC has, there is not
enough room for data or applications. OS/2 2.0's marketability is
also determined by the availability of useful applications,
including data bases, spreadsheets, word processors and E-mail.
IBM claims that more than 2,500 OS/2 applications are available
while about 1,200 are forthcoming. General-purpose OS/2
applications are scarce, however. Despite the operating system's
ability to run more than 20,000 MS-DOS and Windows programs, it
still has to compete with Windows, which could run the same
programs and requires less hardware investments.
Company: International Business Machines Corp. (Marketing).
Ticker: IBM.
Product: OS/2 2.0 (Operating system) (Design and construction).
Topic: Operating systems
Marketing Strategy
Software Design.

Record#: 12 171 329.

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #744 *****

Journal: PC Week April 20 1992 v9 n16 p80(1)
* Full Text COPYRIGHT Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. 1992.
Title: Marketing glitz can't hide Win 3.1's shortcomings. (Microsoft
Windows 3.1) (Up Front) (Column)
Author: Zachmann, William F.

Abstract: Microsoft Corp's Microsoft Windows 3.1 graphical user interface
may not be able to compete as effectively against IBM's OS/2 2.0
operating system as it initially expected. Microsoft Windows 3.1
suffers from a lack of firepower. In addition, Microsoft's
marketing efforts cannot shadow the application's limitations.
For example, Unrecoverable Application Errors in Windows 3.0 have
not been completely eliminated in 3.1. Instead, they are now
called General Protection Fault errors. In addition, Microsoft
Windows 3.1 suffers from application incompatibility. In
contrast, OS/2 2.0 runs MS-DOS applications better than Microsoft
Windows 3.1 and runs Microsoft Windows 3.0 as well as 3.1, if not
better. OS/2 2.0 also is appealing because it features OS/2
applications, such as DeScribe or HyperAccess 5.
Company: Microsoft Corp. (Marketing)
International Business Machines Corp. (Marketing).
Product: Microsoft Windows 3.1 (Graphical user interface) (Design and
OS/2 2.0 (Operating system) (Design and construction).
Topic: Comparison
Operating systems
Graphical user interface.

Record#: 12 163 817.
Full Text:

When is a UAE not a UAE? When it is a GPF. Therein lies an important clue
to the likely course of the IBM/Microsoft battle for the desktop over the
next few months. Windows sorely lacks needed firepower and is far worse
equipped for the battle with OS/2 than anyone suspected.

A UAE, of course, is the famous "Unrecoverable Application Error" in Windows
3.0. Elimination of UAEs was highly touted as being one of the major
advantages of Windows 3.1.

The problem, however, is that UAEs didn't go away. They were simply renamed
and handled (usually) a bit more gracefully.

What was a UAE under Windows 3.0 is now called a GPF under Windows 3.1 -- GPF
stands for "General Protection Fault."

True, a GPF doesn't always take down the system, but then a UAE didn't
always, either. True, when a program crashes with a GPF, Windows 3.1 will
generally be able to determine some details about why it crashed and usually
(but not always) be able to terminate the program more gracefully.

Microsoft may call it by whatever name it pleases. Nevertheless, as a very
large number of users eager to try Windows 3.1 have discovered for
themselves, the reality remains: the practical consequences of a GPF aren't
really much different from those of a UAE.

The expectations Microsoft created for Windows 3.1 were very high; the
reality falls considerably short.

And that's not the greatest discrepancy between promise and reality in
Windows 3.1. Application compatibility is a much more serious problem.

Promises of Compatibility

Microsoft had promised that existing DOS and Windows drivers would run
without difficulty with Windows 3.1.

The company's "Focus On Windows" upgrade brochure, mailed just over a month
ago, poses the question: "I have a lot of applications I run with Windows
3.0. Will I be able to run them with Windows 3.1?"

Microsoft answered that question as follows: "Yes. Complete compatibility
with applications for Windows 3.0 was a design goal for Windows 3.1.
Microsoft is working closely with applications developers to test their
applications with Windows 3.1, and in some cases has made changes to Windows
to enable an application to run more reliably."

The reality, however, is that literally hundreds of messages appeared on
Microsoft's WINNEW and WINADV forums on CompuServe within the first few days
after Windows 3.1 was shipped, with users reporting "broken" applications.

Microsoft's promise for Windows 3.1 of smooth compatibility with all DOS and
Windows 3.0 applications clearly has not been kept.

IBM's OS/2 2.0, meanwhile, easily runs DOS applications much better than
Windows 3.1 does. OS/2 2.0 also appears to run Windows 3.0 applications at
least as well, if not better.

Preliminary indications are that compatibility problems for Windows 3.0
applications are greater with Windows 3.1 than they are with OS/2 2.0.

OS/2 2.0 also has something that Windows doesn't have at all: OS/2

Just a little experience with real OS/2 applications like DeScribe or
HyperAcccess 5 is enough to give any normal user a taste for more. Software
vendors are already scrambling to get on the OS/2 bandwagon.

Therefore, at least until Windows NT is ready to be shipped, Microsoft's
Windows juggernaut looks badly underpowered relative to OS/2 2.0.

Windows is like an Abrams M1A1 tank with a Volkswagen engine and a popgun in
the turret. No amount of noise from the tubas and trombones in Microsoft's
marketing band is sufficient to drown out that reality.

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #745 *****

Journal: PC Week April 20 1992 v9 n16 p81(1)
* Full Text COPYRIGHT Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. 1992.
Title: Suppose OSs were presidential candidates ... (comparison of
various operating systems) (Looking Forward) (Column)
Author: Catchings, Bill; Van Name, Mark L.

Abstract: Industry observers report that there is increasing competition
among operating systems in the computer software industry. A
tongue-in-cheek analysis reveals that the entire industry can be
paralleled to the 1992 presidential campaign by matching up
presidential candidates with operating system 'candidates.' For
example, MS-DOS, the 'George Bush' of operating systems is
appealing to the largest group of people and it does enough to
maintain its appeal. In contrast, OS/2, the 'Paul Tsongas' of
operating systems, is technically sound, but it needs better
marketing to raise its appeal. Other candidates/operating systems
profiled include Bill Clinton/Windows 3.1, Mario Cuomo/Unix, Jerry
Brown/Macintosh, Pat Buchanan/DR DOS and Bill Bradley/Windows NT.
Topic: Humor
Industry Analysis
Software Publishers
Market Analysis
Operating systems.

Record#: 12 163 819.
Full Text:

Comdex/Spring was rife with evidence of the escalating competition for the
operating-system votes of desktop-computer users. At the same time,
newspapers were full of stories of the competition among the presidential

We couldn't help but notice some similarities between these two groups.

Check out a few of these pairs and see if you don't find the resemblances
uncanny. Like the presidential primaries, the operating-system race changes
frequently and often speaks less to the virtues of its candidates than to
their marketing appeal. Studying these operating systems -- and these
presidential hopefuls -- in this new light can be informative and

George Bush/MS-DOS

This incumbent appeals to the lowest common denominator in all of us. It
doesn't do much, but it doesn't have to do much: By today's low standards, it
does enough. Like a cheap watch, this candidate has taken a licking and
still manages to keep on ticking. And, even after years on its own, it still
shows the strong influence of its mentor and predecessor, Ronald Reagan/CP/M.

Pat Buchanan/DR DOS

Few believed this challenger would ever be a serious contender, and they were
right. Still, it gave the incumbent a few good scares and has its own loyal
followers. This candidate has made its mark trying to be all the incumbent
ever was or ever promised to be.

Bill Clinton/ Windows 3.1

Beneath an attractive surface that seems to offer a lot of new ideas lies a
core remarkably like the incumbent's.

Questions about the past and the background of this challenger are constantly
surfacing, but so far it's the clear front-runner in the opposing camp. With
plenty of appearances before the press and its face cropping up everywhere,
this candidate sports the strongest marketing effort to date.

Paul Tsongas/OS/2

Just when you were ready to count out this candidate, weaknesses in the
front-runners and a strong showing in the big cities gave it a fresh new
start. With the strongest technical underpinnings of the group, this
contender still needs better marketing and more polish. In a race so far
based more on style than substance, it has to hope that it has the best real
stuff and that people care.

Jerry Brown/Macintosh OS

From California comes the candidate for the rest of us, an aging new-age
contender with a slick surface and a bunch of novel ideas. This contender
does well in public appearances, often scoring particularly good marks for
appearance. While too far from the mainstream for most, this contender
nonetheless has inspired many loyal followers.

We also found two other operating systems that, like their human
counterparts, aren't ready to make a serious run in this election but are
planning to get into the race soon. You may be able to ignore these two for
now, but don't be surprised if they become big players in the future.

Bill Bradley/Windows NT

This new face is attracting a great deal of attention and a lot of hope.
People are ready for a change, and they're hoping this entrant, with
relatively few ties to the past, will provide a fresh beginning. Anything
with a background as strong and varied as this one's has to be at least worth

Mario Cuomo/Unix

This potential candidate is on the verge of entering the race, but never
quite enters it. From the way this one moves, many observers have concluded
that it's waiting for the world to offer it the job. They also say this one
has everything you could want in a candidate -- if only it could get its own
house in order.

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #746 *****

Journal: PC Week April 20 1992 v9 n16 p84(1)
* Full Text COPYRIGHT Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. 1992.
Title: MS hardware strategy poses thorny questions. (Microsoft Corp.'s
plans to make Microsoft Windows the standard for desktop hardware)
(Mind the Gap) (Column)
Author: Louderback, Jim.

Abstract: Microsoft Corp reveals plans to push for Microsoft Windows to be
the determining standard for desktop hardware. It believes that
by making Microsoft Windows the standard, hardware developers will
be able to maximize the benefits of Microsoft Windows and to move
away from the out-of-date IBM PC microcomputer standard. In
addition, only one Windows device driver will need to be composed.
Observers indicate that should Microsoft Windows become the
standard, superfast displays will probably result, as well as
innovative drive technology and file systems. In addition, firms
that elect to standardize on only Microsoft Windows will be able
to create inexpensive systems that can run Microsoft Windows with
great speed. However, there are problems with the strategy. For
example, users may have to write their own drivers to use other
operating systems on Microsoft Windows-only machines.
Company: Microsoft Corp. (Marketing).
Product: Microsoft Windows 3.1 (Graphical user interface) (Usage).
Topic: Standardization
Strategic Planning

Record#: 12 163 821.
Full Text:

At the Windows Hardware Conference early last month, Microsoft unveiled plans
for making Windows the defining standard for desktop hardware. Does this
strategy bridge or widen the technology gap?

What is MS trying to do? It is vying for the hearts and minds of component
makers and hardware manufacturers. The goal is simple: Make Windows the
primary standard for both desktop and server computing.

The logic goes something like this:

In the '80s the IBM PC was the standard. Standard bus, standard video (mono,
CGA, EGA and VGA), standard drives and controllers, and standard processors.
As the PC market developed, hardware manufacturers were, in the main, left to
compete based on price, not on innovative design. Software manufacturers
were the ones who got to have all the fun and be creative.

Microsoft wants the '90s to be defined by the Windows standard.
Theoretically, this will free hardware developers from the chains of the IBM
PC standard and allow them to creatively maximize Windows performance. In
this scenario, only one device driver (for Windows) has to be written. So,
for instance, a graphics-board manufacturer can escape the confines of EGA
and VGA and build a killer video subsystem. Or a sound-board manufacturer
can build a quadraphonic stereo board without worrying about wooing game
manufacturers. All they have to do is develop a single killer driver for 3.1
and NT. Applications will write to Windows, and the hardware driver will,

So does this widen the gap or narrow it? Obviously Microsoft isn't being
altruistic, although this freedom does allow for some interesting concepts to
be realized. We can expect some super-fast displays, truly innovative file
systems and drive technology, bizarre pointing devices and interesting add-in
cards. For companies planning to standardize on Windows (and only Windows),
this could be great: fast, cheap systems that run Windows like greased

According to Nathan Mhyrvold, Microsoft's vice president of technology,
Windows now allows us to have multiple independent input and display devices
simultaneously active. This freedom can dramatically narrow the gap between
what we want and what we can do. Imagine having a white board hooked up to
Micrografx Designer, along with your monitor, a mouse and a keyboard. Or
what about having a separate pen-based Windows control panel, along with your
keyboard, mouse and monitor. Two independent displays -- one running an
overhead and one with your speaker notes -- would be great for presentations.

The gap begins to widen, however, when you want to run a competing GUI or
character-based operating system. Each non-Windows OS requires a separate
driver. Will the OS vendor do it? Maybe, if the hardware has a large market
share or a major customer requires it. Will the hardware manufacturers? Not
likely, since most hardware companies operate on a shoestring already. If
you buy a Windows-only machine and want to run NextStep, OS/2 2.0, Pick, GEM,
GeoWorks or Solaris, you may just have to write the driver yourself. Have

There are other problems with this strategy as well. Besides the obvious
power that it gives to Microsoft Windows and, by association, Microsoft
applications, the strategy depends on the drivers that couple the innovative
hardware designs to Windows and NT. Older versions of OS/2 withered on the
vine largely due to a lack of hardware drivers.

Most of the drivers available for Windows now are of relatively low quality.
Hardware engineers view writing drivers as menial labor, best assigned to
summer interns or new hires. Many driver developers followed the examples in
the original Windows 3.0 driver development kit, which were horrendously bad.
Basing your hardware strategy on innovative and high-quality device drivers
might widen the gap a bit too far.

Next week: a look at two of the new products to come from Microsoft's
hardware-independence strategy.

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #756 *****

Journal: PC Week April 20 1992 v9 n16 p127(2)
* Full Text COPYRIGHT Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. 1992.
Title: IBM hoping for long-term bang for OS/2 buck. (OS/2 2.0 operating
system) (Business)
Author: Scheier, Robert L.

Abstract: IBM expects a slow, steady growth for its new $195 operating
system OS/2 2.0 rather than an initial surge. The company hopes
to use OS/2 to regain market dominance of the microcomputer
software market that it lost to Microsoft Corp. OS/2 2.0 is
designed to run Microsoft Windows applications seamlessly through
the incorporation of Windows code, for which IBM pays a royalty of
an estimated $20-$25 per copy of OS/2 2.0 sold. In an attempt to
woo Microsoft customers to the new interface, IBM is offering $49
competitive upgrades to Windows users. Development costs for OS/2
2.0 are thought to be between $100 million and $200 million, but
IBM will easily recoup them if a significant share of the 20
million IBM-compatible microcomputers sold yearly have the system
on-board. More importantly, the success of OS/2 2.0 will
encourage users to purchase related IBM products for networking
and other applications.
Company: International Business Machines Corp. (Marketing).
Ticker: IBM.
Product: OS/2 2.0 (Operating system) (Marketing).
Topic: Operating systems
Marketing Strategy
Product Development
Market Share.
Feature: illustration

Record#: 12 076 368.
Full Text:

IBM's OS/2 may not be an overnight success, but that's just fine with the $65
billion computer giant.

IBM officials insist they will easily sell enough copies of OS/2 2.0 to
recoup their investment. However, some observers say the company's bigger
goal is to use OS/2 to regain control of the PC industry and help sell other
IBM products and services to corporate America.

"OS/2 is not being built as a potential profit center on its own," said Ken
Wasch, executive director of the Software Publishers Association in
Washington. "Instead, it's part of a larger strategy to maintain control, or
to wrest control, of the corporate desktop away from Microsoft."

After spending what some observers estimate is hundreds of millions of
dollars developing OS/2, IBM has watched Microsoft Corp.'s Windows 3.1 take
the early sales lead. What's worse, IBM has paid the Redmond, Wash., firm an
estimated $20 to $25 in royalties for every copy of OS/2 sold, and because
the latest version contains Windows code, Microsoft is looking to increase
that payment to $25 to $30, according to Michael Kwatinetz, a research
analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., a New York investment bank.

Royalty payments alone account for half of IBM's introductory price of $49
for Windows users moving to OS/2. The suggested retail price for the
operating system is $195.

IBM won't disclose development costs for OS/2, but Kwatinetz estimates that
the Armonk, N.Y., firm doled out $100 million to $200 million to create its
pivotal operating system.

With 20 million IBM-compatible PCs being sold each year, "there's clearly
room for more than one operating system," said Lee Reiswig, assistant general
manager of programming for IBM Personal Systems in Boca Raton, Fla. "If you
sell 10 million systems [with OS/2 installed], you don't have to charge much
money to easily cover your development costs."

He predicted that IBM will "very easily ... make a substantial profit on
what we spent on OS/2."

Other IBM officials and observers said that under the company's newly
decentralized structure, OS/2 has to make money on its own or IBM will stop
investing in it.

Profits aside, the real potential for OS/2 is its ability to "pull through"
sales of other IBM products and services to an OS/2 customer, said Frank
Dzubeck, president of Communications Network Architects Inc., a Washington
consulting firm.

Among those other products and services, he said, are software-development
tools, network-management products and the systems-integration work needed to
create large, complex networks based on OS/2 workstations or servers.

"OS/2 is the platform IBM and others are delivering their ... tools on for
network management, application development and LAN support," said John
Chapman, a senior technology consultant with Amoco Corp., a petroleum and
chemicals firm in Chicago.

Amoco has already developed a number of applications for OS/2 1.3, he said,
and finds it attractive both as a PC operating system and because of its
links to the IBM networks and host computers Amoco owns.

To make its OS/2 gamble pay off, IBM must switch its large accounts to OS/2,
persuade hardware vendors to bundle OS/2 on their systems and induce major
software vendors to develop 32-bit applications that take full advantage of
the OS/2 environment, observers said.

IBM is making good progress with its own large accounts, observers said, but
faces slower going among other PC vendors and software developers.

"IBM clearly has a better technical product, but Microsoft is out-marketing
them," said Rick Martin, a senior vice president with The Chicago Corp., a
Chicago investment services firm. "If I had to bet, I'd put my money on
Microsoft continuing to outmarket them."

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #1135 *****

Journal: Computer Reseller News April 13 1992 n469 p1(2).
Title: First punches land in Windows, OS/2 fight. (report on Windows
World and Comdex/Spring trade shows)
Author: Rohm, Wendy Goldman; Shore, Joel.

Abstract: Attendees of the Comdex/Spring and Windows World trade shows in
Chicago were faced with unprecedented promotional barrages from
IBM and Microsoft Corp, for OS/2 2.0 and Microsoft Windows 3.1,
respectively. Free items featuring the Windows logo include
T-shirts, lapel pins, canteens, automobile sunshades and pens.
Both corporations loudly trumpeted their development plans for
their respective products. IBM promised OS/2 2.0 would be
compatible with 32-bit Windows applications and forthcoming
Windows NT applications. Microsoft executive president Steve
Ballmer unexpectedly dropped in at IBM's booth and questioned
whether OS/2 2.0 is a true 32-bit operating system. However, an
IBM programmer reminded Ballmer that Microsoft and IBM had both
agreed that that OS/2 would be a hybrid 16-bit/32-bit product.
Users and analysts praised OS/2, but questioned whether IBM would
be able to match Microsoft's marketing capabilities.
Company: Microsoft Corp. (Marketing)
International Business Machines Corp. (Marketing).
Product: Microsoft Windows 3.1 (Graphical user interface) (Marketing)
OS/2 2.0 (Operating system) (Marketing).
Topic: Comdex-Spring
Promotion of Product
Operating systems.
Feature: illustration

Record#: 12 168 103.

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #1162 *****

Journal: Computer Reseller News April 13 1992 n469 p60(1).
Title: OS/2 tools market continues to generate steam. (new OS/2 2.0
development tools slated to be released)
Author: Clancy, Heather.

Abstract: A variety of languages and program development tools for the
32-bit OS/2 2.0 are under development or have recently been
released. Burlington, MA-based Easel Corp is porting its Easel
Workbench development environment to OS/2 2.0. The price will be
$11,900. No availability date has been set for the product.
Borland International Inc of Scotts Valley, CA, plans to release
an OS/2 2.0-compatible version of its C++ compiler in 1992.
Borland is also working on an OS/2 2.0 version of ObjectVision,
its forms-based application development system. Belmont, CA-based
Guild Products Inc debuts Guild 2.1 for OS/2 2.0. The $2,995
product is designed for developing graphical user interfaces.
Boca Raton, FL-based SE International Inc is readying an OS/2 2.0
version of its Primary Window Class development tool for C
programmers. Price is $420 per workstation. Enfin Software Corp
of San Diego, CA, is developing a 32-bit version of its Enfin/2
object-oriented development tool for SmallTalk.
Company: Guild Products Inc. (Product introduction)
Easel Corp. (Product development)
SE International Inc. (Product development)
Enfin Software Corp. (Product development).
Product: Guild 2.1 (Program development software) (Product introduction)
OS/2 2.0 (Operating system) (Computer programs)
Easel Workbench (CASE software) (Product development)
PrimaryWindow Class (Program development software) (Product
Enfin/2 (Program development software) (Product development)
ObjectVision (Program development software) (Product development).
Topic: Product Introduction
Product Development
C Programming Language
Program development software
Computer-aided software engineering

Record#: 12 168 157.

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #1224 *****

Journal: EDGE: Work-Group Computing Report April 13 1992 v3 n99 p20(1)
* Full Text COPYRIGHT EDGE Publishing 1992.
Title: Windows NT: ISVs express unprecedented support: 50 software
demonstrations at Windows World. (independent software vendors,
Windows NT operating system)
Company: Microsoft Corp. (Products).
Product: Microsoft Windows NT (Operating system) (Computer programs).
Topic: Vendor Relations
Product Development
Software Publishers
Operating systems
Third-Party Vendors.

Record#: 12 163 743.
Full Text:

In a significant display of support, independent software vendors (ISVs) last
week demonstrated more than 50 applications for the Microsoft Windows NT
operating system, only five months after software developers received the
first version of the 32-bit, high-end operating system.

The demonstrations covered a sweeping range of software -- including PC
productivity, servers, workstation applications and development tools -- from
leading developers for the MS-DOS, Windows, OS/2, UNIX and Macintosh
platforms. Vendors demonstrated applications on a comprehensive range of
computers including laptops, desktop PCs, RISC-based workstations and
multiprocessor systems, demonstrating Microsoft has achieved the scalable
architecture it promised for Windows NT. Participating vendors included
AutoDesk, ComputerVision, Corel, Digital Equipment, Easel, Frame Technology,
Micrografx, Oracle and WATCOM.

"With Windows NT, Microsoft will be able to provide its customers an
industrial strength operating system for their strategic applications," said
Paul Maritz, senior vice president, systems division at Microsoft. "The
number of ISVs demonstrating applications today illustrates the success of
the first phase in our introduction of Windows NT: limited shipment to
software developers. This will be followed by an extensive beta program to
ensure customers receive the best product possible when the final version is

WINDOWS NT DESIGNED FOR EASY PORTABILITY To make it easy for vendors to port
to the Windows NT operating system, Microsoft made the Win32 API a true
superset of the 16-bit version, letting vendors gain added functionality
without rewriting existing code. To further aid developers, Microsoft has:

-- Established a Porting Labs facility at its Redmond, Wa. headquarters.
More than 30 vendors have visited the lab. Everyone has successfully
implemented NT operating system code during the consultation -- some, such as
NewQuest Technology with its personal information manager software, Ascend,
ported their application to Windows NT on a MIPS RISC machine in one hour.

-- Distributed preliminary versions of Windows NT to 400 sites in 12
countries to date.

-- Offered its Windows NT Software Development Kit since late last year and
has held seminars on Windows NT development.

"32-bit computing is fast becoming a competitive requirement and Win32 is a
crucial step in making 32-bit computing a reality for Windows developers,"
said Lyle Griffin, vice president of development at Micrografx. Micrografx
has been very active in working with early versions of Windows NT and is
demonstrating a 32-bit version of DRAW running on Windows NT at Winworld.

Windows NT-based applications included high- end supplier Frame Technology, a
leading UNIX publishing software supplier; CAD/CAM vendors ComputerVision and
Automated Methods; and scientific house Wolfram Mathematics. The ability of
users to access UNIX software with the ease-of-use associated with Windows
can help these companies attract and retain mainstream users. "Supporting
Windows NT is an important, strategic move for us," said Pat House, senior
vice president of product engineering and marketing at Frame Technology,
developer of FrameMaker for Windows 3.1 and Windows NT. "With Windows NT,
Frame is now able to bring it's sophisticated 32-bit GUI application to the
world of PC desktops."

OFFERING MAXIMUM CONNECTIVITY Demonstrated Windows NT-based applications also
included connectivity solutions necessary for successful client-server
computing. Demonstrated solutions from DynaComm, HyperACCESS, NetManage,
Spectragraphics and Wall Data support Windows NT connectivity via TCP/IP, X
Windows, IBM 3270 and asynchronous communications. "Computers are not just
becoming more powerful, they're allowing organizations to work in new and
more productive ways," said John Wall, executive vice president of Wall Data,
developer of Rumba connectivity software. "Windows NT will support workgroup
software, database servers and enterprise-wide connectivity, making it an
ideal client-server and networking platform. In addition, Windows NT extends
Windows to workstations, which will bring native Windows-based applications,
such as Rumba, to a whole new class of corporate users."

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #1256 *****

Journal: EDGE: Work-Group Computing Report April 13 1992 v3 n99 p53(1)
* Full Text COPYRIGHT EDGE Publishing 1992.
Title: OS/2 2.0: IBM reports strong response to OS/2 2.0 announcement.
Company: International Business Machines Corp. (Products).
Product: OS/2 2.0 (Operating system) (Marketing).
Topic: Marketing Strategy
Operating systems.

Record#: 12 179 581.
Full Text:

April 5, 1992, Just 72 hours after the announcement of OS/2 Version 2.0, the
telephone calls to IBM's OS/2 2.0 toll-free telephone order center have
exceeded the company's best expectations.

IBM's order center has received thousands of calls for OS/2 2.0 since the
availability of the product was announced. The order number,
1-800-3-IBM-OS2, is designed to complement IBM Business Partners who carry
OS/2 2.0 and offers users an alternative option for obtaining the new
operating system software.

"We are delighted with the initial customer response for OS/2 2.0," said
Michael Coleman, vice president, product marketing, IBM's National
Distribution Division. "We appreciate the patience of those callers
contacting the OS/2 2.0 order center. We are now doubling our order center
staff to handle the strong user response to the OS/2 2.0 announcement."

Through July 31, 1992 current Windows users can purchase OS/2 2.0 for $49,
any DOS user can upgrade to OS/2 2.0 for $99 and new users can purchase OS/2
2.0 for $139.

Capable of exploiting today's advanced hardware, 32-bit 0S/2 2.0 offers true
multitasking, allowing concurrent execution of multiple software programs.
OS/2 2.0 ships with over 25 utility, entertainment and personal productivity
mini-applications such as Calendar, NotePad, Calculator and To-Do list.
AdobeType Manager for both Windows and OS/2 environments is also included.
OS/2 2.0's Workplace Shell is a graphical user interface (GUI) featuring an
innovative design that delivers advanced function with drag-and-drop
simplicity. OS/2 2.0 is supported by HelpWare the most comprehensive service
and support program in the personal computer industry. OS/2 and PS/2 users
and interested potential users may contact the HelpCenter at 1-800-PS2-2227.

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #1452 *****

Journal: PC Week April 13 1992 v9 n15 p70(1)
* Full Text COPYRIGHT Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. 1992.
Title: OS buyers should test-drive both Win 3.1, OS/2. (Up Front)
Author: Zachmann, William F.

Abstract: Both Microsoft Corp's Windows 3.1 graphical interface and IBM's
OS/2 2.0 operating system are sophisticated products; each has
advantages and disadvantages, and potential buyers should try both
before making a decision. Such a buying strategy would benefit
the industry as well as individual users, who would avoid making
hasty commitments. Both products are being offered at the
introductory price of $49, which makes it affordable for users to
buy evaluation copies of both. Users who select one system or the
other may have to live with it throughout the 1990s. Transition
is more difficult if a user decides to switch systems after much
time has passed. Microsoft and IBM want users to choose their
operating system at once, but users should take control of their
own buying strategies.
Company: Microsoft Corp. (Marketing)
International Business Machines Corp. (Marketing).
Ticker: MSFT; IBM.
Product: Microsoft Windows 3.1 (Graphical user interface) (Marketing)
OS/2 2.0 (Operating system) (Marketing).
Topic: Operating systems
Software Design
Software Selection
User Needs

Record#: 12 052 822.
Full Text:

Microsoft Windows 3.1 and IBM OS/2 2.0 give us, as users, a clear and
worthwhile choice. I don't want to tell you which to choose. I do want to
urge you to be sure to examine both options thoroughly.

The intense competition between Microsoft and IBM over Windows and OS/2 will
ultimately benefit users and will benefit the industry as well -- but only if
we give ourselves the opportunity to kick the tires on both options before we
commit ourselves to one or to the other.

We need to "try before we buy," even if that means that we buy and try both
before we decide what operating system we want to run on our own desktop and
in our own organization. We owe it to ourselves to make a choice based on
the products themselves.

Fortunately, with both Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0 available, for all intents
and purposes, for only $49, the cost to buy and try both before we decide
will be affordable for the majority of users. Even for individual users, $98
isn't very much to spend to find out what these two products are really like.

For organizations, the cost is much lower. They don't need to buy 1,000
copies of Windows 3.1 and 1,000 copies of OS/2 2.0 if they have 1,000
personal computers. They can simply buy a few copies of each and pass them
around for different users to evaluate.

Twenty or 30 copies of Windows 3.1 and of OS/2 2.0 will probably be
sufficient to evaluate both products for every 1,000 personal computers in
most organizations. That amounts to about $2,500 in direct product costs.

Even figuring on 100 copies of each for evaluation for every 1,000 personal
computers, the total direct product cost would still only be $9,800. Those
who really want to pinch pennies, of course, need only buy one copy of each
for evaluation. They ought, at the very least, to do that.

True, it will also take time to try out the alternatives. True, time is
money. There is a cost to the organization for the time users spend
evaluating Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0.

That cost, however, is very small compared with the cost of making the wrong
choice. Even more than with individual applications, the choice of an
operating system is a very long-term commitment for a user. Most of us
haven't had to make that choice since we began using DOS years ago.

The choice we make now is a choice we are likely to live with for most of the
remainder of the 1990s. Sure, we will be free to switch later on. The
longer we use one option, though, the more difficult it will be to switch to
another later on.

Both Microsoft and IBM would, of course, like us to choose immediately. Both
would, of course, like us to choose their own product. There is, however, no
reason for us to choose in haste and repent at leisure. We owe it to
ourselves to do better than that.

Neither ought we to choose based upon how big or how numerous the ads are,
what we read or what the various industry prognosticators (yours truly
included) say about Windows and OS/2. That is all relevant background
material but is insufficient for us to make an intelligent choice.

"He who tastes, knows," as the old saying goes. There is no reason why we
should take anybody else's word for it when it is so easy and so inexpensive
for us to find out for ourselves. To do that, we need direct experience with
both Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0. Only then can we make an informed choice for
ourselves and for our organizations.

We are at a turning point in our use of personal computers. We face the most
important choice we've had to make since we first started using PCs. Whether
we decide to go with Windows or OS/2 (or reject both of them in favor of the
Macintosh or Unix or some other alternative), let's make our choice wisely.
Let's make our choice based on direct experience with the alternatives.

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #1775 *****

Journal: Computer Reseller News April 6 1992 n468 p7(2).
Title: IBM, Microsoft go head-to-head: channel seen as key to successful
marketing of OS/2, Windows 3.1. (the OS/2 2.0 operating system
versus the Microsoft Windows 3.1 graphical user interface) (News)
Author: Gillooly, Brian; Rohm, Wendy Goldman.

Abstract: IBM Corp, which is distributing its OS/2 operating system, plans
to battle against Microsoft Corp for market share on several
fronts. Microsoft is digging in, preparing to defend its
already-established Windows customer base, which is very large:
Microsoft says that to date it has shipped about 10 million copies
of its popular graphical user interface (GUI) program. IBM is
expected to outline a marketing strategy at Comdex/Spring. IBM's
plans are said to include promotional pricing, user rebates,
dealer financing and soft-dollar funds. IBM will offer deferred
accounts-receivable terms to reseller to encourage them to 'load
up.' IBM will offer cash incentives of $100 for every ten copies
sold to dealer sales representatives and will give away free demo
copies to each of the company's 2,200 resellers. The promotional
effort, said to be the biggest in IBM's history, even includes
cash and prizes for IBM employees, who are encouraged to tell
friends, relatives and acquaintances about OS/2 2.0. Microsoft is
responding by strengthening its services and support. Microsoft
has put its Certified Professional Partners (CPP) program into
place, which aims to train people who need to understand how to
use or demonstrate Windows.
Company: International Business Machines Corp. (Marketing)
Microsoft Corp. (Marketing).
Ticker: IBM; MSFT.
Product: OS/2 2.0 (Operating system) (Marketing)
Microsoft Windows 3.1 (Graphical user interface) (Marketing).
Topic: Marketing Strategy
Promotion of Product
Graphical user interface
Operating systems.

Record#: 12 063 628.

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #1799 *****

Journal: Computer Reseller News April 6 1992 n468 p87(1).
Title: OS/2 market may now grow faster than the overcrowded Windows
arena. (The Third Degree: Opinion, News and Reviews) (News )
Author: Rohm, Wendy Goldman.

Abstract: IBM Corp will introduce its OS/2 2.0 operating system at
Comdex/Spring, in the week of Apr 6, 1992, and archrival Microsoft
Corp will be there too, showing the Microsoft Windows 3.1
graphical user interface (GUI). The confrontation that will begin
at Comdex/Spring will be one of the biggest and most significant
confrontations that the industry has seen thus far, and both
products are good ones. Some large developers, including Lotus
Development Corp, Borland International Inc, WordPerfect Corp and
Micrografx Inc, have decided to publish software for both
marketplaces, pending a definitive outcome. Industry observers
believe that IBM's early successes are likely to be in large
corporations. If IBM can take 20 percent of the Windows market
during the next 18 months, they think, it will signify an
impressive success for IBM. In any event, competition between IBM
and Microsoft is likely to benefit both end users and the overall
industry. Some developers hope that IBM achieves a sufficient
success with OS/2 2.0 so that the giant company is moved to
increase its efforts instead of giving up.
Company: International Business Machines Corp. (Market share)
Microsoft Corp. (Market share).
Ticker: IBM; MSFT.
Product: OS/2 2.0 (Operating system) (Market share)
Microsoft Windows 3.1 (Graphical user interface) (Market share).
Topic: Comdex-Spring
Market Share
Third-Party Vendors
Operating systems
Graphical user interface
Trade shows.

Record#: 12 063 668.

***** Computer Select (LAN), May 1992 : Doc #1819 *****

Journal: Computergram International April 6 1992 n1894
* Full Text COPYRIGHT Apt Data Services (UK) 1992.
Title: IBMer sheds light on plans for Kaleida venture with Apple.
(multimedia applications under development)
Company: Kaleida Inc. (Planning)
Apple Computer Inc. (Management)
International Business Machines Corp. (Management).
Ticker: AAPL; IBM.
Topic: Strategic Planning
Multimedia technology
Operating systems
Product Development.

Record#: 12 021 386.
Full Text:


IBM Corp has been giving a few hints about plans for its Kaleida Inc
multimedia venture with Apple Computer Inc at DB/Expo - and Microbytes was
all ears. The company's vice-president for the Apple Alliance, Richard
Guarino spoke about how Kaleida will enable "media rich applications" to run
on personal computers. Kaleida is working on multimedia authoring tools in a
high-level language, intended to be used to create multimedia presentations
for Macintosh System 7, OS/2, and unnamed "other" operating systems. There
will be a run-time environment for all supported environments. Guarino
seemed to be describing a portable approach in which a high-level language is
interpreted, at least partially, by the run-time system. Kaleida also plans
"a form of consumer operating system" for consumer-oriented multimedia
players, and a hardware reference kit to help manufacturers build players.
Kaleida is also working on electronic distribution of multimedia
presentations - using a "media script saver" and a "distributed client-server

 December 30, 2017  Add comments

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>