The purpose of this section is to provide a forum for our readers to voice their opinions and thoughts on issues related to OS/2. If you have an observation, concern, gripe or compliment regarding something, please feel free to send them to the OS/2 CONNECT editor for inclusion in this section, at: Title & Publisher or complete the form at the bottom of this page.
The opinions expressed in this section are those of the individual writer and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the editor or publisher of OS/2 CONNECT. NOTE: Letters may be edited for inappropriate or offensive language.
David Johnson's comments in the recent issue of OS/2 CONNECT are the most sensible I've heard in a long time, concerning why OS/2 will NOT go away. THANK YOU, DAVID! I too am tired of the "OS/2 is lost" tirade by one person after another who calls themself a lover of the product.
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn about Windows '95 support in OS/2, about second-rate companies who don't support OS/2, or even about the mysterious "missing killer apps." OS/2 does everything I want it to do, and more. It doesn't crash like NT or '95 (and NT 4.0 crashes on me about once or twice a week; full, hard, BigRedSwitch failures). OS/2 is faster than NT 3.51 or 4.0, far better DOS and Windows 3.x support (so I don't have to waste thousands of $$ replacing the perfectly serviceable programs that I already own), better use of resources, better native application support than NT (and if I hear one more piece of crap about "yeah, but the world is going to NT," I think I'll throw my lunch; I'M SEEING PEOPLE DROP NT4 EVERY DAY, WHERE ARE YOU FOLKS LOOKING? THE TRADE PRESS? IT'S ALL OWNED BY MICROSOFT, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
If you're really that hell-bent on having something, anything, new for OS/2 every day of the week, just send me a check for $1,000 every day, and I'll send you a pretty picture of someone holding an OS/2 banner or something - it will be just as useful as the "latest, greatest, up-to-datest" (but not really fixed until the NEXT version) Microsoft product. I'll even pick cute people to hold the banner, so it will be more like a M$ ad.
As for folks like Alan Zeicheck, all I can say is, "Too bad for you." I've seen much more specialized magazines (like bee-keeping magazines) that go for years and years, with fewer subscribers and advertisers, and they aren't getting up on some overworked soapbox every month declaring that "Bees are dead". GIVE IT A REST, OK?
There are PLENTY of native apps for OS/2. Good quality apps. Maybe not all of them are state-of-the-art, but then, they aren't BLOATWARE either. I've got development tools, editors, math programs, word processors, art tools (quite a few), and much, much more. I even have games (and I feel VERY sorry for the poor schmuck who thinks that a market of 15 million is too small to be worth his while, when he doesn't even have a game out yet! I just got finished working for the worlds largest independent game company. Their "executives," not a one of whom knows s--t about games and programming, were so whipped by Microsoft marketing, that they wasted millions of dollars trying to create Doze products, with gobs o' failures, and then laid off hundreds of people. Stock plummeted from the 30's, to the 2's. More products got dropped. Ad nauseum. Even if they had gotten the games working, they would have been just-another-games-company in the Doze market. Why don't some TRULY intelligent game developers realize that they can have the OS/2 marketplace to themselves? IT IS NOT (REPEAT: NOT) GOING AWAY, as David Johnson correctly pointed out. Personally, I believe Lou Gerstner has a tough job ahead of him, but I think he is intelligent enough, and cares enough about the effect it would have on IBM's largest customers if he dropped OS/2, that we will see a resurgence in OS/2. The same folks who are trying to kill it internally are the ones who tried to keep the old Whirlwind computers around - trust me, they're getting old enough (and crusty enough, given the OS/2 mess they've made), that they're not going to hold IBM back much longer.
As for the lack of books, etc. WHO CARES? I've bought thousands of dollars worth of OS/2 books, and for the most part, have been pleased with the quality. Why would I want to waste a lot of time and money on the Doze-like "yet another book about one cool thing you can do without Program Manager" piece of crapola? The Windows magazines are just regurgitating pablum for the masses, again and again and again. Frankly, I'M SICK AND TIRED OF THEM. Why do you waste your time reading about NT5 (not due until 1999) or 'Doze '98 (which is over a year away too)? IT'S ALL CRAP, FOLKS! Haven't you noticed that about M$ products yet? They don't care about you.
The OS/2 apps that I have (lots of them) work, and do their job quietly. Take DeScribe, for example. It's small, fast, and cheap. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT? How many different flavors of Print Merging do you really use? Ditto for Intercom, Netscape, Mesa, Virtual Pascal, Watcom and Visual Age C++, Back Again and Fastback for OS/2, Lantastic for OS/2, VX- and VP-REXX, Java, Links, and on and on and on. If you want to waste thousands of dollars a week on the "upgrade du jour", then fine - go buy Windows '95, and waste your money. JUST QUIT YOUR BELLY ACHING HERE!
Have I made my point?
I really feel for the frustrated OS/2 developers. Up until about four months ago I was an avid OS/2 user. I wrote mainly utilities in Assembler. I purchased IBM's SDK and with MASM 6.11. I had everything I needed but the total lack support or interest in OS/2 from IBM finally pushed me towards WinNT 4.o which I purchased.
WinNT is not a bad operating system. It has some very nice features but it is rather crash prone. My system locks up tight about once a day. And the registry is a king sized pain in the ass, but the biggest king sized pain in the ass is dealing with Microsoft.
I decided that if I was going to do any programming I would need MS's SDK and I naively went ahead and purchased it believing it would contain the tools I would need.
Guess what? NO 32 bit Linker. It has resource and help compilers but a critical file (CVTRES.EXE) needed to add the resource files to the EXE is not there.
I called MS and was told that the only way to get the 32 bit Linker and the crucial CVTRES.EXE file was:
Their SDK is nowhere nearly as well organized as IBM's was and is much more sparse.
So if you make the move to NT or 95, beware of MS. Ask lots of questions before you lay down a single red cent.
Probably you receive lots of e-mail thanking you about the good work you do with your OS/2 CONNECT.
After reading your September issue, specially the reactions (read frustrations) of other OS/2 users, I got frustrated too about IBM's attitude concerning OS/2. Although I must say that IBM Belgium's PSP division is doing a great job. Let me explain.
Being an OS/2 user from v2.0 off, I loved this OS and his capabilities so much that I became an evangelist for OS/2 (my Windows colleagues can confirm that :-)). So I started the OS/2 User Group Belgium. I also got in contact with one of the primary computer magazines in Belgium and started as a Free-Lance journalist, writing an reviewing about OS/2. All this to say that when it was time for my holiday's I needed a notebook for a month so I could continue to write my OS/2 articles (for the magazine but also for the user group newsletter). Thanks to Roland FABRI, PSP manager of IBM, I got a ThinkPad 760ED to take with me into the mountains. Thanks IBM Belgium for this support.
Also, the same division is strongly supporting the user group activities in Belgium. But is also providing me software (IBM and non-IBM) to review them for their magazine.
All this to say that the success, support and marketing of OS/2 is indeed in the hands of the persons who controls the division within IBM. Like every OS/2 user over the world, I to have a hard time to (try to) convince a Windows users about the advantages of OS/2 and to convince him/her to make the switch. Unfortunately with little success. As IBM is a huge company, it's natural that we find behind these wall's die-hard windows users. A huge company means also a certain political movement within the management and is therefore not always the best choice for the product. I mean: put the right men in the right place and you will see soon the difference. Being president for the user group for three years I saw many people come and go at the PSP division here in Belgium. Until now, we had the luck that all of them were and are committed to OS/2.
But I'm drifting away from the main purpose of this mail: to thank you Tim for the time and effort you put in this e-zine (and not only in this e-zine). I truly hope that OS/2 survives the desktop war. And if it does, I will be thanks to people like you and NOT IBM.
I just read your editorial (in the September issue). Month after month I have been reading your editorials, and I share your sentiments. One thing is telling me you are serious: You left off your "Keep the faith" line.
I may be mis-reading this, but I figure from the tone of your article we are in for a change. Whatever happens, I want you to know your newsletter was read and appreciated. I always looked forward to reading it.
EDITOR's REPLY: I'm glad you noticed the absence of my "Keep the faith" sign-off. These are troubling times for OS/2 and IBM is not giving us any reason to have confidence in their ability to market OS/2. As I mentioned in the editorial, saying nice things about IBM doesn't seem to be buying us anything. Maybe "the squeaky wheel will get the oil." I just don't understand why IBM doesn't wake up. There must be a huge political struggle going on internally.
Bravo Tim!
A few comments though:
"There has been little, if any, print advertising for OS/2 this year. Why?"
The fact is, IBM is actually advertising on the 'net more and more. IBM's ad agency has called me many times recently (different people each time) about ad space for IBM - all for different campaigns, I'm led to believe. And OS/2 e-Zine! is the least of the target sites for these projects, I'm sure.
"Sell OS/2 to a separate company (either an independent or a "spin-off") - unfortunately, IBM cannot do this due to their commitment to "enterprise" customers, particularly banks who have invested heavily in OS/2."
I've been thinking about this a lot. I agree, IBM can't give it away or spin it completely, but why not separate it? Keep the code so they can continue to do what they want with it and spin the client only to a third party or spin off division. Sign a marketing agreement where IBM keeps rights to distribute it (although I'm sure they would pass for years until the market share grew) and has access to all code, etc. That way the smaller company would be free to aggressively push the thing as an end user system and IBM would not risk losing out. (But they should make sure their agreement doesn't invent another Microsoft, or at least make sure they own that other Microsoft.
Just a thought.
Thank you for providing this forum for OS/2 users to voice their preferences/concerns.
There are two things which I find most important priority-wise for inclusion in OS/2 Warp 4:
1. Client SMP support - Perhaps an equitable solution would be for IBM to distribute only 2 or 4-way SMP enablement in the Warp Client, additional CPU's would require a full copy of Warp SA.
2. More device driver development/co-development by IBM. This will need to happen to make sure all drivers are SMP-safe anyway. OS/2 users are sometimes very constrained when buying peripherals such as scanners, NIC's, MO Drives, etc.
IMHO anyone who believes IBM should support Win95 apps should do the following:
Install OS/2 with NO DOS or Win-OS/2 support and use only native apps for two weeks. Once you realize what a 100% OS/2 system can do for stability and performance, you'll see that it really has no equal on a PC. You'll be much less pre-occupied with 95 support; you may just argue against it too.
Nice work. Many of my sentiments were stated.
The press just reported (even in Seattle) that there were 70 some million DOS/Win 3.1 desktops un-upgraded.
The market is huge and growing, and IBM is comatose.
I am so sorry to have the urge to tell you how much I did (and still do) feel terribly sorry about IBM's best product ever produced. I agree with each and every word you say. More then all, I am so proud of the fact that I was the person who 10 years ago (April 2nd) announced as an OS/2 Specialist (IBM employee) the 1.0 version (I still have the 5.25" pre-release diskettes of OS/2). After a few years when IBM looked like it was almost giving up, the chances were good for me to quit IBM and market OS/2 as an IBM Business Partner. So I did and for two years I started my own company specializing in the SOHO market in ISRAEL - even had a couple of customers who did believe in OS/2 and implemented a few OS/2 LAN SERVER sites.
BUT: IBM Israel didn't give a dxxxx and DID NOT CARE in spite of the fact I had met several times with their top management (who used to be my colleagues) - all to no avail.
Here is an append to the local Team OS/2 forum that I have sent to express my disappointment with IBM. Needless to say I am still using OS/2 at home (I was the only participant in 'Connect the World with Merlin' in Israel).
Subject: OS/ who? Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 08:15:39 +0300 From: nissan@omnitech.co.il (Nissan Lev-Ran) To: "Israeli OS/2 users list" <Os2-il@hagiga.jct.ac.il>Once there was an operating system that sounded like: 'OS2' Now we only hear questions about its support, future etc. There will never be an operating system like it but... Few weeks ago, in my previous append, I kind of foreseen the future that is now the present and in a few weeks we, all OS/2 fans, are going to be asked: O.S. who? Starting with IBM arrogance (yes, I admit to have been part of it) going through IBM's most talented people who invested their time and efforts to develop and promote OS/2, it ended up now with the obvious: OS/2 will stay forever as an episode (Dear, Costly and beautiful) deep in our hearts.
I'll keep it installed on my computer (ooops!) at home, look forward to see the next 2 or 3 versions but for a living I use OFFICE97 and that's not supported or ever will be under O.S. WHO, TWO (whatever).
I have quit my private business and now work in a company where I am using MikySoft Windows 95 and Office97!!!
Thanks for the feedback on my recent "Why not sue the vendors who won't discount a system that you specifically ask for without Doze '95?" (Sound Off!, September issue)
Here's another idea. You mentioned that you are an IBM shareholder. Why not take (or threaten) legal action against the board for failing to exercise fiduciary responsibility, by actively undermining their own product and forcing customers to buy a competitors product? If a Ford executive undermined that company and forced customers to go to not just any company, but specifically GM, the shareholders would have an absolute war going. Why should IBM be treated any differently?
I've tried embarrassing IBM'ers, with (smile-in-place) comments such as, "The folks in your OS/2 Marketing department couldn't find their own rear-end in a shower," or "Yeah, your programmers are great - too bad their so afraid of Microsoft." Each time, I get a (brief) response - but nothing happens. I think that a lawsuit on behalf of shareholders, to the tune of $2 billion or so (the amount spent on OS/2 development, and advertising the NT replacements for said product) would get their attention. IT WOULD CERTAINLY GET THE ATTENTION OF THE PRESS (but, would they use it as another "OS/2 is dead" crutch, showing their own inability to think clearly?)
Personally, I love OS/2 - I spend a lot of money on our systems, and we continue to develop (specialized) OS/2 apps. Java is interesting, but not for the reasons you stated, as we are not trying to replace OS/2, just supplement it. I've tried '95 (absolutely p--s poor), NT 3.51 (tolerable, but slow, ugly, and incompatible as all get out), and NT 4.0 (extremely poor, very slow, very buggy, and all but worthless. There are NO all-around good choices for a personal, high-power 32-bit systems right now, but OS/2 still comes the closes for our group.
I wish I could send your September editorial page to Lou G, but I know that he probably would not see it or could care less. Your editorial page mirrors my reasons for electing to retire from IBM. It just wasn't fun any more to buck the trend within IBM to just give in to Microsoft! Keep up the battle, maybe the board of directors or the stockholders will get wise and fire the top five levels of management in IBM and get back to the "OLD" IBM of being customer driven, rather then driving the customers away!!
I am an ardent OS/2 user. I conduct as much of my business affairs with OS/2 software as much of the time as possible. However I have been forced to buy NT in order to use certain Windows products. Its unfortunate that more people don't try OS/2. A well written OS/2 product will run circles around anything that Windows can come up with. I hate using Windows. You can't even compare the two operating systems. I find that NT is slow and the programs that I use with it seem to run poorly.
Your September editorial is a powerful statement and to the point. IBM really dosen't seem to give a damn. I don't think that they ever really did care. Maybe Will Zachman wasn't the only one to see the writing on the wall. I think that one William Gates realized that IBM was a dog and decided to make history without them. Unfortunately for all PC users, the result has been to date nothing short of a total disaster.
I fully believe IBM has a major case of cranial-rectal inversion.
I have a PC at home which has a fully functional copy of Warp 3 on it. The install was easy, with the exception of the hunt for drivers for my sound card and CD-ROM. Warp 4 was a totally different story. I finally wiped it off my system and restored Warp 3.
IBM has apparently bought into the Microsoft mystique and has jumped onto the NT bandwagon while giving up on improving or promoting OS/2. Well folks, I also run WFWG 3.11 and Win95 on various PCs at home in addition to my OS/2 system. I also run Win 3.1, Win95, NT3.5x, and NT4.0 boxes at work. Despite all the MS-supported hype about the easy-to-install, easy-to-use "New Technology," I find that these products all SUCK WIND! Despite the Win95 interface, NT4 is buggy as hell and NOT user friendly at all, especially if one is connecting them to Novell networks, particularly 4.x NOS networks. Win95 users spend more time trying to get their systems logged on and debugging their converted Win 3.1 software than they do in productive work. God help you if you are in a multiple-server environment and have to mess with your drive mappings!
But, back to IBM. Their slate is not clean. We recently tried to install a Compaq Deskpro 4000 (with Warp4) into a multiple-server, multiple NOS environment. I believe the box is finally working after three weeks of effort. Couldn't find video drivers, couldn't find NIC drivers, couldn't get the box to accept our Norton Anti-Virus scripts or our standard login scripts. The list goes on and on. My peer, to whom this PC belongs, is more-or-less our resident OS/2 specialist. He had (has) a difficult time defending OS/2 to the rest of us following this debacle.
Where was IBM during this time? Twiddling their corporate thumbs and playing grab-ass with Billy Gates.
I'm about ready to chuck Windows AND OS/2 and switch over to UNIX.
I read the September Issue of OS/2 CONNECT and see the bitterness out there.
Whether or not OS/2 lives for long I can't say.. but Java will be the answer for many problems.
I've just spent more than an hour trying to unbinhex and put into an acceptable format a WPWin document written on a Mac.. the solution will be a system that breaks the barriers to platform incompatibility.
Although we OS/2 users are despairing, life cannot be much better for those on Sun Workstations where there again is little in the way of software.. we have a Sun in our department and at present it does little more than function as our server...hence the reason that SUN is putting so much stock into Java.
Lastly, you should be aware that the up and coming generation of Computer Science students, including those who have interned at MS are out to beat MS at the game.. perhaps someone will be writing a superior 64 or 128 bit processing system where Win95 run under the system. My Computer Science professor friends feel that today's Win95 in 5 years will be like DOS is now. Take heart .. but just don't plan on software updates from IBM.
I am happily surprised to see your September comments on what IBM is doing and not doing about OS/2. You have reflected the feelings of many (and I think of most of them) users of OS/2 who refuse to use anything else. I, for example, get a very bad taste, whenever I am forced to use Windows on anyone's machine (I have to support my clients for Internet services and visit their sites often to help). I hope IBM WILL LISTEN to these concern and do something about this TRUELY EXCEPTIONAL PRODUCT, which can surely tell people why THEY SHOULD THROW WINDOWS OUT OF THEIR DOORS.
I know it is frustrating. Wouldn't it be nice if somehow there is a magic stick and IBM just poof and the whole world would be using OS/2? Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.
I disagree that IBM didn't try, or that IBM doesn't care. On the contrary, I think IBM did try, and that it does care about OS/2 - just not in areas you and I care about. If IBM gave you and I the same amount of money they lost in OS/2 in per copy of consumer sale, we will both be VERY rich. The fact of the matter is: IBM does not understand how to market anything but mainframe and hardware, and it has yet to make money on any project other than mainframes or hardware. Time after time, IBM proves to itself that it is incapable to break out of that mold.
What they are doing right now is trying to come to grips with reality - a reality that is very painful for OS/2 supporters: at least for the time being. To wish that IBM be able to promote OS/2 in the same way you and I wish is not going to do anybody any good - it isn't going to happen. So, the earlier OS/2 supporters get past that, the better our computer life will become.
PSP has been such an underperforming division of IBM that I am amazed that OS/2 has not been simply CHOPPED. If you understand IBM and how IBM functions, you should realize that this is a miracle by itself. A miracle that tells you how much IBM DOES care about OS/2. For OS/2 to survive in the long run, PSP has got to prove that it can perform and you and I know very well that if they continue to go after the market in exactly the same way they has been, that will spell the end of OS/2 for sure. So, rather than being an outcast division, they have to march right now to the unified corporate tune - Network Computing.
So, don't expect or wish for IBM to do ANYTHING for OS/2 that would mean anything to you and I - at least for the time being. Just pull back and look: when was the last time you got so much positive press coverage about anything that's based on OS/2? Bluebird solves real headaches for corporation - OS/2, or no OS/2.
I think if you can get over wishing IBM to do anything, things will go easier. My business continues to expand at an astonishing pace. We have far more projects than we can handle. Yes, we get pressure everyday to go NT, but so far we are still able to say "NO, THANKS." I think the life of lots of OS/2 ISV's will be a lot happier if they don't count on IBM in their business plan. Go after niche where platform is not as sensitive an issue - there is a wide wide world out there - Bill Gates can't have it all.
As for the individual user, if you want to use Win95, WinNT - go ahead. Why not? It's only a computer. Stop wishing for IBM to do something. Every once and awhile, when you get frustrated enough using the Windoze technology, boot back to OS/2, have some fun, get your sanity back, and boot back to the world of Windoze - or stay in OS/2 as I do and don't go through the torture.
It's not over unless we uninstall OS/2 from our computer, right?
I liked the editorial in the September issue.
What should IBM do with OS/2? Sell it to Stardock. Ibm can keep the big customers. But I reckon that Microsoft will take these too after the banks move to NT and the suckers in IBM are on the dole.
One would think that OS/2 end users must have learned to live with it by now. Constant streams of negative information and criticism leaking into the public domain from various sources to drive home the lost cause that is becoming OS/2. To many, including myself, the situation can not be unlike watching the Titanic sink.
As end users, where do we go from here? What alternatives do we have? Users like myself, drawn to this remarkable operating system for a gamut of reasons (not least a massive distrust of Microsoft) now find themselves (in the face of what seems like an attempt to drive the final nail into the coffin), with very limited options. Yes, there is every reason to feel uncomfortable about the situation, I know I do.
Apart from the whole distrust thing, their efforts to establish and maintain just about every industry standard, Microsoft turns out some pretty un-impressive products. I can't remember being 'blown away' when I first used 95 or NT like I was when I first used Warp!. On issues of reliability, functionality or its GUI alone, OS/2 should, by rights, have the lions share of the PC OS market. It hasn't and it won't so I guess it has to be said (yet again) that OS/2 is perhaps becoming the greatest feat of mis-management in the history of computing.
Dilemmas abound for us. OS/2 users want to support OS/2 software vendors, I did (and got my fingers severely burned). I concluded (in my infinite wisdom) that in order for OS/2 ISV's to survive they have to have a customer base. I considered my application set carefully and from there I began investing in native OS/2 applications. I made a BIG mistake, I bought ColorWorks V2 from SPG only weeks before they severed support for OS/2. There is no stronger message to consumers, as ISV's drop support consumers feel less confident about buying native applications. This is a 'no win' situation. We will no doubt see more and more OS/2 ISV's develop their products on the Windows OS. SPG even had the audacity to offer (OS/2 users) upgrades to their new Windows only product! I have to say though that many software developers, MD+F, Stardock, True Spectra to name but a few seem to have much more integrity than that. I think we realize that their positions have not been made easy by IBM.
I, like many end users, feel abandoned by IBM while they court big business. IBM's recent announcement that it has 'lost' the consumer market battle is a laughable excuse, my guess is that they just 'threw in the towel'. I think they expected OS/2 to sell itself. It hasn't and it won't so is there any wonder we are left without the range of applications available to Windows users. The worlds best operating system is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard without a comprehensive set of Industry standard applications to run on it.
I think I'll put my PC in a cupboard, wait 'till next year and buy a machine with a Power PC chip and run the BeOs but then, that is exactly what Lou Gerstner would want me to do. It is however, ONE better option than migrating back to a Microsoft only system. Maybe after a couple of years, if OS/2 has not completely disappeared from everywhere except the big banks, I'll dust off my PC boot up OS/2 and start looking around for some nice Java applications, by then there just maybe some good ones around to run on it.
Come on IBM, get a LIFE. Not everyone believes in your Network-centric strategy.
To submit a letter to the editor for this section, please complete the following form. NOTE: Some web browsers may not support e-mail protocols. In this event, e-mail or fax your message separately.