Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!varmint
From: varm...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Samir Varma)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: NYT article on OS2 delay (long)
Message-ID: <59164@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: 12 Oct 91 18:06:26 GMT
Sender: n...@ut-emx.uucp
Reply-To: varm...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Samir Varma)
Organization: Center for Particle Physics, University of Texas
Lines: 95
Originator: varm...@sleepy.cc.utexas.edu
I thought that people might be interested in this. Quoted without permission,
but fair use should cover me.
The New York Times, Saturday, October 12, 1991.
I. B. M. disclosed yesterday that it would not meet its end-of-the-year goal
for shipping a new version of its advanced personal computer operating
system. It has been counting on the system to blunt the growing influence
of the Microsoft Corporation's Windows program.
The setback, which the International Business Machines Corporation said had
resulted from customers' concerns that arose in a product-testing program,
is likely to hurt the company's credibility as it struggles to regainits
authority in an increasingly bitter marketing war with its former partner.
In April, I. B. M. said that by the end of the year it would have available
a new version of its OS2 operating system program, which is intended to
include support for both Windows and MS-DOS programs as well as more advance
32-bit programs. The OS/2 will have a variety of advanced features and is
reported to run programs significantly faster than today's 16-bit operating
systems.
But yesterday the company said it felt it needed more time to add features
to the program, referred to OS/2 2.0.
"We have decided to re-evaluate some of the features that our customers
would like to see in this product," said Keith Lindenburg, and I. B. M.
spokesman. "We're reviewing the best way to respond to these requirements."
Time Bajarin, a computer industry analyst at Creative Strategies, a market
research firm in San Jose, Calif., said, "It hurts their credibility because
the have been pushing so hard to get everybody on the OS/2 bandwagon."
But others who watch the industry said the decision was a smart move.
"They're wise to do that," said Richard G. Sherlund, a software analyst at
Goldman, Sachs & company.
"A year or two from now who will remember when the product shipped? But
everyone will remember if the product's not ready."
An Impending Battle
I. B. M.'s delay is likely to push back for several months a confrontation
with Microsoft as both companies move to entice computer users to adopt
programs that offer some of the same features, like mouse control and screen
icons, that are closely identified with Apple Computer's Macintosh.
Microsoft officials, who hae been publicly skeptical of I. B. M's claims
that it would offer a "better Windows that Windows," said yesterday that
I. B. M. faced a significant hurdle in offering the promised compatibility
wiht the Microsoft program.
"This is a company that has made a big deal about making their deadlines,"
said Steven Ballmer, Microsoft's vice president for system software.
"They're going to get some grief about this."
Mr. Ballmer said Microsoft itself was racing to track down remaining bugs,
or programming errors, in a new version of Windows that is due to be
released early next year. He said that the software publisher had send its
developers on a "bugathon" in recent weeks and he was confident that
Microsoft, which has delayed the new Windows version known as 3.1 several
times, would be able to meet its own new deadline.
Mr. Ballmer said a crucial new feature would presend a major technical
challenge to I. B. M. in modifying OS/2 to add the ability to run a
program written for Microsoft's Windows in an OS/2 window. Until recently
I. B. M. had planned ot run Windows programs on a separte screen that would
not be visible at the same time as other programs.
Behind the Decision
Industry executives said that the decision came after a product-assurance
group did an audit and reported to the OS/2 management team that the project
was significantly behind the year-end target.
Mr. Sherlund said that the delay was certain to be a painful one for I. B.
M. because Microsoft's Windows has continued to gain momentum in recent
months.
Microsoft said in an analysts' briefing yesterday that it had shipped six
million copies of Windows and expected to have shipped eight million by the
end of the year.
"I. B. M. is standing on the sidelines watching with great apprehension
here," Mr. Sherlund said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what do all you people think?
Samir Varma
varm...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Center for Particle Theory,
The University of Texas at Austin.
Path: gmdzi!unido!fauern!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!
munnari.oz.au!ariel!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!luga!lure.latrobe.edu.au!ccmk
From: c...@lure.latrobe.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: NYT article on OS2 delay (long)
Message-ID: <1991Oct13.120228.1@lure.latrobe.edu.au>
Date: 13 Oct 91 02:02:28 GMT
References: <59164@ut-emx.uucp>
Sender: n...@luga.latrobe.edu.au (USENET News System)
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University
Lines: 25
In article <59...@ut-emx.uucp>, varm...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Samir Varma) writes:
> The New York Times, Saturday, October 12, 1991.
>
> I. B. M. disclosed yesterday that it would not meet its end-of-the-year goal
> for shipping a new version of its advanced personal computer operating
> system. It has been counting on the system to blunt the growing influence
> of the Microsoft Corporation's Windows program.
>...
I suspected this when IBM rang me last week and said sorry, but you can
have the next beta now without Workplace/Windows or wait another two
weeks (I'm on the EEP).
Well, it's a sad day that the Windows types will be able to use this
against OS/2. I can live without the upgrade for a month or two extra,
but the perceptions of OS/2 v2 might lean more towards the worse now.
IBM has to get off its duffer and turn this around! Where are those
marketing people? A meek newspaper report is no way to announce OS/2
v 2 is here in Feb! (or whenever)
Dr Mark Kosten, phone: +61 3 479-1500
Computer Centre, AARNet (internet): c...@lure.latrobe.edu.au
La Trobe University,
Bundoora, 3083
Australia
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!timbuk.cray.com!hemlock.cray.com!bgm
From: b...@hemlock.cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: NYT article on OS2 delay (long)
Message-ID: <1991Oct13.124412.24476@hemlock.cray.com>
Date: 13 Oct 91 17:44:12 GMT
References: <59164@ut-emx.uucp> <1991Oct13.120228.1@lure.latrobe.edu.au>
Organization: Cray Research, Inc., Eagan, MN
Lines: 45
In article <1991Oct13.12022...@lure.latrobe.edu.au> c...@lure.latrobe.edu.au writes:
>In article <59...@ut-emx.uucp>, varm...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Samir Varma) writes:
>> The New York Times, Saturday, October 12, 1991.
>>
>> I. B. M. disclosed yesterday that it would not meet its end-of-the-year goal
>> for shipping a new version of its advanced personal computer operating
>> system. It has been counting on the system to blunt the growing influence
>> of the Microsoft Corporation's Windows program.
>>...
>
>I suspected this when IBM rang me last week and said sorry, but you can
>have the next beta now without Workplace/Windows or wait another two
>weeks (I'm on the EEP).
>
>Well, it's a sad day that the Windows types will be able to use this
>against OS/2. I can live without the upgrade for a month or two extra,
>but the perceptions of OS/2 v2 might lean more towards the worse now.
>IBM has to get off its duffer and turn this around! Where are those
>marketing people? A meek newspaper report is no way to announce OS/2
>v 2 is here in Feb! (or whenever)
>
Mark:
IBM also called me last week. They were a little more than blunt. They
wanted my opinion/analysis of what to do (marketing people called).
I don't know what IBM plans. I do know the possibilities they presented
to me but with which one they will go, I don't know.
I do agree with the person who said that 1 to 2 years from now people will
not remember the release date. They will remember, though, the features and
stability.
As for people saying OS/2 V 2.0 existed 2 years ago, that is true but its
DOS box still did not run everything. It is also true the longer IBM delays
2.0 the more will be expected from the DOS box. 2 years ago in 1989 there
were few DOS protect mode and no 386 specific DOS programs which is not today's
case.
I told IBM stability is #1, timeliness is #2 and seamless Windows is #3.
Not for myself but for general acceptance.
Bert Moshier
Cray Research, Inc.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!unixhub!slacvm!cathie
From: CAT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: NYT article on OS2 delay (long)
Message-ID: <91285.152619CATHIE@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: 12 Oct 91 23:26:19 GMT
References: <59164@ut-emx.uucp>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Lines: 23
I was very disappointed to read the same thing in the San Francisco Chronicle.
What is IBM doing to encourage people to wait even longer? I participated in
a meeting two days ago and asked PC support people to wait until the end of the
year to make a decision about moving to OS/2, Windows, or Unix. My rationale
was that we would have OS/2 2.0 in house by then. Am I the only one running
out of time?
IBM didn't call to ask my opinion but I have some comments to share. This is
beginning to sound like a "no win" (no pun intended) situation for IBM. If
they release a really poor version of 2.0 the results will be awful. If they
wait to include support for the next release of Windows, I think they fall
in Microsoft's trap.
Why can't they release a stable 2.0 now and provide a free upgrade when they
incorporate the new Windows support? If they don't make the 4Q target date,
I think they will lose business. I've already heard the rumor that they
won't ever release 2.0 but the customers will have to wait for Pink.
Cathie Dager cat...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu 415-926-2904
---> the opinions expressed are mine alone and not necessarily those
of SLAC, Stanford University or the DOE
---> the above disclaimer is not mine alone and does not reflect my
opinion or personality
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!bywater!scifi!watson!arnor!yktvmv!larrys
From: lar...@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: NYT article on OS2 delay (long)
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.122412.6074@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 17 Oct 91 07:14:47 GMT
References: <1991Oct16.014043.8141@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Sender: larrys@yktvmv
Reply-To: lar...@watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Research
Lines: 45
News-Software: NewsKit 1.2 - LaMail
Nntp-Posting-Host: ibmman2
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
In article <91285.152619CAT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> CAT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STAN
FORD.EDU writes:
>I was very disappointed to read the same thing in the San Francisco Chronicle.
>What is IBM doing to encourage people to wait even longer? I participated in
>a meeting two days ago and asked PC support people to wait until the end of the
>year to make a decision about moving to OS/2, Windows, or Unix. My rationale
>was that we would have OS/2 2.0 in house by then. Am I the only one running
>out of time?
If you would rather have IBM release buggy software (like some...ahem...
companies do...I can't see them from here to tell you their name because
I don't have any WINDOWS in my office. :), then I can see your reason
for complaining. However, Lee Reiswig has COMMITTED IBM to producing the
highest quality product ever, and I fully support his position.
>IBM didn't call to ask my opinion but I have some comments to share. This is
>beginning to sound like a "no win" (no pun intended) situation for IBM. If
>they release a really poor version of 2.0 the results will be awful. If they
>wait to include support for the next release of Windows, I think they fall
>in Microsoft's trap.
IBM is not waiting for 3.1; they are waiting until the quality of OS/2
2.0 - full function enabled - is good enough to release to the general
public with (the lofty and unattainable goal of) no bugs (I'd rather
shoot for Mars and make it to the moon than to admit defeat from square
one and shoot for even less).
>Why can't they release a stable 2.0 now and provide a free upgrade when they
>incorporate the new Windows support? If they don't make the 4Q target date,
>I think they will lose business. I've already heard the rumor that they
>won't ever release 2.0 but the customers will have to wait for Pink.
Anyone who believes that rumor, after all of the money/time/manpower
IBM has invested in OS/2, should be committed to an institution. :)
Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LAR...@YKTVMV.BITNET
OS/2 Applications and Tools lar...@watson.ibm.com
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center lar...@ibmman.watson.ibm.com
Yorktown Heights, NY lar...@ibmman2.watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my
own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a
reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too
seriously.