Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!news.bbn.com!noc.near.net!nic.umass.edu!s6883289
From: s6883...@ucc.umass.edu (Peter Hawkins)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: free os/2?
Message-ID: < s6883289.699693950@titan.ucc.umass.edu>
Date: 4 Mar 92 07:25:50 GMT
Sender: use...@nic.umass.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 31
>IBM is looking at letting DOS and Windows users upgrade to OS/2 2.0 for
>$49.95, or even for free.
why not make the standard edition publicly available for non-commercial use
and sell license to commercial users? IBM can let people put it on BBS, set up
copy centers at various stores or sell it at diskette price:
salesperson: "Sir, are you looking for 3 1/2 disks? why not buy some IBM disks?
if you like, you can install os/2 that comes with the disks.
if you don't, you can format the disks and there go your new
diskettes! IBM disks are high quality and cost less than Sony,
what do you think?".
this is a _sure_ way to have os/2 2.0 installed on _every_ 386/486. in fact,
IBM may even sell more copies of os/2 than Intel selling its 386, because
people won't even bother keeping a disk copy of os/2. if they need to install
again, they just go buy another two packs of diskettes. moreover, IBM should
unpack the files in the disks so that os/2 will take up 40 diskettes.
40 diskettes at $50, that's pretty reasonable! :)
oh, better yet, make two versions, one with files packed and another with files
unpacked. the packed one targets at customers wanting to buy 20 diskettes.
the unpacked one targets at power users who's constantly in need of disks and
offers faster installation since there's no file to unpack.
anyways, people will be copying os/2 regardless what. of the 50million copies
of MSDOS out there, i doubt if 20% of them are legit. in fact, some PC clones
sellers don't even bother stocking MS-DOS, they just assume you can find a
copy somewhere. i am sure IBM can make a profit by selling diskettes, official
guides, printed documentations, commercial licenses, extended editions, os/2
softwares and development packages.
i only wish IBM can make a one time loyalty deal with Microsoft........
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!gordonl
From: gord...@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin)
Subject: Re: free os/2?
Message-ID: <1992Mar19.015857.23936@microsoft.com>
Date: 19 Mar 92 01:58:57 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
References:
Lines: 56
In article s6883...@ucc.umass.edu (Peter Hawkins) writes:
>>IBM is looking at letting DOS and Windows users upgrade to OS/2 2.0 for
>>$49.95, or even for free.
>
>why not make the standard edition publicly available for non-commercial use
>and sell license to commercial users? IBM can let people put it on BBS, set up
>copy centers at various stores or sell it at diskette price:
IBM has spent several billion $ on OS/2 related stuff, and about $1.5
billion on OS/2 itself. So if they sell 10 million copies and if they
manage to *net* $150 on each (i.e., a retail price of $300 or more)
then they'll have broken even. NOT, though, given the time value of money.
Clearly IBM can use a simple desk calculator, and clearly they can see
that they're never going to make money on OS/2, and in fact they're
sure to loose big money. So why hasn't anyone on this forum ever wondered
why IBM is willing to loose a billion dollars on OS/2?
Maybe it's charity. Maybe they just want to advance the state of the
art, they way that they have in the past, and they're happy to spend
$1 billion to please the hackers on this net.
Wakeup and smell the coffee, folks. IBM *owned* the EDP business for
N years and made billions. They used extreme methods against their
competitors; for example if you used third party hardware they would refuse
to maintain your machine. Yet they'd refuse documentation and spares to
third party maintainers so that if you didn't have IBM maintaince you
didn't have maintaince at all.
IBM doesn't own the PC world like that, but they dearly wish to. That kind
of absolute monopoly is what they consider the natural order of the
universe. Thus the PS/2 - a new bus, one which no competitor could use -
and they were going to reclaim the world. This is why they summarily
canceled all of their ISA machines when the PS/2 was introduced - to
"force" users to switch to PS/2. It was only *after* the multichannel
was a failure that they began to be more reasonably about bus licenses.
OK, so that "take over the world" gambit failed. Now it's time to try
again, and that try is called "OS/2". Think it through, folks. If
OS/2 were to become a big success, just how willing would IBM be to
make sure that OS/2 3.0 runs on Dells and Compaqs? Might there be
just a leeetle DELAY for support for those machines? And of course,
they're not multichanel, so they won't be able to do a lot of sexy
things that PS/2s can... (sure, the EISA could support them, but somehow
the EISA version is just a few years late...)
There's a big advantage to having a standardized operating system -
and that generally means one major vendor - but do you seriously want
that vender to be *also* a maker of hardware, and one with a bloody history
of anti-competitive business practices? It shouldn't need pointing out
that Microsoft plays no favorites; we license to all in an equitable manner.
gordon letwin
not a spokesperson for microsoft
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!timbuk.cray.com!hemlock.cray.com!bgm
From: b...@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Re: free os/2?
Message-ID: <1992Mar19.102405.7750@hemlock.cray.com>
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
References: <1992Mar19.015857.23936@microsoft.com>
Date: 19 Mar 92 10:24:05 CST
In article <1992Mar19.015857.23...@microsoft.com> gord...@microsoft.com
(Gordon Letwin) writes:
>
>IBM has spent several billion $ on OS/2 related stuff, and about $1.5
>billion on OS/2 itself. So if they sell 10 million copies and if they
>manage to *net* $150 on each (i.e., a retail price of $300 or more)
>then they'll have broken even. NOT, though, given the time value of money.
The retail price of OS/2 is $195 not $300. I expect OS/2 2.0 SE to have
an upgrade price for Windows users about the same as Microsoft's 3.0
to 3.1 update price. mmmmm Does this mean IBM will see OS/2 2.0 as
a Windows upgrade?
>OK, so that "take over the world" gambit failed. Now it's time to try
>again, and that try is called "OS/2". Think it through, folks. If
>OS/2 were to become a big success, just how willing would IBM be to
>make sure that OS/2 3.0 runs on Dells and Compaqs? Might there be
>just a leeetle DELAY for support for those machines? And of course,
>they're not multichanel, so they won't be able to do a lot of sexy
>things that PS/2s can... (sure, the EISA could support them, but somehow
>the EISA version is just a few years late...)
OS/2 will become portable with an OS/2 2.x level which most likely is OS/2
2.2 ('93). Portable OS/2 won't be specific to Intel but won't have a
problem running on Intel systems.
The EISA version is not a few years late. EISA vendors can provide their
specific drivers as quickly or as slowly as they desire.
>
>There's a big advantage to having a standardized operating system -
>and that generally means one major vendor - but do you seriously want
>that vender to be *also* a maker of hardware, and one with a bloody history
>of anti-competitive business practices? It shouldn't need pointing out
>that Microsoft plays no favorites; we license to all in an equitable manner.
>
There is more to this discussion than this point. Stability of direction
is also important. History shows MS changes its directions and these
direction changes don't protect existing customer investments.
(Based upon the MS-OS/2 and MS-OS/2 product experience one can really
start to wonder -> "What happens to MS-Windows and MS-Windows products
if OS/2 wins? Will MS change back to OS/2 as they changed
back to Windows when OS/2 did not sell at the level MS desired?
IBM stayed with OS/2 through the thin but not MS.")
IMHO, one gets RAS - Relability, Availability and Stability with IBM.
One gets outstanding help. I have many personal examples of what help
means to getting your work complete. My former manager had a problem
with MS-Windows and after waiting on hold for 30 minutes they told him
no fix was available and to wait for 3.1. This doesn't happen via the
1-800 IBM support lines. Many many times IBM Federal Expressed a fix
to me. When it comes to keeping a business running, IBM knows and does
what it takes.
IMHO, one doesn't know absolutely what they get with Microsoft. My own personal
experience is, I trusted Microsoft and Bill Gates. This trust resulted in
my making personal purchases and having Cray make purchases of Microsoft
products. Microsoft and Bill Gates then changed their direction. This
caused me to lose a lot of personal money and respect in the company.
Which is better? It depends upon your perspective. I am not as rich
as you or Bill Gates. When I spend money, I want the purchase to be worth
something for more than a year.
>
> gordon letwin
> not a spokesperson for microsoft
>
Gordon:
IMHO, your note is not up to your standards. Maybe I over estimated you.
Bert Moshier