From: Mike McLagan <mmcla...@INVLOGIC.COM>
Subject: Future of OS/2
Date: 1998/02/07
Message-ID: <199802072252.RAA32448@linux.dev.invlogic.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323043639
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
MIME-Version: 1.0
Priority: Normal
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
Hello,
As all of you have done, I took the time to read the EDM/2 interview with
IBM's OS/2 people. Everyone has drawn the same conclusion, that IBM is
completely disinterested in SOHO or single user use of OS/2. To those of us
who have been using OS/2 since it's early years, this is just short of a
crushing blow.
Various proposals have been put forth, here and in other forums, what should
be done in the face of our being dismissed by IBM. Some have been discussed in
small groups, but lack widespread acceptance. The most widely discussed idea is
to have IBM licence a version to an ISV.
The transference of OS/2 for SOHO from IBM to any single vendor will not
serve the community of users. A number of OS/2 ISVs have proven that they are
not interested in OS/2 unless it turns them a tidy profit. Far too many OS/2
ISVs have abandoned OS/2 and it's users. Popular OS/2 applications have been
either forgotten or back burnered. What would become of an OS/2 turned over to
an ISV? The idea scares me out of my wits.
EDM/2: What is IBM's target market for OS/2? Please define what IBM means
by "enterprise", "medium enterprise" and "large enterprise".
IBM: We are targeting medium to large enterprises with OS/2. We classify a
medium-sized enterprise as a company with 200 - 2,000 employees and a
large enterprise as a company with over 2,000 employees. Our
traditional strength lies with both the banking and insurance
industries. We will continue to target those key industries, while
also working to expand our market share in other vertical industries.
Herein lies the problem which has so many of us troubled. IBM has said that
it is only interested in talking to larger groups of users, with whom it can
arrange bulk contracts, create single points of contact and do business in
which they can put forth solutions. Within that very same quote from EDM/2,
however, we find a gem which can become our solution to this "crisis" we are
facing.
Without going into specifics of our plans at this time, I am going to say
that Team OS/2 is going to work towards that solution. Starting February 16th,
we will be collecting information about OS/2 users worldwide. You will be able
to visit our website(s) (http://www.teamos2.org and http://www.teamos2.com) and
provide information about your use of OS/2, as well as the types of systems
which it is installed on.
The web site will feature forms to obtain a member ID, enter information
about your computer systems, the types of software you use, enhancements in the
system you would like to see, and software programs that you would like
written/ported to OS/2. We will gather this information as part of our plan to
approach IBM as a cohesive group. Details will be provided to everyone at the
time of their signing up.
We are working now to create a database of the varieties of hardware and
software that are available so they will be available for choices on the web
site as part of the information gathering phase. If you can contribute a list
of video cards, sound cards, or other gadgets which can be attached and used
with OS/2, please send a message to webmas...@teamos2.org with your lists. We
will incorporate them into the forms on the website.
Michael McLagan
Team OS/2 Online
From: "James F. Marshall" <marsh...@IBM.NET>
Subject: Re: Future of OS/2
Date: 1998/02/07
Message-ID: <199802080331.DAA52534@out5.ibm.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323073539
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Priority: Normal
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 17:52:54 -0500, Mike McLagan wrote:
>it is only interested in talking to larger groups of users....
That used to mean thousands of computers. Now it means as little as
200 employees. This change is a substantial broadening of IBM's
horizons and target market. You need to read these things with
historical perspective and appreciation for what is meant as opposed
to what is said. Between the lines, I see this as good news for the
OS/2 community. OS/2 is clearly here to stay.
Let the FUD begin!
- -- James F. Marshall, Esq., Pasadena, California
Subject "JFM Public Key" for PGP Public Key
- -- OS/2 is to Windows as Stradivarius is to Yamaha
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNN0m0DbjGennrhqZAQE1EQP/StyZewUWO+CZ2CVIP3BQ33TFpYe5wis0
2q+1HpT6hwxnXxAvqPlt7VNJRcC1Nli2eCKliXyd8t/QqriKPSSH9a21G0zeo1FW
E19rPduzT421CcTcGHHFSYxXGfOaADI8MaodLteDNhk0QSfU+y0FpVAmEZ5VrkF5
22Y5TFj8rNo=
=zmu/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: est...@BITRANCH.COM
Subject: Re: Future of OS/2
Date: 1998/02/08
Message-ID: <19980208185205064.AAA125@agave>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323196733
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
References: <199802080331.DAA52534@out5.ibm.net>
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
"James F. Marshall" <marsh...@IBM.NET> said:
|On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 17:52:54 -0500, Mike McLagan wrote:
|>it is only interested in talking to larger groups of users....
|That used to mean thousands of computers. Now it means as little as 200
|employees. This change is a substantial broadening of IBM's horizons and
|target market. You need to read these things with historical perspective
|and appreciation for what is meant as opposed to what is said. Between
|the lines, I see this as good news for the OS/2 community. OS/2 is
|clearly here to stay.
James,
I think you're seeing what you WANT to see, rather than what is.
With the strange exception of the Web banner ads, IBM is doing nothing to
promote OS/2 to *any* of its customer base. In particular, they're not
doing anything to market to the smaller companies, even those of 200
people.
First, I offer an excerpt from an email I received from a distraught ISV:
>>
In a "I like the taste of my foot" interview with EDM/2
(http://www.edm2.com/0602/ibm.html), IBM pushed aside all the past
dancings and b.s.es about OS/2 and lay it flat in every OS/2 users' face
unless you happen to be lucky enough to work for a company with 200 or
more employee: Get out of my life!
Not only that IBM wants you to be sure what THEY are not doing with OS/2,
they want to make sure all of the "non-enterprise" and "non-network
computing seeking" customers to know that if any consultant show up at
the door and propose OS/2 as a solution, then in IBM's view, they are not
offering you the "correct solution". <<
Furthermore, they're actively shooting themselves in the foot.
IBM contacted me to ask if I'd be interested in reviewing Workspace On
Demand for Sm@rt Reseller. The response from me and my editors was:
absolutely! There's nobody better on the planet who's qualified to judge
it technically, and WSOD might be a perfect solution for a lot of
resellers' customer base. I asked IBM to send me the software, and I'd get
right to work on it.
Instead, IBM wanted to send out a crew of people. They'd bring along the
hardware and software, as well as a team (2 or 3?) techies to show me how
it works, how it's installed, etc. I refused, pointing out that "unless
that team is going to show up at every reseller's offices, it's not
relevant to my readers. Send me the box of software. It's my job to
duplicate the reseller's and user's experience."
A little confused, the IBM PR person said that IBM is essentially
marketing WSOD *along with the IBM service* to install and implement it.
In other words, if a reseller would recommend WSOD to his customers...
IBM's going to come in, do *all* the consulting and on-site work, and take
away his customer besides? If the reseller can't buy the software off the
shelf and install/implement/support it, why should I cover it? The IBM PR
person said she'd get back to me.
I haven't heard from her in a week.
Remind me again how this new attitude is good for OS/2?
,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-. --
Esther Schindler
Technology Editor
Sm@rt Reseller
From: "James F. Marshall" <marsh...@IBM.NET>
Subject: Re: Future of OS/2
Date: 1998/02/08
Message-ID: <199802081939.TAA127750@out4.ibm.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323209819
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Priority: Normal
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 8 Feb 1998 11:34:29 -0700, est...@BITRANCH.COM wrote:
>A little confused, the IBM PR person said that IBM is essentially....
IOW, she is ignorant. BFD.
- -- James F. Marshall, Esq., Pasadena, California
Subject "JFM Public Key" for PGP Public Key
or http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu/pks-commands.html
- -- OS/2 is to Windows as Stradivarius is to Yamaha
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNN4JyTbjGennrhqZAQFeNAP9G5VNSvYSEkhIt1UmLptX1PCaEOB+KQtO
EUISDVWYuYXexV6NGOuEVOfdejOUQSZbyOU7fuNVa8ylzGifIUVfX8rKgWdqdIym
g2JSa+lKtJ+806DaptcXQklDmy8iieyrEKa2f9ty76BXnYC9N8a6gzkTPvURU1lc
L98bsbRegZo=
=iEOT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: est...@BITRANCH.COM
Subject: Re: Future of OS/2
Date: 1998/02/08
Message-ID: <19980208201535849.AAA97@agave>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323214350
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
References: <199802081939.TAA127750@out4.ibm.net>
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
"James F. Marshall" <marsh...@IBM.NET> said:
|>A little confused, the IBM PR person said that IBM is essentially....
|IOW, she is ignorant. BFD.
In other words, she's ignorantly preventing IBM's flagship network
computing platform from being covered in the national press, where it'll
be read by the people who are in the best position to make WSOD a success.
This is either because:
(a) She's expressing the situation as it is, and IBM won't make WSOD
accessible to resellers, or
(b) She's wrong, and spreading inaccurate information -- and the result is
the same.
This, to you, is a BFD?
,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-. --
Esther Schindler
Technology Editor
Sm@rt Reseller
From: "James F. Marshall" <marsh...@IBM.NET>
Subject: Re: Future of OS/2
Date: 1998/02/08
Message-ID: <199802081938.TAA14530@out4.ibm.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323209818
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Priority: Normal
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 8 Feb 1998 11:34:29 -0700, est...@BITRANCH.COM wrote:
>Remind me again how this new attitude is good for OS/2?
IBM used to say forget it unless you have thousands of computers.
IBM now says forget it unless you have 200 or more employees. If you
cannot see the difference and the change, then I cannot help you to
see it; just keep on sucking vinegar salt cubes.
As for IBM's marketing incompetence, that has been true at all times.
Despite that, OS/2 has grown tremendously from 1.3 to 4.0 with all
the versions now available. Hardware support and drivers have
multiplied by a factor of at least ten. IBM has teams constantly
working on many aspects of OS/2, what with recent and continual
updates to TCP/IP, MPTS, PEER/F&PS, JAVA, Netscape, Antivirus, a
soon-to-be-released SmartSuite for OS/2 Warp 4.0, and probably 20
other things that others can comment on but that I don't use. Look
at all the stuff on the Software Choice catalog page to let various
win users access OS/2 resources. Again, if you cannot see the
difference between the whining of bellyachers and what is truly
happening with OS/2, then I cannot help you; just keep on sucking
those vinegar salt cubes.
I'm not interest in failing ISV's who try to blame IBM and just don't
have what it takes to succeed. Their departure creates opportunity
for others.
- -- James F. Marshall, Esq., Pasadena, California
Subject "JFM Public Key" for PGP Public Key
or http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu/pks-commands.html
- -- OS/2 is to Windows as Stradivarius is to Yamaha
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNN4JkzbjGennrhqZAQFcewP6AgN4j+EbwhP+JgTB2jeYWNTxUFXanZ2u
QBp4juB7+kwrfEsbUFEopesHBeyj2/nothD49FzIhfrqqaKRIHAz8+EFzQQl6oUS
tc4mBavYx9WvJKzHBjPhuYnJ3qZP7x3Q3s7pZFJZeH6JyhLgHeiVAYd8KuttH7j6
gx8mTzQOu60=
=J/1v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: est...@BITRANCH.COM
Subject: Re: Future of OS/2
Date: 1998/02/08
Message-ID: <19980208203519922.AAA136@agave>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323218478
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
References: <199802081938.TAA14530@out4.ibm.net>
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
"James F. Marshall" <marsh...@IBM.NET> said:
|IBM used to say forget it unless you have thousands of computers. IBM now
|says forget it unless you have 200 or more employees. If you cannot see
|the difference and the change, then I cannot help you to see it; just
|keep on sucking vinegar salt cubes.
James, the point isn't what IBM says. It's what IBM *DOES.*
I've had more experience than almost anybody else here at listening to
what IBM says. They've told me all sorts of things over the years -- from
the imminent marketing campaigns ("Just wait...!") to the plans to address
SOHO ("Just wait...!") to an active participation in a 2-day closed
session meeting in Austin, IBM describing the current state of affairs
with an open kimono and then listening carefully to marketing advice from
those who had to live with the consequences.
At that point, it was a major revelation that their marketing messages
shouldn't exclude smaller businesses simply because they wanted to focus
on large ones.
Over and over, I've had IBM execs explain to me that their target market
is the *large corporations,* always a little apologetically because they
knew I wanted otherwise. How much closer to the top do you have to get,
James, than the guy in charge of OS/2? By how many people do I need to be
told this?
If that's what they're telling me, what are they telling the people who
are less positively disposed to OS/2? As a result of IBM's constant "big
business" self-absorbed focus -- married to the actions that underly this,
such as setting up WSOD so that IBM Business Partners get shut out --
hardware companies are producing fewer drivers, Windows ISVs who *were*
looking at OS/2 threw the plans out the window (I have a beta copy of
Deluxe's small business package for OS/2, which they cancelled), and OS/2
ISVs are busily converting to *something* else, just so they can keep the
doors open.
Sure, despite IBM's marketing, "OS/2 has grown tremendously from 1.3 to
4.0 with all the versions now available." But it might be worth the energy
to map out the user base by quarter. The last sales number that IBM gave
for OS/2 was *from before OS/2 Warp 4 was released.* That was 15 million,
well over a year ago. If you graphed it out, you'd discover that OS/2
sales grew in the 2.x days and spiked sometime during the 3.0 days... and
have been sinking ever since Warp 4 was released.
There are few *new* OS/2 users -- and ISVs are dependent on new users
coming into any market, buying new products. After all, most people buy
one word processor, email client, or accounting package, and they stick
with it. The ISV revenue can't be made up by upgrade sales since more
people are leaving OS/2 than are adopting it.
The success of OS/2 is dependent on IBM's willingness to support the
product, but it also requires a solid, healthy aftermarket. There's no
books about OS/2 unless underwritten by IBM. There are few training
courses available; Learning Tree cancelled theirs, and even IBM puts OS/2
classes in the back-of-the-catalog section because of low signups.
Everything IBM is doing has the effect of telling that aftermarket to go
away.
|I'm not interest in failing ISV's who try to blame IBM and just don't
|have what it takes to succeed. Their departure creates opportunity for
|others.
Your pollyanna attitude does not benefit the OS/2 community. If you don't
recognize problems, you can't address them. The ISV I cited is *not* a
"failing ISV" who tries to blame IBM. In fact, his business is doing just
fine and he's publicly supported IBM in more ways than you can imagine.
(Aside: No, folks, it's not anybody you're likely to guess.) However,
people generally expects one's business partner to help them get sales,
not to discourage the customer from buying.
James, I think I've demonstrated my own dedication to the OS/2 community
time and time again. If I'm discouraged and upset by IBM's (in)actions,
don't you think I might have good reason to feel that way?
--Esther
From: "James F. Marshall" <marsh...@IBM.NET>
Subject: Re: Future of OS/2
Date: 1998/02/08
Message-ID: <199802082023.UAA57518@out1.ibm.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323218476
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
MIME-Version: 1.0
Priority: Normal
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 8 Feb 1998 13:05:11 -0700, est...@BITRANCH.COM wrote:
>(b) She's wrong, and spreading inaccurate information -- and the result is
>the same.
>
>This, to you, is a BFD?
One ignorant twit, who apparently conceded that she was ignorant and
needed to look into "it," cannot nullify the effects of spending
hundreds of millions of dollars a year to develop OS/2 in 1998. Yes,
to me, and more importantly to OS/2, that twit's ignorance is not a
BFD.
- -- James F. Marshall, Esq., Pasadena, California
Subject "JFM Public Key" for PGP Public Key
or http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu/pks-commands.html
- -- OS/2 is to Windows as Stradivarius is to Yamaha
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNN4UIDbjGennrhqZAQHWqQQAml2Gt60Q61FeUUefQ8LywYYd0P4jccIx
SHZyOiSbZaxOX7XqVmanGcJ6ey8hbs5hjeim2m8+0rsF4ysdV68H0Ra2Fk3Q50cz
QlFWD5uCKyUfB/c24DMes0b577b3NXLMX87uLyhXnu+/+n7M4puSHziBVsZSSpbW
iKn8QlgXfDs=
=u6DV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: est...@BITRANCH.COM
Subject: Re: Future of OS/2
Date: 1998/02/08
Message-ID: <19980208203856734.AAA188@agave>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323218479
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
References: <199802082023.UAA57518@out1.ibm.net>
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
"James F. Marshall" <marsh...@IBM.NET> said:
|One ignorant twit, who apparently conceded that she was ignorant and
|needed to look into "it," cannot nullify the effects of spending hundreds
|of millions of dollars a year to develop OS/2 in 1998. Yes, to me, and
|more importantly to OS/2, that twit's ignorance is not a BFD.
This "twit," as you put it, is representing IBM to the press.
If IBM spent millions of dollars in the forest, and nobody heard, did it
make a sound?
And, FWIW, do you have data to refute the information that she gave me? Do
you have any evidence that WSOD is being provided to resellers in any
manner where they can evaluate it, install it, and sell it to their
customers for a profit?
If you don't have such evidence, how can you tell me she's ignorant?
,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-. --
Esther Schindler
Technology Editor
Sm@rt Reseller
From: boo...@EARTH.GODDARD.EDU
Subject: Re: Future of OS/2
Date: 1998/02/08
Message-ID: <1E7145E4550@earth.goddard.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323282087
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
References: <19980208185205064.AAA125@agave>
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
on 02/08/98at 11:34 AM, our friend est...@BITRANCH.COM said:
>The IBM PR
>person said she'd get back to me.
>I haven't heard from her in a week.
>Remind me again how this new attitude is good for OS/2?
Esther, please explain your use of "new attitude" in a discussion about
IBM. What is different than the IBM we've known for years? Have they
ever "gotten back" to you?
----------------------------------------------------
Booth Martin
---------------------------------------------------
From: boo...@EARTH.GODDARD.EDU
Subject: Re: Future of OS/2
Date: 1998/02/08
Message-ID: <1E72D006388@earth.goddard.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323282088
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
References: <19980208201535849.AAA97@agave>
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
on 02/08/98at 01:05 PM, our friend est...@BITRANCH.COM said:
>This is either because:
>(a) She's expressing the situation as it is, and IBM won't make WSOD
>accessible to resellers, or
>(b) She's wrong, and spreading inaccurate information -- and the result
>is the same.
The other possibility, and I think the more likely one, is that IBM knows
that a reseller can't profitably install WSOD yet. WSOD isn't really
ready yet, and is only being delivered as evaluation units according to
the rumors I hear. Additionally, I think IBM may want to be present to
learn as well as to teach.
----------------------------------------------------
Booth Martin
---------------------------------------------------
From: est...@BITRANCH.COM
Subject: Re: Future of OS/2
Date: 1998/02/08
Message-ID: <19980209023257767.AAA222@agave>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323293568
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
References: <1E7145E4550@earth.goddard.edu>
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
boo...@EARTH.GODDARD.EDU said:
|Esther, please explain your use of "new attitude" in a discussion about
|IBM. What is different than the IBM we've known for years? Have they
|ever "gotten back" to you?
Actually, yes. Most of the time, the PR people have called me back.
And in fairness I'm pretty sure that I'll hear from the guy in charge of
PR by the end of the week. Last week was Lotusphere, followed by IBM's big
internal sales meeting, so a lot of the IBMers were away. (I'm in the
position to know that, and to cut them slack when appropriate... most
people aren't.)
The IBM hardware people have never called me back before. Now they're
doing so... though mostly to tell me, "I can't get you the equipment by
the date I'd originally hoped for."
,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-. --
Esther Schindler
Technology Editor
Sm@rt Reseller
From: est...@BITRANCH.COM
Subject: Re: Future of OS/2
Date: 1998/02/08
Message-ID: <19980209023736027.AAA183@agave>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323310089
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
References: <1E72D006388@earth.goddard.edu>
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
boo...@EARTH.GODDARD.EDU said:
|The other possibility, and I think the more likely one, is that IBM knows
|that a reseller can't profitably install WSOD yet. WSOD isn't really
|ready yet, and is only being delivered as evaluation units according to
|the rumors I hear. Additionally, I think IBM may want to be present to
|learn as well as to teach.
WSOD is shipping. It's cooked, or it ain't. If they want it reviewed --
and they called *me* -- then it had better be cooked.
IBM may indeed want to be present to learn as well as to teach... but
that's not how this business works. The PR people know that. (You might
not, but then you're not in that business. <fond smile at Booth>) It's my
job (and my publication's job) to inform and "teach" our readers -- not
the vendors. The vendor never learns the contents of a review (not even a
thumb's up or a thumb's down... heck, not even a frown or a smile) until
it appears in print.
,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-. --
Esther Schindler
Technology Editor
Sm@rt Reseller
From: sword...@NTRNET.NET
Subject: Re: Future of OS/2
Date: 1998/02/09
Message-ID: <199802090553.AAA07220@ns1.ntrnet.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323633427
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <1E72D006388@earth.goddard.edu>
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
In <1E72D006...@earth.goddard.edu>, on 02/08/98 at 08:24 PM,
boo...@EARTH.GODDARD.EDU said:
>The other possibility, and I think the more likely one, is that IBM knows
>that a reseller can't profitably install WSOD yet. WSOD isn't really
>ready yet, and is only being delivered as evaluation units according to
>the rumors I hear. Additionally, I think IBM may want to be present to
>learn as well as to teach.
Considering that WSOD has been out for something like six months, I think
it is selling. Infact, I know of someone that is getting ready to install
50 WSOD clients.
IBM just doesn't know how to give a straight, consistant message about
anything.
--
=================================================================
Honey! It's Bill Gates!! He says the only thing he doesn't own
is your Mower. (Nando.net comic strip)
=================================================================
David Eckard
From: est...@BITRANCH.COM
Subject: WSOD in the real world
Date: 1998/02/09
Message-ID: <19980209165353404.AAA217@agave>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323709289
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
References: <199802090553.AAA07220@ns1.ntrnet.net>
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
sword...@NTRNET.NET said:
|Considering that WSOD has been out for something like six months, I
|think it is selling. Infact, I know of someone that is getting ready to
|install 50 WSOD clients.
Who? (Privately if appropriate)
|IBM just doesn't know how to give a straight, consistant message about
|anything.
FWIW, in the spirit of fairness...
I got an almost immediate response (sent at midnight) when I wrote to my
old buddy Joe Stunkard, in charge of media relations. (Joe really lucked
out with Sm@rt Reseller -- in addition to me, my boss is steven
vaughan-nichols... and sjvn worked with Joe frequently back when Joe was
PR guy for Lantastic.) Stephanie didn't have it wrong for the "regular"
kind of journalists, but she didn't understand my OS/2 knowledge. Also,
IBM _is_ dealing with resellers, but the resellers have to go through a
training program because installing and setting up WSOD apparently isn't
easy. (That explains why IBM wouldn't want to send out a box of shrinkwrap
to an average reviewer who doesn't know about RIPL and CID.)
So the situation might be getting better. At least on the communication
side.
,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-. --
Esther Schindler
Technology Editor
Sm@rt Reseller
From: ste...@IBM.NET
Subject: Re: WSOD in the real world
Date: 1998/02/09
Message-ID: <199802091656.QAA82470@out2.ibm.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323705204
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
References: <19980209165353404.AAA217@agave>
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
In <19980209165353404.AAA217@agave>, on 02/09/98
at 09:41 AM, est...@BITRANCH.COM said:
**SNIP**
>FWIW, in the spirit of fairness...
>I got an almost immediate response (sent at midnight) when I wrote to my
>old buddy Joe Stunkard, in charge of media relations. (Joe really lucked
>out with Sm@rt Reseller -- in addition to me, my boss is steven
>vaughan-nichols... and sjvn worked with Joe frequently back when Joe was
>PR guy for Lantastic.) Stephanie didn't have it wrong for the "regular"
>kind of journalists, but she didn't understand my OS/2 knowledge. Also,
>IBM _is_ dealing with resellers, but the resellers have to go through a
>training program because installing and setting up WSOD apparently isn't
>easy. (That explains why IBM wouldn't want to send out a box of
>shrinkwrap to an average reviewer who doesn't know about RIPL and CID.)
>So the situation might be getting better. At least on the communication
>side.
How many reviews have we seen over the years from reviewers who didn't
have a clue, and in effect, having a negative effect on OS/2 by publishing
the review? Perhaps IBM would like to make sure that the reviewer is at
least doing things "the OS/2 way"?
( I am NOT referring to you Esther : )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
WARNING! This document was created and transmitted using OS/2 V4, the most
advanced 32 bit operating system in the world. Installation of this
software on your machine will cause increased productivity, Power User
Syndrome and cause you to make your own decisions about how you want to
use your work station. Get Warped at your own risk!
From: est...@BITRANCH.COM
Subject: Re: WSOD in the real world
Date: 1998/02/09
Message-ID: <19980209181204099.AAA179@agave>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323719227
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
References: <199802091656.QAA82470@out2.ibm.net>
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
ste...@IBM.NET said:
|How many reviews have we seen over the years from reviewers who didn't
|have a clue, and in effect, having a negative effect on OS/2 by
|publishing the review? Perhaps IBM would like to make sure that the
|reviewer is at least doing things "the OS/2 way"?
|( I am NOT referring to you Esther : )
I didn't think you were. <smile>
You simultaneously miss the point, and hit it right on the head.
One thing that Microsoft has done well, over the years, is to hover at the
elbow of writers and reviewers. ("Done well" from MS' point of view, that
is.) Most writers and editors _hate_ them and find MS' PR people as
annoying as black flies... but when someone calls to say, "I just wanted
to let you know that MS Help Creator 1.0.3.2 has been released," it _does_
remind you that you've been wanting to ask about the availability of this
other product.... As a result, MS creates a relationship with the press
people; you learn who to call when you need a package shipped overnight,
etc.
Good writers, whereever they are, always work in their own personal review
containment area, with their attention purely on the needs and concerns of
their readers. This includes 99.9% of the regular writers in the computer
press, the people whose names you're apt to recognize. It's difficult
(though presumably not impossible) to get ahead in this business if you
lack integrity; the computer press really _does_ talk to and about one
another, and earning a bad reputation among your cohorts is deadly. No
self respecting journalist would do it "the MS way" or "the [vendor] way."
OTOH, not everybody in the world is self respecting, especially at the
shallow end of the pool. My greatest complaints with coverage of computer
issues (not limited to OS/2!) tends to be in the freebie publications, the
articles written by a bozo who got paid $50 for the article and knows just
*slightly* less about computing than the average house plant. They're the
people from whom I most commonly see blatent errors and stupid remarks.
These people rarely last long, and few of them are going to quit their
"day job," but if it's your product, the damage has been done.
That's the side of the coin that will reassure those who want to hear that
the press is indeed pond scum. Now, let's give equal time to the _other_
side of the issue.
Yes, a lot of writers gave less-than-enthusiastic reviews to OS/2 because
it wouldn't install perfectly, it didn't work exactly right out of the
box, and so on. Plenty of enthusiastic OS/2 users were quick to point out
that these writers were "clueless" (and other words Mama wouldn't have
approved of) because the writer couldn't, wouldn't, or didn't spend
several hours finding an obscure driver, reading the newsgroups, etc. The
fact that the enthusiastic OS/2 user had already invested hours or days or
months in developing his expertise, and the writer is handed a box and
told, "Get it done by next Tuesday" isn't always visible. As a general
criticism of the computer press, a lot of reviews are done shortly after
installation, so they reflect the *installation* experience more than the
*user* experience. And I think most of us here would agree that, er,
OS/2's installation has never been its most impressive and compelling
feature. (IMHO, all really _great_ software grows on you; it's the tiny
items that charm you over time, just as it's the dumb little things that
annoy you. My most fervent reviews come from software I've *used,* not
just installed.)
If indeed WSOD is hard to set up --and the implication so far is that it
is-- sending out shrinkwrap is asking for more of the same treatment.
But here's the crux of the issue. If OS/2 is a bitch to set up -- and for
a lot of reviewers it certainly was -- then *that* is reflective of the
experience the reader is apt to have. That's valuable information that the
readers, who depend on us for accurate observation, want to know. Sure,
those of us on os2-l got past the not-always-perfect installation and
discovered the gold underneath... but plenty of people who tried OS/2
didn't. Nor did many of the reviewers, who took OS/2 off their systems as
soon as they could. After all, if you have one bad experience with a
restaurant, how likely are you to return?
Installations don't have to be perfect. But they can't be so bad that they
chase away the customer before the appetizer is served.
,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-. --
Esther Schindler
Technology Editor
Sm@rt Reseller
From: Peter Flass <fl...@LBDC.SENATE.STATE.NY.US>
Subject: Re: WSOD in the real world
Date: 1998/02/09
Message-ID: <Pine.A32.3.91.980209134618.24445A-100000@lbdc.senate.state.ny.us>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323724975
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
References: <19980209181204099.AAA179@agave>
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 est...@BITRANCH.COM wrote:
> ste...@IBM.NET said:
> |How many reviews have we seen over the years from reviewers who didn't
> |have a clue, and in effect, having a negative effect on OS/2 by
> |publishing the review? Perhaps IBM would like to make sure that the
> |reviewer is at least doing things "the OS/2 way"?
>
> You simultaneously miss the point, and hit it right on the head.
> ...
> No self respecting journalist would do it "the MS way" or "the [vendor]
way."
Not to put words in the original poster's mouth, but I think the
reference was to the reviewers who tried OS/2 and complained because it
didn't do this-or-that exactly the same as windoze, when it provided a
different and presumably better way of doing the same thing (or is it
"different and *therefore* better"?)
--------
Peter Flass <FL...@LBDC.SENATE.STATE.NY.US>
Systems Programmer
NYS Legislative Bill Drafting Commission
1450 Western Avenue, 3rd floor
Albany, NY 12203
Voice:(518)458-5114 FAX:(518)458-5108
From: est...@BITRANCH.COM
Subject: Re: WSOD in the real world
Date: 1998/02/09
Message-ID: <19980209191515060.AAA175@agave>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 323729494
Sender: IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List <OS...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>
References: <Pine.A32.3.91.980209134618.24445A-100000@lbdc.senate.state.ny.us>
Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.os2-l
Peter Flass <fl...@LBDC.SENATE.STATE.NY.US> said:
|Not to put words in the original poster's mouth, but I think the
|reference was to the reviewers who tried OS/2 and complained because it
|didn't do this-or-that exactly the same as windoze, when it provided a
|different and presumably better way of doing the same thing (or is it
|"different and *therefore* better"?)
Well, that too. :-)
And again, that's a reflection of a lot of computer users. To many, many
people, "different" means "worse" and "familiar" is "good."
This goes well beyond operating systems. Wars have been fought over this
concept. <--Esther's philosophical moment for the day.
,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-.,,.-~-. --
Esther Schindler
Technology Editor
Sm@rt Reseller