SPONSORED LINKS
> > If I'm not mistaken, Excel has outsold the 1-2-3 juggernaut for
> > about 2 years now. It is clearly the new spreadsheet standard (and with
> > good reason, IMO--it's *very* good).
> >
> I believe that you are, in fact, mistaken, if I remember a recent WSJ
> article. And I can assure you that 123 is still far and away the
> dominant spreadsheet used by corporations. Just look at any LA times
> want add section, and you will see "Lotus 123 proficiency required" ten
> times more often than any mention of excel.
Re-read that stuff above, Roger--"Lotus 123 proficiency required"
is an anachronism. It means they're still running 286's. It means they
haven't upgraded software in the past 5 years or more. They probably use
WordPerfect 5.0 too.
The point was that *sales* in the last 2 years or more, of
Excel, have significantly out-stripped sales of 1-2-3. That means anyone
buying *new* spreadsheets *now* is far more likely to buy Excel than 1-2-3.
Now if the installed base of 1-2-3 is greater than Excel, that's a blast
from the past, but the future looks like it belongs to Excel.
Any company that I have been to/visited, etc. that is *remotely*
caught up with technology is using Excel. Some of the long-entrenched
types (namely Banks) will probably use 1-2-3 forever, just like attorneys
will be using WordPerfect 5.1 forever (even though WP has had newer versions
out for nearly 2 years now).
Reason? They haven't a need to upgrade or switch. Their needs are
suited fine on a 286. That's why 1-2-3 is still very popular with them--
they are still using version 2.x.
The bad news is that fact isn't going to help OS/2 users any,
because those same people have to upgrade their computers to make any
use of OS/2 (or Windows--but as I said--they're entrenched).
> > Perhaps that tells the entire story right there--you mention a
> > particular program that is "only available in a windows version". The
> > real story out there is that nearly *everything* is available in a
> > Windows (or even Windows-only) version, while OS/2-native stuff gets stuck
> > sucking the hind teat--if any teat at all.
> >
> No argument that there are more Windows apps. It is still basically a
> 16-bit world out there. But the PC community is becoming increasingly
> aware that the Windows paradigm is getting long in the tooth. OS/2
> **is** better. But, just as was true in the case of Windows, when it
> supplanted DOS, getting the whole world to switch is a gigantic
> undertaking. And remember, there **are** millions of OS/2 users.
Sure! And those OS/2 users are still waiting for apps...
I'm convinced that 90% of the people who use OS/2 are either
programmers who *have* to have pre-emptive multitasking (and of course
it excels very well in that area) above all else or religious
zealouts like my brother whose very existence depends on its success.
While 16-bit Windows apps are long in the tooth, at least they
*exist*! What good are 32-bit apps for OS/2 that don't exist?
An Operating System is not an island unto itself. The whole
idea in including DOS & Windows "runnability" in OS/2 was to give users a
transition--a way to run their current stuff as they upgrade to
OS/2 versions of their software. But the problem with that strategy
is that in nearly all cases, those users don't have an OS/2 version
of their software to upgrade *to*.
> > Excepting Lotus, I don't see much of *any* "major" software player
> > on the OS/2 platform--in fact, I see most of them have jumped off (by the
> > way--is Corel still releasing DRAW! for native OS/2? Its at version 5.0
> > now--do that have an OS/2-native at that version?), whether it is
> > Microsoft (of course, we know why...), WordPerfect, Aldus...it seems
> > the major players--even the ones who developed for OS/2 early on--have
> > abandoned it. This simply speaks *doom* for OS/2's market viability.
> > It will either disappear (and that's a shame) or forever remain a narrow
> > niche-player for people with highly-specialized needs (namely the programm
> > who finds its multi-tasking and cross-operating-system capability very
> > useful).
> >
>
> I'm not knowledgeable about CorelDraw, except to note that I have heard
> references to an upcoming OS/2 version on the OS/2 apps newsgroup.
Corel released a version of Draw! about the same time OS/2 2.0
was released--it was a big help for OS/2 at the time. I'm just curious
about whether Corel has kept up with OS/2 (the Windows version has gone
through at least 2 versions since then--maybe 3) or abandoned it just
like Aldus, WordPerfect, and others...
Oh yes, I forgot to include the fact that last year at Comdex
'93, Phillipe Kahn at Borland pledged support for OS/2...of course
Borland practically doesn't exist anymore (weren't they swallowed
up by WordPerfect/Novell?).
> If Microsoft didn't agree with me that the PC community wants a 32 bit
> OS, it wouldn't be pushing Windows 97 so hard. :-)
MS obviously agrees. The only modifier I would have to add is
that the PC community doesn't just want a 32-bit OS on their machine, but
they also want 32-bit *applications* to run on it!
For all their foibles, MS did one thing *very* right--and that
was to negotiate with many of the existing software publishers to see to
it that Windows 3.0 was supported with some fairly significant apps (not
to mention their own Excel and Word). Once they got big enough, some more
"biggies" like WordPerfect and Lotus followed, to avoid missing out.
People moved to Windows from DOS because they could see the relatively
obvious benefits of a GUI and it was relatively painless and cheap--after all,
if you don't like it, exit it! You're back in DOS. Sure, it was a
terrible kludge, but it was a relatively painless one--*nothing* like
installing a whole new operating system and then having almost *no* way
of going back. It gave people the opportunity to try it, quit, and try
it again--without making a major commitment.
It wasn't good technology, but it was marketing *genius*. It
gave people training wheels and a few years to get used to it, then it
moves them into the proper way of doing it with a "real" operating system.
OS/2 missed out because in its first outing, the "DOS Compatibility
Box" wasn't very "DOS Compatible" and the package cost an arm and a leg
(of course, MS was involved in its development at the time, so one cannot
simply blame IBM). By the time 2.0 came out with its vast improvements, it
was too little, too late--Windows 3.0 was firmly entrenched and a month
after OS/2 2.0 came out, Win 3.1 arrived to solidify its position. OS/2's
timing was off. Now, if someone wanted a GUI on their PC, "Windows" was
the obvious answer. Perhaps IBM could have done better by getting Mfgrs. to
ship with OS/2 on their machines, but they didn't.
Basically, MS did all their marketing *right* and they did it
sooner--and IBM didn't.
Whenever MS finally gets it out the door, rest assured that
developers *will* indeed follow. Until OS/2 can make such a claim, then it
will forever remain in the niche I previously described.
----- ________________________________
Randy Whittle whittle@usc.edu | Y'know, Tuna just |
USC School of Business (Fight on, 'SC Trojans!)| doesn't taste the same |
(My opinions are mine, but since I'm | since they took the |
right, they should be yours too.) | Dolphin out! |
--------------------------------