• Welcome to OS2World OLD-STATIC-BACKUP Forum.
 

News:

This is an old OS2World backup forum for reference only. IT IS READ ONLY!!!

If you need help with OS/2 - eComStation visit http://www.os2world.com/forum

Main Menu

Lack of popular OS/2 applications

Started by PAUL555, 2011.02.10, 13:12:40

Previous topic - Next topic

PAUL555


One of the reasons given for the failure of OS/2 on the PC(other than the lack of vision of IBM) was due to the dearth of popular OS/2 applications as compared to the applications that existed for Windows. Was this because OS/2 applications were difficult to build or due to some other reason(s) ?

Paul

Pete

Hi Paul

I suspect that the problem may have been that os/2 was too clever for it's own good - it could run DOS and Win3 apps so why develop os/2 specific versions.

Regards

Pete

miturbide

PAUL555.

I think that on that moment (early 90's) it was the same effort to make a Windows or OS/2 app. I personally think that if it was easy or hard to make an OS/2 application wasn't one of the reasson why OS/2 fail in the market.
Martín Itúrbide
OS2World.com NewsMaster
Open Source Advocate

Skype - martiniturbide
Google Talk - martiniturbide@gmail.com

CDRWSel

If I remember (but it is long time ago and not sure)
Microsoft provided tools and other free facilities to quickly develop applications.
IBM tools for developpers was $$$$ .. 
 

Terry

Starting with Windows95 (32-bit) -- Windows became the best-marketed operating system, not to mention, the best arm-twisting-practices operating system for software companies & developers, including computer manufacturer pre-installs.

Today, WinXP, WinVista, and Win7 are still not the the most stable operating systems, but they are stable-enough, to the uninformed casual user.  OS/2'ers & eCS'ers tend to be "power users" (along with Linux-users) who are sandwiched-between the "casual Win-OS user" and the "programmer/developer."

DougB

QuoteWas this because OS/2 applications were difficult to build or due to some other reason(s) ?

Initially (early 90s), it was expensive to get the software that was required to create OS/2 programs. However, after a few people got over that hurdle, they did start to produce some excellent programs (PMView, Describe, PMMail, and many others that don't come to mind at the moment). Most of those old programs will still work just as well as they ever did, but many have been simply abandoned by their creators, and many are showing their age (PMView is one exception, but even that has not really been updated for a long time). PMMail has been updated by VOICE, but the manpower required to do it properly has not been available. The main programmer (James Moe) has done a great job, but much more really needs to be done to get it up to where VOICE wants it to be.

However, to answer the question: A lot of people in the OS/2 world, simply sat back, waiting for IBM to create new programs. IBM did do that to some extent, for a while, and when they announced that they would no longer be doing that, the OS/2 users just couldn't believe it, and still sat back, waiting. Of course some of the other programmers did pick up a few projects (mostly because they wanted it for themselves), and they did some good work, but not anywhere near enough to keep everybody happy. That caused many people to abandon OS/2, and many of the talented programmers went to Linux (that is a programmers dream). The good programmers who stayed with OS/2 started to do more, mostly by porting things from Linux (but original work was also done). Of course, there was a learning curve involved, so it took some time before a lot of new programs started to appear (most of the programmers also need to make a living). That, in turn, turned more people off of OS/2, and some (if not all) of the programmers started to take a lot of flack from users, because they weren't producing enough to keep everybody happy. Meanwhile, a good portion of the remaining users were still simply sitting back waiting for somebody else to do it. That caused even more programmers to give up, and move on.

Today, more users are starting to get off their duffs, and help out, but there are still a lot of people who are sitting back, and waiting. Fortunately, between the QT port, and the Linux ports, a LOT of new stuff is showing up, so the users are starting to be a little happier. Now, if we can get ACPI, Panorama, NIC drivers (especially for wireless), and a few other things, working right, more people will be interested, and more programmers might start coming back. It is a LOT of work, for those who are doing it, and they generally get nothing but flack, although more people are beginning to realize what they are actually doing, so they do get some appreciation (not enough).

So, the main "problem" has been apathy among the users, and an attitude of "let somebody else do it". Fortunately, that seems to be turning around, so there is still hope, but it will take a lot of effort, from a lot of people, to pull it off.

RobertM

Quote from: CDRWSel on 2011.02.10, 18:17:06
If I remember (but it is long time ago and not sure)
Microsoft provided tools and other free facilities to quickly develop applications.
IBM tools for developpers was $$$$ .. 
 

The saddest thing is, IBM would give away the tools for free, if one did a little work, made a few phone calls, and asked the correct way. But the vast majority of developers never kept pushing, which wasn't their fault really. It's just kind of sadly ironic that contrary to what IBM was portraying publicly to the developers, virtually everything was free for the asking with a little effort.


|
|
Kirk's 5 Year Mission Continues at:
Star Trek New Voyages
|
|


Ben

Quote from: RobertM on 2011.02.10, 23:58:59
The saddest thing is, IBM would give away the tools for free...

Speaking of IBM giving away free software, when I bought OS/2 2.1 I received so many boxes in the mail that I thought that something had gone wrong. Included in these, (in finality), were three full, boxed, copies of Lotus Smartsuite no less.

I actually phoned IBM about it as I felt bad, and they said that one department was unsure if the other had sent it so sent me another copy. The third copy was sent because the first two copies were US and not Canadian. Oh! How IBM has fallen...

It's been so long that I cannot remember the rest of the free titles, but it amounted to roughly $1,500 worth of additional software... not including the extra copies of LSS.

Without a doubt!, the best OS purchase I ever made! 8)

PAUL555


All the applications mentioned in this thread other than Lotus Smartsuite are small applications from ISVs. What I was asking about was the commonly used applications from the larger companies such as Office, Wordperfect, Wordstar, Coreldraw, Norton Utilities, PC Tools, Internet Security suite e.t.c. Most of the applications that were developed for OS/2 seemed to have been from independent software vendors.

Paul

Fahrvenugen

#9
Quote from: PAUL555 on 2011.02.10, 13:12:40

...Was this because OS/2 applications were difficult to build or due to some other reason(s) ?

Paul

The thing to keep in mind is that every operating system has a learning  curve to build apps for it (apps that go beyond the basic functions).  A programmer who's worked extensively with the Windows API won't be able to just code for Linux or OS/2 without learning something about the API's and libraries available in Linux and / or OS/2.  When the same library exists on each platform it does make it easier to port apps from one platform to another.  But when the library or API isn't directly available, you then have to ask the question "what is the equivalent under this OS?".  And then figure out how to make your code use that equivalent.  While this is certainly possible, it does present a learning curve.  

I think the biggest thing that many software programmers saw, especially the ones trying to make a living  was the overall install base.  if Windows has an install base of (and again, thinking back to the early to mid 1990's) 50 - 100 million, and OS/2 has 10 - 20 million (or whatever it was), and you are writing a word processor, what would you chose?  Would you write to the Windows 3.1 API which will offer you a potential market of 50 - 100 million, plus a market of 10 - 20 million OS/2 users (as long as they run the app in WinOS/2), or would you just code for that 10 - 20 million OS/2 market, and ignore the larger potential market, hoping that eventually those just running Windows will upgrade to OS/2?  I know if it were me, regardless of whether I thought one OS was better then the other, I'd still want to be able to make enough of a living to pay my bills each month. 

It is interesting to read some of the accounts from software developers of this era.  There were many who coded Win3.1 apps, but did their development within OS/2 running WinOS/2.  That way when Windows crashed, they didn't have to reboot their computer - just restart the WinOS/2 session.




PAUL555

#10
 So, from the discussions above, the lack of applications on Os/2 was for the following reasons :

(1) Windows development tools were easier to use than the equivalent tools on Os/2.    

(2) Windows development tools were less costly and / or available free of cost from Microsoft.    

(3) Windows 3.1 was easier to install on the PC hardware than OS/2.    

(4) OS/2 was itself offering the Win-OS/2 option, than why bother to code for native applications on OS/2.

(5) IBM itself was the worst enemy of OS/2 and was trying to kill off OS/2 after the Power PC debacle and after Lou Gerstner took over.

(6) Microsoft was pressurising PC manufacturers from installing OS/2 alongside windows or on its own.

(7) Microsoft put in code to prevent the newer Windows 3.11 applications from running on Win-Os/2.

Paul

RobertM

(8) (Continuation on the Win3.1/WinOS2 apps) Cross platform development was largely seen as a waste of time for other reasons as well, namely, porting a Windows app to OS/2 pretty much meant you had a Windows-like app. Such apps would be a big difference from true OS/2 apps (like Describe) and have no compelling reasons why anyone would want to buy the OS/2 version over the Windows version. The programming model(s) were (and still are) very different in writing a true OS/2 app or a true Windows app. To this day, certain things on OS/2 just are entirely impossible on Windows (without a craptastic amount of kludges being thrown in). The most obvious example would be anything truly object oriented. Windows wasn't and isn't truly object oriented (except in Microsoft's redefinition of the word). That's of course why shortcuts break, and why managing Windows Server 2003/2008 boxes are so cumbersome (in comparison to the ancient "Lan Services File and Print" configuration tools).

The interestingly sad and ironic thing in this is that Microsoft actually wrote numerous kludges to overcome some of these shortcomings (such as in their file dialog which will auto-update with content), while, until the near future (when it's replacement is released), we are stuck with the OS/2 1.x/Win/Presentation Manager non-object oriented file dialogs.

But the point is, there were multiple compelling reasons not to waste money on an OS/2 version... the already mentioned "The Win3.x version will work on OS/2, possibly even better than it will on Win3.1 or Win95" and the difficulty in re-engineering the software to truly take advantage of OS/2 in a way that makes purchasing it compelling.


|
|
Kirk's 5 Year Mission Continues at:
Star Trek New Voyages
|
|


Blonde Guy

Quote from: PAUL555 on 2011.02.11, 05:50:08

All the applications mentioned in this thread other than Lotus Smartsuite are small applications from ISVs. What I was asking about was the commonly used applications from the larger companies such as Office, Wordperfect, Wordstar, Coreldraw, Norton Utilities, PC Tools, Internet Security suite e.t.c. Most of the applications that were developed for OS/2 seemed to have been from independent software vendors.

Paul

I had Microsoft Excel and Word for OS/2, Coreldraw for OS/2, Norton Utilities for OS/2. This was all for 16-bit OS/2 1.x. There were dozens of others. In 1993, I often heard that we would have to switch to Windows from executives who could not spell OS/2. That's the real reason, the guys in the board room knew they had to have Windows.
Expert Consulting for OS/2 and eComStation