🚀 go-pugleaf

In article UjWawg6Z...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu, khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Oliver Chung) writes:
>
>When the hardware is not compatible with OS/2, some choose to
>dump OS/2, some choose to dump the hardware.  Fine with me.

Agreed.

>
>The same can be said of GUS (or any piece of unsupported
>hardware), replacing OS/2 and IBM by GUS and Gravis in your above
>statement, it becomes:
>
>"...think a sound card that has been around as long as GUS should
>have much better software support than it appears to have.  The
>fact that it doesn't is testament to the fact that Gravis has not
>gone the last mile in pushing GUS, and is also testament to a
>lack of respect for GUS among software vendors..."

Yeah, without a doubt this is very accurate.  The GUS and OS/2 have
been in very similar positions in the past.

>
>
>>This situation would scare me if I was relying upon
>>OS/2 to run my business, etc.
>
>Quite the contrary, OS/2 is doing much better in the business
>sector than in the home users sector.  Business looks for
>different criteria than home users.

True, but the criteria I was talking about WAS the criteria businesses
use.  I'm not saying OS/2 doesn't work well for them, I'm saying they
should be concerned about IBM's lack of an OS/2 strategy/commitment for
the future.  IBM *SHOULD* be pushing OS/2 much harder than it is.


>
>They could, just that they have to choose between GUS and OS/2. 
>I wouldn't consider choosing as a kind of suffering.

I would, in some cases.  I'm not sure what kind of logic you're 
using here.  Let's take the following situation:

Facts:
1) Person A owns OS/2
2) GUS does not have OS/2 driver
3) GUS is best soundcard on the market

Result:
Person A cannot use the best sound card on the market.  He suffers.  
Understand?

(Note: this is just an example.  I'm not saying GUS is or isn't the best
audio card in reality.)


>Fine with me.  If I really wanted the GUS, I would have dumped
>OS/2.  But OS/2 offers much more to me than GUS, which mean
>Gravis lost a customer.  Some choose GUS, and IBM lost some
>customer.  Fine.

Why is it fine?  IBM should be addressing this issue if they are
serious about supporting OS/2.  This situation is not acceptable,
since it's very correctable.

>
>Things always come to this: Choices.  You can't have everything
>all the time.  Whatever you choose, it's your choice.

Granted.  But if I'm IBM, I try to make the choice of OS/2 as
attractive as possible.  

In other words, the CUSTOMER has to make the hard choices as they
exist.  That's his responsibility as a consumer.  But IBM, as the
manufacturer, shouldn't simply sit back and not try to make their
customers' choices easier.  However, from the hardware support and
vender respect viewpoint, IBM seems to be doing exactly that.

>
>My point is simply:  Your better know the choices before you
>choose, which means doing research before buying.

I agree, but see above.

>
>If you bought OS/2 (or anything software) and then discover your
>hardware is not supported, you can only blame yourself for not
>doing research.

Yes, true.  But the analogy is this: if I go out and buy a CD player
for my stereo from Company X, and it doesn't work with my receiver and
tape deck from Company Y, I blame myself for not researching the
issue.  But that fact that *I* am the one taking the blame for this
purchasing decision doesn't mean that the product itself shouldn't be
improved to work with that other equipment.  
  
-Dave

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Peterschmidt        |   A billion here and a billion             |
d...@cray.com             |   there. Pretty soon it adds up            |
890 Industrial Blvd.     |   to real money.                           |
Chippewa Falls, WI       |                                            |
(715) 726-5418           |      -Senator Everett Dirksen              |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------