Jim,
Well, I think IBM just kind of gave up on OS/2, because of Microsoft's tactics. Believe it or not, I'm still running OS/2 (2.1 -- a nice stable version) on an old Gateway 486/33. I don't use it that often (preferring, of course, my Pentium 200 with Win95), but since I still have some old FPDOS apps floating around, I still use my OS/2 machine for my DOS development/maintenance. I also use a few older Windows apps that I'll never bother upgrading that did not use Win32s (you're right, that's how Microsoft crippled OS/2).
I was a staunch supporter of OS/2 back in the "old days" on the Prodigy OS/2 forums, but it obviously led nowhere. It was with great interest that I read of the Linux protests outside a Microsoft office a few weeks ago ... sounds like they're a bit more organized than us OS/2-afficiondos were < g > .... wonder if Linux will go farther than OS/2 did?
Bonnie
>Bonnie,
>
>I jump to IBM's defense here - there is *NO* comparison between the promotion done for OS/2 and that done for VFP!
>
>Especially for OS/2 release 2 the IBM hype was fervent. And it was with foundation, since it really did provide (by 2.1) a 'better DOS than MS DOS and a better Windows than Windows'.
>
>But MS was very sly on this one, effectively derailing most people's installed Win-OS2 (that was Windows under OS/2, in case you forget) by delivering updated components (names escape me right now) which ibm'S Win-OS2 couldn't handle.
>Even worse, these components weren't even needed by the software being installed, but they were supplied anyways and so got into OS/2 systems.
>
>I don't think that IBM could keep up against such a scheme. At the same time the development of OS/2 products which were fully compatible (or better) than their Win equivalents never did materialize. I've got to believe that MS had some influence on that too.
>
>My first experience was with VFP3 on OS/2. It clobbered the WIN32S (or whatever it was). I remember resolving that (after lots of digging) and then being hit by the same thing with an install of Powerbuilder. That was proof enough for me that MS was bound to win that "war", so I began migrating off of OS/2 and to Windows.
>
>MS has NEVER adequately promoted VFP and MS has never made sure that all its people are singing from a songbook that includes VFP. At least IBM did so, and for more than just a 'show period'.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jim N
>
>>Hi Scott,
>>
>>Didn't I just see an ad posted somewhere for VFP programmers for Pitney Bowes? I guess you didn't find anybody, eh? The only reason that I even noticed the ad is because I'm originally from CT (now living in CA, so I'm not really interested in the job). There's obviously still people programming in VFP and jobs are out there for us, so it's not dead. It's interesting how MS handles the hype for VFP tho ... does anybody else notice a similarity between this and the way IBM (non)promoted OS/2 way back when?
>>
>>Bonnie
>>
>>>Hi John,
>>>I just wanted to toss in some experiences I have just run into. I'm switching divisions in my company. The new group I'm going to has people with FoxPro/VFP experience, but we are not being allowed to use the tool. We can write our own utilities for personal use, but anything going to an end user has to be written in Access and VB. Demos have been put together showing that VFP outperforms Access for the types of applications that they are writing, but these have been ignored. The mindset of management is that VB is the way to go because MS does not stand by the VFP product. The lack of any real advertising in comparison fuels this argument. Finally, because VB is promoted so heavily, we can no longer find any experienced VFP programmers for full time work, or graduates who are willing to work with the language. The lack of bodies willing to work with VFP is another driving force to eliminate it as a viable tool in my workplace.
>>>
>>>Do you see this trend out in your area? I'm in CT.
>>>
>>>Scott Fitzgerald
