OSNews

I think the problem w.r.t. price is IBM, not Mensys or Serenity Systems.

You're very likely right. Still, then, why bother having a "Home and Student" version? Seems like that money would be better spent marketing the business version.

I don't think it's over priced and I gladly pay that much for it. They aren't trying to spread it around like wild fire, they are just trying to keep afloat.

Given, if they dropped the price it likely would have more people checking it out, but still.

Perfectly fair that you do not feel it is overpriced. Economics tells us that the same products are worth different prices to different buyers after-all.

My feeling is that it is mis-priced (too high) however in the sense that a different price would maximize profit. They are limiting their market share and their profit.

$149 for a home user is just too high. For one thing, it is above the psychological price point for the market these days. Second, it just does not offer enough value relative to competing solutions like Windows. It is great that it comes with a 5-seat license but most people do not need that. Also, they have no "upgrade" option for users of competing products.

I get that eComstation is pretty much a business only (and legacy) OS at this point. I also assume that IBM is constraining their options on pricing. The lifetime even the existing installed base is threatened by these policies however.

There are a lot of people in the "hobbyist" and developer camps, such as myself, that have fond memories of OS/2. I wager that Having a low cost developer option ($49 or so) would make a lot of sense. Giving free copies to Open Source projects that support eComstation would be even smarter.

I am impressed that projects like Firefox and OpenOffice.org (LibreOffice?) still support OS/2 but I am sure the situation could be improved if the barrier to entry for developers was dropped.

With a little boost to the software ecosystem, we could see the niche market for eComstation significantly extended. The overall market share could even grow. It is far too late for OS/2 to be a mainstream OS contender. It is not too late for it to be the core of a profitable software ecosystem for a smart company that can execute well.

"My feeling is that it is mis-priced (too high) however in the sense that a different price would maximize profit. They are limiting their market share and their profit."

I agree, if they dropped it a bit they could get more of a following in the hobbyist sector.

"I am impressed that projects like Firefox and OpenOffice.org (LibreOffice?) still support OS/2 but I am sure the situation could be improved if the barrier to entry for developers was dropped."

They don't officially. This is done painstakingly by a few companies and OSS devs within the community. But I am sure glad they put in all the effort. If you find useful to you (if you use eComstation) please donate as it helps support further development. sorry, just had to toss that out there.

Edited 2011-05-24 16:42 UTC

If students learn how to use a new OS it can only be a good thing in my view. Its these same students that will one day be in the position of CHOOSING the os a business buys.

I would argue, that for long-term longevity, they should concentrate More on the student editions. Basically making it as 'disposably cheap' as possible so more people can have a taste for it.

My university was very good at making us use multiple OS for different kinds of tasks. It might have felt a bit pointless at the time (everyone used windows for everything it seemed) but kindled my interest in such things, leading me to sites like OSNews

Yes, I'm sure the PAID editors of those other websites also have their own, unrelated company to run on the side.

It's not that hard to find more than one item of news to post a day in the IT world. I bet you I could find 5 newsworthy posts if I spent just 30 minutes of time on it in the morning. (In fact, I know I can, because I used to be the editor on another IT news site). Really, it's not that hard. If you're not going to put in the time (and as I said, it really doesn't take that much time) to ensure that OSNews has fresh new content up every morning, then you should find someone else who will.

Edited 2011-05-24 14:14 UTC

Why don't you jump to it then, boyo?

Everybody can write glorified copy/pasted press releases and call it news. If you think it's so easy, then why have you never submitted anything?

Look, not even PAID editors churn out the amount of news that I do, and they sure as hell don't run their own unrelated company in the meantime. Most of the news on something like Engadget, for instance, consist of short blurbs, and they have a damn large pool of editors, and boatloads of money and a massive company backing them. Ars Technica's news is more like ours (but better), but they, too, have a shitload of editors, loads of money, and a large company backing them.

We have no money, no sugar daddy, no massive pool of editors. OSNews is basically a one-man show, and apart from doing OSNews every day, I go to university, run my own company, and have a very active social life. As far as OSNews goes, I try to add a little character, individuality and uniqueness to each of my posts. It doesn't always work, but I can assure you - and I say this with a perfectly straight face - you'll be hard-pressed to find another me, someone who is willing to run OSNews like this.

And we can know, since we sure have tried.

I actually have submitted stuff in the past. Just not for awhile because I stopped visiting OSNews for a long time because the site isn't nearly as actively updated as it used to be. As I said, in the past, OSNews had new content posted several times a day. Now it often only gets one new item a day. And it usually doesn't happen until night. Most people catch up on IT related news in the morning. And every morning, it's basically the same story "Nothing new to see at OSNews".



Really? A lot of the time there is only one new article a day posted here.



It's called spreading yourself too thin.

This is ridiculous. If you only read news in the morning, you read news from the last night. If you read news both at night and in the morning, then you want fresh news at not one but several times of the day.

Edited 2011-05-24 16:36 UTC

To the person responsible for the above comment:

This is the second time in this thread that you have called Thom out for his lack of effort. As a casual reader, it appears to me that others can contribute to OS News as well. Have you done this? No?

Have you launched a competing site or even initiated a hostile take-over of Thom's duties at OS News? No?

Have you made any sort of personal contribution that could be measured against Thom's to give credibility to your criticism? No?

I am constantly amazed at how aggressive some people are about criticizing services while providing absolutely no value themselves. Offering reasoned, civil, and constructive criticism is fine of course and, in fact, a kind of contribution in my mind. Being a vocal peer in a community of contributors seems legit to me. Being an outspoken critic of for-fee products and services that you have purchased (or even have not actually) is also reasonable of course. Being a loud-mouth parasite (sorry non-paying consumer) has never felt ok to me.

I wish I could see into people's minds and understand just how they convince themselves that this kind of behaviour makes sense.

Yes, actually I have. Just not for a long time because I stopped visiting for a long time. There was nothing worth seeing here. The pace of new content slowed way down, and by the time it got posted, it was old news.



Launching a competing site and posting content is the easy part. Getting enough exposure to make it worthwhile is the hard part.



That's not my intent. If Thom wants to do it, I have no desire to take it away from him.



The criticism is perfectly valid because what I said was true. Especially the part about not having new content available on Monday morning when most people are checking for the latest IT news. That has really got to hurt traffic, because again, people check their RSS feed, and it's the same story every time "Nothing new to see here".



I do provide value because I comment. Comments are an important part of a site like this. And as I said, I have contributed content in the past. Just not for awhile.

You have not submitted anything in the past two years. Checked our submission archive. You're not important enough to dive into the pre-2009 archive.

You're right. I haven't. It's probably been about two years since I have spent much time here because the content is just too stale most of the time.

That and you are always politicizing stories as well, which personally I find annoying.

Yep, let us all use Windows because that's the only true way to get the job done. After all, it is the only OS with software support from all major vendors, and the OS with by far the largest variety of supported hardware.

Edited 2011-05-24 14:42 UTC

There are other options. Like Linux. An OS that actually has a future.

eComStation likely does not have a future. There just aren't enough people willing to pay that kind of price for an OS that is effectively 15 years out of date, has virtually no software available anymore (sure you can build a lot of open source apps on it. But if you are gonna do that, you might as well run Linux), and that might suddenly disappear and become unsupported as soon a Serenity figures out it's not economically viable to keep trying to sell OS/2 as commercial software.

Oh sure, it's the "your OS isn't worthy because you're the only ones who like it" argument. Time & time again, people fall back on this tired ass reasoning. If you like Windows, then fine, use it. If you like Linux, then fine, use it. But how dare you sit here & knock someone for using an OS that you don't think should be around & you deem as dead. Well, obviously people are still using the original OS/2 & obviously, people are buying eCS. If they weren't, then there wouldn't be a business selling it, duh! There wouldn't be a community that's still hard at work trying to keep it going, double duh! People are constantly saying this about OS communities including the BeOS & Amiga communities. Why can't you people face the fact that no one's hurting you by using the OS that they want to use??? It's not as if someone using an old OS is going to cause you to get hit by a bus or something. So, grow up & stop bashing these other OSs. You might want to remember this when it's YOUR favorite OS that's now outdated, with people constantly calling it dead!

Of course there are other options. I'm just pointing out that the other options don't have nearly as good support for hardware and software than Windows, so by your argument, why would be bother with anything else? Why go with the hassle of limited supported hardware on a Mac? Why bother with rough Flash implementations and *almost* compatible office suites on Linux? Why jump through hoops recompiling kernels and putting wrappers around Windows drivers just to try and get your built-in wireless NIC to work? Obviously someone, somewhere wants OS/2, otherwise it would've died off a long time ago. Just because it's not for you doesn't mean it's dead.

I don't think anybody is arguing that it's in a position to challenge Windows on the desktop.

I would like to add that my bank still has some form of OS/2 on the desktop of their PCs. Which means that there is still a market for it. After all, there is still a market for DOS.

Your bank is probably still running OS/2 2.1, or Warp 3 or 4. There are a handful of old ATMs out there that still run OS/2 as well. IBM still provides support and patches for it to business customers who have support contracts for it. But IBM is really pushing the few remaining customers that still use it to migrate to other platforms. IBM really wishes they could completely kill off OS/2.

...and yet a news item about it yields 30 comments (and counting) - and at least half of them are actually on topic. That is a pretty good signal to noise ratio all things considered.

I used OS/2 for about 5 years or so back in the 90s - I have very fond memories. I don't use it anymore - mostly for all the reasons you mentioned. Yet I do not feel the need to derail the discussion about it with "its dead, everyone needs to move on" crap. If you don't want to use it then don't, but a very small and very vocal minority of users still do use it - have a little respect for their feelings.

I'm not arguing your facts or reasoning are flawed - I just don't think anyone who is actually using ecom station is going to be the least bit swayed by your post. I think they already know they are using an OS that has already seen its better days - but they just got a new release, let them have their fun with it.

So, the life & death of an OS depends on the features of it's GUI & not the OS's actual performance???

There's a difference between all-dead and mostly-dead.

Some OSes really are all-dead, but it's surprising how few. Older versions of classic Mac OS are all-dead, for example, because there are no new ports, little or no maintained software and no new releases. It's easier to all-dead a commercial OS because there's a finite set of sources for improvements. Open source OSes never really die at all.

Amiga? Not dead. DOS? Certainly not dead. CP/M is still alive, though his breathing is quite shallow. By comparison to these eComStation is as healthy as they come.

Think of all the OSes you've ever used or seen used. How many are running on real hardware right this minute? If nobody runs them at all any more, they're dead. How many have at least two people maintaining software that runs on them? If someone is maintaining and updating user software for an OS, it's not dead. How many still receive updates to the core OS? If the OS still receives updates, even if only once or twice a decade, it's not dead.

It's damn hard to kill an OS. It's much easier to kill off the hardware it runs on and the people who created it. Time alone will probably do both.

The difference is that I am not predicting a future event. OS/2 died a long time ago. A few die-hard hold outs just aren't willing to accept that.



Which is probably higher with eCS, because of the difficulty in obtaining modern hardware that is fuklly supported.



And that means what? That that die-hard OS/2 users might keep using it, and might pay less. But new users pay more? That's not exactly going to attract any new users then, is it?



The "GPL" license means I can install Linux on an infinite number of systems without paying anything. And the home and student edition of of ecomstation only comes with six months of software subscription services. So you will stop getting updates after 6 months unless you pay again.



I'm not an adverary. Like I said, OS/2 was, at one time, my favorite OS. But unfortunately, IBM seriously botched the marketing of it. They also seriously botched strategic planning a far as what they wanted to do with it. First pushing it onto home systems, then saying they didn't care about home users. Then they made the mistake of thinking the Power chips were the future of computing and spent all of their OS/2 resources porting OS/2 to PowerPC, only to back out of that and then back port it to x86 again. They botched everything about it so badly that it is, for all practical purposes, dead now. At some point, I had to move on and stop living in the past.

Edited 2011-05-24 19:31 UTC

The difference is that I am not predicting a future event. "Instead, you're interpreting the present times.So what? I hereby solemnly declare that I accept that you believe that OS/2 died a long time ago. May I now go on configuring my eCS 2.1 heterogeneous LAN server?



Which is probably higher with eCS, because of the difficulty in obtaining modern hardware that is fuklly supported. "As I said - guesswork of outsiders.
[1.1] I don't need "modern" hardware; I need usable hardware.
[1.2] It's fun to build one's own machines from hand-selected components. Because these machines are unique: they have personality.
Like my books, my music, my clothes, my languages - they are extensions of my own personality; no way shadows in a world of consumers.



And that means what? That that die-hard OS/2 users might keep using it, and might pay less. But new users pay more? That's not exactly going to attract any new users then, is it? "Why should I care about new users? Neither am I a teacher nor do I engage in any business.
Young people asking for affordable software know where to find that. If not, I show them my fedora box.



The "GPL" license means I can install Linux on an infinite number of systems without paying anything. "I know that. But non-eCS users don't know the exact eCS license boundary conditions.This is how it looks for outsiders. Insiders know better.
And it doesn't matter to me. Prices are ok as I don't intend to buy and use modern gimmicks like iphones and their ilk.



I'm not an adverary. "Most people have a self-image different from their image in other people. Nothing to quarrel about. Maybe you are right. So what? My eCS machines are running fine. Your personal story is touching. But my eCS machines are running just fine.

If you personally like e-comstation /OS/2. That's great, I loved it too. Everyone should be able to run what every system they prefer. But, seriously, its not for everyone. Your list of hints that do not relate to your personal feelings, are wildly inaccurate. misleading and/or irrelevant. Your personal love of the OS has bled from the realm of subjectivity into your objective parts of your brain. That's a recipe for a pointless argument ( like the one with the first responder with someone with a more clear separation between the subjective and objective sections of their brain.

Don't know what to love more: the grammar or the stringency.

That looks like an unfinished topology as it is not evident whether the realm of subjectivity is situated outside or inside of the brain and whether they might be entangled or not. Furthermore I'd appreciate a link to a brain map indicating the objective parts of the brain. Standard fMRI images will suffice.

I'm not arguing. I'm showing my stance instead.

Oh, one country's junkyard is another country's treasure trove. Plus there are lots of spare parts for late 90s to mid 2000 PCs in Hong Kong and elsewhere that even with shipping fees are bargains. Yep, where I live old PC (in our very own office) still boot up.

Actually I was talking about early '90s PCs. Late '90s PCs can do better than that - think BeOS or MacOS 8, or even AmigaOS 3.

Looks like they just added some ugly icons (icons in 16 millions colors aren't necessarily better than icons in 16 colors) and some random shades.