Re: XyWrite and OS/2

[kfrank@xxxxxxxx (Kenneth Frank)]

Because you are an active group of users, this seems like a good
forum for us to use to keep the XyWrite community apprised of our
plans and new developments.
For some time I have been following (and sometimes responding to)
the dialog regarding XyWrite and OS/2. This discussion actually
began for me over a year ago as part of a Ziff Executives Online
forum on CompuServe devoted to XyWrite for Windows.

I know many of you are very committed to OS/2; many of our
developers use it as well. One of my 2 machines at home is OS/2
(the other Win 95). We have given very serious consideration to
developing a native OS/2 version, and had lengthy discussions
with IBM about it. During those discussions I was quite
optimistic that we would undertake the project, and may have
intimated as much to some of you.

Unfortunately we have gotten no support from IBM at all, despite
the fact that one of its divisions is a partner with the OEM for
whom we developed the initial OS/2 version of XyWrite now in use
at the Chicago Tribune. From our point of view, regardless of
its technological lead over Windows 95, the commercial success
of applications for OS/2 is far from a foregone conclusion.
 With virtually no competition Describe didn't sell enough copies
to survive. I know you may say it was not a good enough product,
but plenty of not good enough products make a living in the DOS
and Windows worlds. The distinct lukewarm participation of
WordPerfect and Lotus is another indication. While a number of
you have expressed an interest in the product, we must see a
clear market of at least 100,000 copies- far in excess of what
Describe sold.

For a smaller company like us to devote the resources to such a
project (and thereby forgo other potentialily lucrative
opportunities in the Windows environment at the same time) we
need to feel that IBM (or someone) is sharing at least some of
the risk. IBM gives lip service to the need for OS/2
applications but apparently is not willing to do much more than
that to prime the pump. Also, as many of you know, this Company
was burned once before by an abrupt change in IBM's direction,
so we are even more wary of making the same mistake again.

It would be a major undertaking for us to produce a native OS/2
product, despite the work we have done to date. The tools
available to assist in bringing existing code over to OS/2 only
do a fraction of the work. There is substantial re-engineering
and new coding to be done to produce a product that takes
advantage of OS/2 and is more than merely a port of exisiting
code.

There several reasons why we would actually like to produce an
OS/2 version, but in the absence of more active participation
from IBM (or some other strategic partner) it does not seem to
be practical. I am open to ideas, but at this time it is an
unlikely prospect.

Kenneth Frank