Market for MS-DOS Is Here to Stay
The future of personal computing is a subject very much on the minds of many business executives these days, as the choices of available equipment seem to grow more bewildering. On one hand, high-performance personal computers are becoming more capable--and more expensive--at a dizzying pace. But on the other hand, sales of basic computers are stronger than ever.
Apple Computer and one of its major West Coast retailers, PacTel InfoSystems, are trying to capitalize on the confusion by sponsoring a series of presentations to potential customers by a respected analyst, William J. Higgs. He is the vice president of software research for InfoCorp, a personal computing market research firm in Santa Clara, Calif.
Higgs doesn’t actually recommend that corporations buy Apple’s Macintosh computer. After all, InfoCorp has a number of computer manufacturers as clients, including IBM, AT&T;, Digital Equipment, Compaq, Hewlett-Packard and others.
Still, by the time Higgs has finished his two-hour talk, one can understand why Apple is willing to pay for the sessions.
A two-minute summary of Higgs’ message goes like this:
IBM and Apple started from opposite perspectives of personal computing but they now are “marching very much to the same drummer.”
Although IBM saw its PC as an appendage to its mainframes while Apple saw the Macintosh as an extension of the individual user, both now offer machines with similar functions, Higgs said.
Their high-performance computers are able to run several programs simultaneously, a feature known as multitasking. They employ graphics to help users operate the computer. And they have an internal design that lets several microprocessors--the brains of the computer--coexist and automatically share the computing workload.
IBM’s new OfficeVision software extends the graphic user interface--the feature that lets you manipulate pictures on the screen to control the computer--to its entire line of computers from micros to mainframes. It is similar to the way Macintosh computers work. (Macintosh and IBM or IBM compatible computers cannot run the same software, but they can be set up to share data and text files.)
Higgs argues that the Macintosh offers more compatibility throughout its computer line than do the IBM and IBM-compatible personal computers. The reason: Apple chose to base its machines on Motorola microprocessors and created operating system software that would run on all models of the Macintosh, Higgs explained. (Apple’s new operating system 7.0, due next year, will require twice as much memory as available on the basic Macintosh Plus, however.)
IBM chose Intel microprocessors and has changed from the DOS operating system to OS/2 to get full performance out of its more powerful computers. Programs written for OS/2 won’t run on lower-performance DOS machines, and DOS programs don’t tap the power of OS/2 computers.
Complicating the IBM world is the new internal design the company adopted in 1987, called “micro channel architecture,” which makes the new hardware incompatible with the earlier machines. Many IBM-compatible computer manufacturers, meanwhile, have designed a different internal structure for their high-performance computers that makes them compatible with the old IBM models but not the new ones.
To get the best performance out of any of the new-generation hardware and software--IBM, Apple or others--you need more processing speed, more operating memory and extra hard disk storage than users have been accustomed to. And that, Higgs noted, means extra costs.
What Apple undoubtedly likes about his presentation are the cost comparisons showing that as performance needs increase, IBM is more and more expensive compared to Macintosh--contrary to what many people think.
Comparing what would be a high-end OS/2 system with a high-end Macintosh system, Higgs projected a nearly $5,000 difference in favor of the Macintosh. Equivalent performance between the two brands would be achieved, he said, with an IBM PS/2 Model 70 with eight megabytes of random access memory, a math co-processor and an 80-megabyte hard disk at about $13,000, compared to a Macintosh IIx, with four megabytes of memory and an 80-megabyte hard disk for about $8,000. The Macintosh has math co-processing built in and has equivalent performance with half as much operating memory because of differences in the operating systems, Higgs said. But even with identical memory, the Mac still would be substantially cheaper, he said.
It was a provocative message, but there was no way to tell how many in the the group I sat with were persuaded to abandon IBM for Apple.
Actually, I was convinced in quite a different direction--that DOS computing is thriving and will continue for a long, long time. Maybe for most of us there is no need to spend the price of a small car for a desktop computer just yet.
Higgs said both IBM and Apple are losing market share in terms of units sold with IBM’s share “at an all-time low.” (Dollar share hasn’t slipped as much because the high-performance computers from both makers are expensive.)
What most buyers are getting are computers compatible with the older IBM PC/XT and PC/AT designs. About 30 million such computers now exist, according to InfoCorp’s research.
Higgs said DOS will continue to outsell OS/2 as the operating system of choice for IBM and compatible computers until at least 1994, because OS/2 requires such a powerful and fully equipped computer for acceptable performance. InfoCorp recommends seven megabytes of random access memory for computers using IBM’s Extended Edition version of OS/2 with the Presentation Manager operating environment. The research firm’s parent organization, Gartner Group, which is focused on mainframe computing, recommends a 10-megabyte minimum.
InfoCorp projects a resurgence in DOS sales in the mid-1990s, when it expects that the cost of a complete PC system with a hard disk, monitor and printer will fall below $1,000.
Those numbers show that DOS is where the biggest software market lies. The machines are there just waiting for better programs to take advantage of them.
By better, I mean more efficient, easier to use and more powerful software.
That means limiting on-screen graphics for the most part, because graphics really soak up processing speed, memory and hard disk space.
It is probably too much to hope that the emergence of operational consistency among DOS programs--the greatest advantage Macintosh offers--but easy-to-use software is available. A couple of programs that illustrate my point are SuperCalc 5, a powerful new spreadsheet from Computer Associates, and Advanced Revelation from Revelation Technologies, which is an impressive database package. Both are notable because they are easy to use and run easily within the 640-kilobyte constraint of DOS, without suffering limits on performance or features.
I hope that software developers won’t abandon the DOS world to write exclusively for OS/2 or the Macintosh. There is a lot yet to do and more money to be made in that old-fashioned world where most personal computer users live and work.
Computer File welcomes readers’ comments but regrets that the author cannot respond individually to letters. Write to Richard O’Reilly, Computer File, Los Angeles Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, Calif. 90053.
