From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:46:30 GMT

In <1992Oct13.061719.10647@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>In article <1992Oct12.210036.27969@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:
>> In <1992Oct10.035521.12965@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>> 
>> >Oh, sorry, bad example I guess, didn't get the point across.
>> 
>> >How about "Why should Norton develop Norton Desktop".
>> 
>> Because the Progman/File Manager paradigm stinks?
>Lots of people like it.

This is why there's such a huge after-market for things to cover it
up?  Things to replace Progman/Fileman with are probably one of the
most common shareware add-ins, too.  

>> 
>> >Added functionality you say?
>> 
>> >Bingo, I say.
>> >Now apply that argument to basic network stuff.
>> 
>> Ah, so you're saying that anyone who really wants a usable system is
>> going to have to pitch the included network stuff anyway?  So how come
>> everyone who buys NT is going to have to pay for it when they're going
>> to need to replace it with something usable anyway?
>> 
>> [No, I don't expect MS to ship badly broken network stuff -- which is
>> just my point.  Once again, the example doesn't really fit very well.]

>The only examples that fit well by your standards seem to be the items
>of discussion themselves, which we haven't seen yet.

You need to find an example of something where the functionality
exists in a product and a 3rd party produces a product that does
pretty much the same thing.  After all, that's what TCP/IP is all
about, no?  It seems that either there is no incentive for a 3rd party
piece of software, the user is going to have to pitch the NT version
of TCP/IP and use the version that comes with the 'enhanced' product
to get the stuff he wants to use to work, or there needs to spring up
some magic market that writes comm apps only for NT.

Which of those do you think is most likely?  Would you consider that a
good argument against bundling the TCP/IP?

>I would remind you that it's good to point out the errors in my examples,
>but ignoring any good portions of examples is a poor practice.  You may
>be passing up information that may be useful.

But I still find that your reasoning here doesn't make sense.  Your
inability to come up with a current real-world example doesn't help
any. 

>Please re-read my posts and try to understand the idea I was getting 
>accross, and point out the flaws instead, because that type of information
>is useful to all of us.  Please also look for valid points.  Nit-picking
>my examples to bits is not reall useful, because it doesn't really
>explain where the main concept is in error.  Unless you enjoy Nit-Picking,
>that is.

I understand the idea you're trying to get across, Pete.  I simply
think you are mistaken, which is why I was looking for an example from
you that made sense.  Do you have one, or not?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy