From: tommy@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Mike Thompson,332,54714,2734927)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Support (was Upset about IBM misinformation.)
Originator: tommy@snoopy.msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:34:23 GMT

From article <1k75n1INNrum@tamsun.tamu.edu>, by bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs):
> In article <1993Jan27.212704.23292@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> 
> [exchange deleted]
> 
> o MS's support to users is generally less well done than IBM's.
> (Infinite holds on the phone for instance.) 

Less well done - that's an understatement if I ever heard one.

My choice of OS/2 over more of Microsoft lies entirely with their 
absolutely abominable support - both in their tools and their
products.  Since the DOS 1.0 in 1981 to DOS 4.1 (when I quit fighting
MS), it was a continuous uphill battle to get any useful info from
MS.  If not for all the hackers disassembling DOS, MS would never
have told us about all the nifty calls (remember INT 27?).

Let's be serious.  For playing around, MS is fine, but if you want 
to be serious, you have to buy your tools from anyone else.  All
one ever gets from MS is either "Known problem, no work arounds", 

  o From Microsofts first Fortran compiler to their last, never a
    useful product.  Subset compliance with Fortran 77 in the first
    days, critical routines failing simple tests.  Did we see updates -
    not on your life!  I received free updates from 1.0 to 5.0 for 
    reporting numerous inconsistencies and failures of the product.
    I actually never got a product out using MS Fortran despite clamor
    from users - it was never stable enough to risk the support calls.

    I remember vividly arguing with one of their programmers after 5.1
    came out over the return structure of a multiple entry point
    subroutine.  Shit - after talking with the "head guys", I can't
    believe any of them every WROTE a single line of FORTRAN - they
    only wrote compilers.  I had to quote them chapter and verse from
    the ANSI standard before they would even admit the problem.  As far
     as I know, it still is wrong.

  o C - thought C would be a bright spot until C6.0.  Anybody get
    anything useful done before 6.0a?  I'm was not even curious about
    MSC 7 with C++, and apparently I've not missed anything.

  o Their one success was MASM, and now they won't support me in OS/2.

So, no, I don't want to try NT, and no, I don't want Microsoft to
succeed.  I want to get as far away from Microsoft as I possibly can.
I've had it with their arrogance and their reluctance to provide
programming support, and I've had it with their promises of support
disappearing in a flash (the $2600 SDK was not funny).

Everything I see of IBM today says they are trying to be supportive.
My hat's especially off to the Toronto boys and CSET/2.  It may have 
bugs, but I see routine CSDs (even if they are not official) receiving
wide distribution.  OS/2 2.0 had it's share of problems, but again I
had no difficulty getting support either via the bulletin board, or
from HONESTLY TRYING support personnel (though that network still needs
more technical competence to go with the effort).

> Now, should we address IBM's shortcomings. By all means.  But a long
> list of items, all negative, seems out of place in this newsgroup.

I agree - I think the next BS post should elicit a response with all the
positive things from IBM.

--------------------
Michael O. Thompson            tommy@msc.cornell.edu
Cornell University             (607) 255-4714

OS/2:  For the few, the proud, the devoted!
-- 
Michael O. Thompson            tommy@msc.cornell.edu
Cornell University             (607) 255-4714

OS/2:  For the few, the proud, the devoted!
From: Kurt.Westerfeld@f347.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Kurt Westerfeld)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP