From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Date: 11 Aug 92 18:32:37 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

     Apologies for the vast amounts of quoted text in this one.
It appears that any time I delete something, it gets totally forgotten
by anyone responding.


In article <1992Aug11.004322.13748@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:
>In article <1992Aug07.183833.16002@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug7.033623.20824@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug06.182611.16955@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>>     Wouldn't you expect that they'd get squashed by the majors once
>>>>the big-name apps start coming out?  If we assume that the success
>>>>of an app is based on its penetration into the corporate markets,
>>>>then those same MIS guys who are sticking with IBM ("no one ever got
>>>>fired for choosing IBM") are going to be the same guys that stick
>>>>with Wordperfect.
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^ Phil mentions WP here
>>>
>>>WordPerfect is supporting OS/2 with WP 6.0 for OS/2.
>>>OS/2 users can support WordPerfect by buying WP 6.0 for OS/2.
>>>They cannot buy MS Word 2.0 for OS/2.  Instant loss for MS.
>>
>>      This is irrelevant.  I was talking about small vendors, not
>>Microsoft.  So was the original post.  MS apps were never mentioned.
>
>Hey, you are the one that mentioned WordPerfect!  Unless you
>think that WP is a small vendor...

     Are you being intentionally dense?  I was talking about the
_original_post_.  You keep replying to my replies.  Go back and
read the rest of the thread, if it hasn't expired at your site (it
has here, damnit).


[stuff deleted]
>>      Yup - this is true.  You did say that comparing vaporware
>>with existingware wasn't valid.  I was merely pointing out that
>>this comparison was exactly what the original poster was making.
>
>WordPerfect 6.0 for Windows is vaporware.
>WordPerfect 6.0 for OS/2 is vaporware.
>I thought that this is what you were talking about.

      This is not what I was talking about.  This is not what
the original poster was talking about.  This is what you were
talking about.


>>      Nope.  Go back and read it again.  It said nothing about
>>Windows apps running under OS/2.  It said (paraphrase) "OS/2 apps
>>will blow the doors off their Windows counterparts"
>
>If an OS/2 app supports HPFS, flat memory, etc., why wouldn't it?

     It might.  Until these OS/2 apps exist, though, it's kind
of a silly point to be making, don't you think?  Those Windows
counterparts (at the moment) run infinitely faster than the
OS/2 versions, since the OS/2 versions don't exist in the vast
majority of cases.


>>
>>      Irrelevant again.
>
>You used the word "irrelevant" again.
>	OS/2 is irrelevant...

      OS/2 is not irrelevant.  Your constant attempts to raise
straw-man arguments are.


>>      This could be another shot in the foot.  At this moment,
>>OS/2 supporters are slamming Windows NT for having those three features.
>>"We don't need them," they say, and go about their business.
>
>Well, guess what?!  The persons who say, "I don't need them" probably
>don't need them.  [*I* don't need these features]
>
>There are certain OS/2 persons who want/need one or more of these
>features, while there are certain other persons that do not need
>any of these features.
>
>An OS/2 person says, "I don't need them" -> Phil thinks: "No OS/2
>user needs them.  This could be another shot in the foot".  :)

      It's just typical of the standard OS/2 advocacy position -
"Windows NT has portability, multi-user and multi-processor capability.
I don't need these things.  Therefore, Windows NT is bad."  "OS/2 will
have portability, multi-user and multi-processor capability.  I don't
need these things, but someone else might.  Therefore, OS/2 is good."


>Don't forget about PETE.EXE (Pete can't spell, so "all MS programmers
>can't spell" -- Phil).  :)

      Of course, the OS/2 counterpart to PETE.EXE just blows the
doors off Pete.  :-)
      If Buckminster Fuller were alive today, would he say "I am an
.EXE?"

					-Phil


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy