From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:26:43 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Jul30.161639.5706@microsoft.com>, gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon
Letwin) writes:
>In article <r5nmfzl.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>In <1992Jul29.065821.24656@seas.gwu.edu> lai@seas.gwu.edu (William Y. Lai) wri
tes:
>>

>The apps group is *not* developing for the OS/2 PM API for two reasons:
>    1) the OS/2 API will fail.  There won't be a large enough nunber
>       of OS/2 users out there.  The Apps group believes this because
>       they know both IBM and Microsoft's track records and they're
>       making the smart bet.  As Bill Gates has been quoted, if
>       this turns out to be wrong and there's enough OS/2 demand
>       then the apps group will have product.  But they
>       do NOT want to "lend a hand to the success of OS/2" - that
>       means taking a big gamble since you have to neglect the
>       Windows playform to service the OS/2-PM platform.  That's
>       a dumb gamble to make.  Microsoft always bets on the most-likely-to
>       succeed.  They usually bet right.  When they don't, they recogize that
>       and change.  But they're right this time.  Wait and see.

Really?  (Sniff, sniff.  Smell that? That's sarcasm)  When did you become a
fortune teller?  If you are so certain of OS/2's imminant faliure, you must
have some inside information the rest of us are missing.  Please enlighten us.

Now more seriously, I must ask you what you are basing this on.  OS/2 has been
selling quite well, it is a good product, and it is from a well respected
company.  (Regardless of your opinions)  Your above statement is FUD, pure FUD.


>
>    2) OS/2 runs windows applications.  I hear every day how well it
>       does so.  So who in their right minds will write apps for
>       OS/2 PM - and only run on OS/2 - when they could write apps
>       for Windows and run on BOTH platforms?
>
>       So the MS apps group really IS supporting OS/2, according
>       to dogma on this group.  They're producing windows apps
>       and those apps run better on OS/2 then windows (so it's said
>       by folks who say a lot of silly things), ergo MS/Apps group
>       is supporting OS/2 more then they are Windows.  QED.
>

I thought this had been covered before.  Very few users of OS/2, myself
included, do not buy windows applications to run them in OS/2.  The fact that
OS/2 runs Windows apps is simply something that is necessary in order to make
the transition as smooth as possible.  When an OS/2 version comes out, I
*will* buy that and use it instead.  It is more than a little stupid to buy
one operating system, for the sole purpose of running another systems apps.  I
and most of the OS/2 users here, did not move to OS/2 because we thought that
it was a great way to run Windows apps.  (Although it is)  We moved because it
offered better possibilities now and for the future.  We moved because it
offers the greatest flexibility to our machines.  If for some reason I should
move to NT sometime in the future, I certaintly don't wan't to buy it just to
run Windows apps.  (Yes that is the same arguement applied to your beloved
system.  The knife cuts both ways.)  Once again I find your statement to be
nothing but FUD.

>gordon letwin
>not a spokesman for microsoft
>

                                                    Stacy John Behrens
                                                    *===)-------------

                                                    
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy