From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:32:18 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct7.010444.4614@netcom.com>, erb@netcom.com (Ebbot R. Bane) wri
tes:
>In article <1992Oct6.161408.15202@cu23.crl.aecl.ca> gutz@cc49.crl.aecl.ca write
s:
>>
>>In article <1992Oct05.190659.24067@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil
 Lafornara) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct5.141621.6764@cu23.crl.aecl.ca> gutz@cc49.crl.aecl.ca writ
es:
>>>>In article <1992Oct01.185753.6638@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phi
l Lafornara) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>     IBM could predict 4 million - that doesn't change the current
>>>>>facts.
>>>>
>>>>Agreed, IBM, like Microsoft, can predict that cows will fall from the sky
>>>>on Tuesday.  But the fact remains that OS/2 is selling - and probably better
>>>>than MS could have guessed.
>>>
>>>     OS/2 is indeed selling - but neither of us has any clue how well.
>>>We have some numbers from IBM, and we have some conflicting numbers
>>>from Microsoft.  Who's to say which is closer to the truth?
>>
>>How about PC Magazine?  OS/2 has been on the top 15 for a few weeks now,
>>and as I'm sure even you must be aware, PC magazine does not count
>>direct sales, which certainly amounts to a substantial chunk of total.
>
>Today I received the October 27 issue of PC Magazine.  OS/2 does not
>appear in the "Top Retail Software" chart on page 31.  This is the second
>issue in a row with OS/2 as a no-show.  So far, all the "objective" sales
>figures I have seen are consistant with a huge spike of OS/2 *shipments*
>peaking around mid-July.  This is probably due to IBM "filling the channel"
>in one spasmodic burst of shipping crates of OS/2 out to those resellers
>gullable enough to trust IBMs sales projections.

And it is appearing in many other magazines.  (Last issue of PC Computing it
was #5)  It all depends on who you ask.
>
>Ok, so OS/2 is a flop.  But will NT succeeed?  Yes, for one reason: Win32s.
>
NOT!  OS/2 has turned out to be anything but a flop.  This should be quite
clear to even the most hardened MS fans out there by now.  If it was a flop,
then MS would not be panicking over it so much in their marketing.  Will NT
succeed?  Of course.  It is a good product with a lot to offer.  The reason
however is hardly limited to Win32s.  (Though that is a very subtle marketing
ploy.  Win32 - Win32s.  Kindof hard to notice the difference unless you are
aware of it to begin with.  Will make a lot of people confuse the two)

>The October release of NT (Yes, it's finally a *real* BETA.) will include
>Win32s in the developer kit.

What October release?  Where are the press releases and how do I get one?  I'm
waiting...  it is the 10th right now, and there has been no word of a release.
I know it is supposed to be out this month, but please stop pretending that it
has actually been released until you have a way to get a copy.

>  What does this mean?  Win32s will let developers
>create a *native* Win/NT binary that will also run on Windows 3.1 (With the
>appropriate DLLs).  Any Win32s binary under Windows 3.1 will be true 32 bit
>code running in a flat address space.  It will also run about 20% - 30%
>faster than a non-Win32s binary under Windows 3.1.

We'll see.  That has yet to be proven and as of right now is a marketing claim
and therefore worthless.
>
>Win32s is a win even if there is no Windows NT.  I expect most developers
>of Windows software to move swiftly to Win32s (Those who don't will have poor
>performance relative to competitors).  But wait!  As a *free bonus* these
>same binaries will run in *native* mode under Windows NT!  So my company only
>has to put one box on the shelf, "Requires: Windows 3.1 or Windows NT".
>
That is potentially quite nice.  However, that does take away much of the
incentive to move to NT.  If there are only Win32s apps and no NT apps, then
why move?  I personally would anyway, but people are going to ask that.  This
is the same arguement that people have been applying to OS/2 and it is just as
stupid.

>By shifting to Win32s developers will *automatically* be creating a flood of
>Windows NT native apps.  As history has shown it is the apps that sell
>systems.

Hold your horses.  Win32s apps don't quite cut it as NT native apps.  I would
call them 32-bit Win3.1 native apps.  NT native apps are ones that take *full*
advantage of the system and Win32s by its very nature cannot do this.
>
>Customer: I want to buy Autocad v14 plus whatever I need to run it.
>Salesman: Do you want Windows 3.1 or Windows NT to run it on?
>Customer: What is the difference?
>Salesman: Windows NT provides MULTITASKING and built in NETWORKING.
>Customer: Yeah, yeah, whatever.  I'll take NT I guess.
>Salesman: Excellent choice sir!
>
Until he takes it home and finds out that NT barely fits onto his system or
doesn't fit at all and goes back in a fury about how he spent $x00.00 on NT
and can't use it, etc...  See how dumb what you wrote sounds?  What I wrote is
equally ridiculous.  Windows 3.1 or NT will not be ther choice for the vast
majority of people.  It will either be Windows 3.1 or OS/2 for mid-range
systems, or NT or OS/2 for high end PC's.  The two don't overlap all that much
and that gap is right where OS/2 falls in.

>Oops!  One slight problem: Win32s binaries won't run under OS/2 2.0...  Oh
>well, no big deal, OS/2 is "dead" anyway.  (Well, to be fair OS/2 won't really
>die.  It will just have to live with a market position somewhat below the
>Amiga in terms of user base.)

You go ahead and believe that.  If you do however, I've got a bridge I'd like
to sell you.

>
>Let the flames begin!
>
>>
>>
>>Steven Gutz
>>AECL Research
>>Chalk River Laboratories
>>Chalk River Ontario
>>Canada K0J 1J0
>>GUTZ@CC49.CRL.AECL.CA
>
>
>Beth
>erb@netcom.com
>
>Disclaimer - Some organizations/individuals may fail to agree with my opinions.
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------