From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: 2e: COMDEX Awards
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:59:06 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Nov23.143824.22387@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>, jmalloy@itsmail1.hami
lton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov23.035410.72070@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (S
TACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov21.182944.4050@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>, jmalloy@itsmail1.ham
il
>>ton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>>>>
>>>> LAS VEGAS, November 19 . . . IBM's OS/2* 2.0 advanced
>>>> operating system recently received top honors from three
>>>> flagship PC industry publications, including two awards
>>>> presented here at COMDEX/Fall '92.
>>>
>>>First off, there's no doubt that even I, a confirmed Windows 3.1 user,
>>>can agree to the technical achievement OS/2 2.x represents (it's only in
>>>reality that it can be a pain, as I learned in my time with OS/2), so
>>>congrats to IBM.
>>
>>But not half the pain Windows is...
>
>What's this about Windows panes? :)  It works for me, better than OS/2
>did.

Oh the agony of bad puns....  (actually that was quite good)
As for Win working better, oh well, we can't all be lucky.
>
>>>But I find it quite humorous: when these magazines were critical of
>>>OS/2, they and all their writers were a bunch of bigoted bums.  Now that
>>>OS/2 gets some good press, it's trumpeted among the OS/2 folks.
>>>
>>>Guys, if they were bums before, they're bums now.  What this really
>>>demonstrates to me is that they have been doing their jobs all along,
>>>giving praise when due, criticizing, when appropriate.  If the only
>>>measure of a journalist is how much she or he supports OS/2, we've got a
>>>problem.  Besides, your critics will help you more (to improve the
>>>product, say) than the blind supplication of your rabid zealots (who
>>>are, after, quite off-putting).
>>
>>Yes they still are bums.  It used to be they loved to criticize it before they
>>used it.  That can't be forgiven.  But any good press will be accepted.  This
>>is hardly hypocritical.  A large percent of the time, I find the presses
>>attitudes towards software to be strait out of companies marketing
>>departments.  I've seen far too many articles for which the only source was a
>>press release from one or a few companies.  Now that OS/2 seems to be getting
>>the press it really deserves, those of us who are supporters of the system are
>>happy about it.  We can't help that so many people actually seriously listen
>>to these fools.
>>>
>>>Besides, there's room for more than one true way or more than on OS.
>>>I'm holding out for Unix/X windows on an HP95...
>>>
>>>Joe
>>>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>>>
>>>
>Hey, no one says you have to listen to them, you'd be foolish to make
>your decision based solely upon a magazine columnist (and there's no
>better proof of the idiocy of trusting these people implicitly than
>Slick Willie Zachmann!).  But if you accept good press only when it
>agrees with you, you have already undermined the value of that 'good
>press.'  You take your lumps and your roses...

How so?  Joe average user doesn't care what my opinions about OS/2 or Windows
are.  These are the people who actually listen (often quite seriously) to the
various magazines.  You tell me how good press is going to undermine OS/2?  I
accept press even when it doesn't agree with me because there isn't really a
damn thing I can do about it.  As you said "You take your lumps and your
roses..."


>
>Joe
>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||