From: gutz@cc49.crl.aecl.ca
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Organization: AECL-Research
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:14:08 GMT


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 writes:
>>In article <1992Oct01.185753.6638@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil 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.

>
>
>>>     OK - we were using different definitions.  I thought you were
>>>referring to a specific app, while you were apparently talking
>>>about a set of applications.
>>
>>I don't think we are using different definitions.  I want to use OS/2 and
>>I need a word processor.  I really don;t care if it's Word or something else.
>>If I learned Word I can take a bit of time to learn something else.
>
>     That's not the definition I was using.  Reread my paragraph and
>you will see what I originally meant.

I believe the definition you were using was referring to MS apps in OS/2.
Well I care shit whether my word-processing is done using an MS app or 
someone else's.  Microsoft has proven to be no more reliable or consistent
than anyone else.  They are just code hackers like the rest of us!

>
>
>>>     Hmm... A couple of thoughts.  If Microsoft were indeed developing
>>>OS/2 apps, it would be in the company's best interest to make sure
>>>that OS/2 users knew that these apps were coming - otherwise they
>>>might go out and purchase a competitor's product.  True?
>>
>>No not true - in fact complete garbage.  If I had just spent millions on my
>>new OS, which although superior in many ways to OS/2, I would still need
>>to get a foot hold in the market.  The easiest way to do that is to make
>>my OS run my apps, and not produce my apps for OS/2.
>
>     Complete garbage?  Interesting.  I was trying to point out a
>logical flaw in the argument that Microsoft _must_ be producing
>OS/2 apps.  It was a hypothetical - Microsoft is _not_, to the best
>of my knowledge, producing any applications for OS/2.
>     Slow down and read what I've written, please.  It will lead to
>fewer misunderstandings.

Apparently we both need to read.  Do you honestly think that if MS
released any apps now that it would not affect NT sales later.  Don't
be a fool!  If I buy Word for OS/2 now and I liked it.  There would be
no reason for me to spend $499??? for NT plus the upgrade cost of the
app at some later date.  An MS app for OS/2 right now would kill NT
and be both know - as does Bill Gates.

>
>
>>>      I think OS/2 may fail.  I think Windows NT may succeed.  At
>>>this time I'm not willing to make a more definite statement.
>>
>>That's exactly what you are paid to think, and that's no fault of yours.
>
>     I wasn't aware that I was being paid to think about OS/2 and
>Windows NT.  Thank you for providing me with this new information.
>     Just out of curiosity, which part of the above am I being paid
>to think?  That there is a possibility that OS/2 may fail?  That there
>is a possibility that NT may succeed?  Or that I'm not willing to make
>a definite statement on either?
>
Tell me Phil, how long do you think MS would have you on staff if started
saying "NT is shit, long live OS/2"?  I doubt that you'd be working there
by the end of day.  Yes, you're paid to think NT will succeed in the OS
market and don't attempt to mask it.  Or perhaps you aren't smart enough
realize who butters your bread? :-)

>
>>But I do remeber Bill Gates saying that OS/2 would be the OS of the future
>>back when MS controlled it.
>
>     And the public said "No thanks, we'll take Windows."  Bill was
>wrong.

Did they really?  That's not really true - they were saying, we're pissed off
with DOS we need a GUI.  How many GUI's were viable at the time Windows
3.0 was released?  Maybe only Gem Desktop.

>
>
>>  MS has a pathetic track record when it comes
>>to envisioning the future - The key MS's success is that they magically end
>>up in the right place at the right time - but how long will thier luck
>>continue??
>
>     You can't seriously believe that Microsoft's success is due to
>luck.

Yup!  Gates bought DOS and happened to catch IBM on a good day and made
a deal to sell it to them - and the rest is history.  It took years
and a few versions of Windows before people finally accepted it. Windows
success wasn't due to what MS did, rather it was due to companies like
Corel, Borland at the like, making apps for it.  MS can thank pure
luck that these guys didn't develop for GEM.

>
>
>>  You can tell people the NT is the greatest, but when it boils
>>down, the consumer will do whatever he wants, and niether IBM nor MS will
>>be able to control it.
>
>     Exactly what I've been saying all along.  Have you been reading
>the posts that you are replying to?
>

Sure I've been reading - Have you?  This is an OS/2 group, and if you
have no other interest here than agitating real OS/2 users, then get the
hell out!

When you guys finally get a useable version of NT out there, maybe you
can make me believe that NT will win the war.  But right now MS hasn't
even shown up for the battle.  Vive l'OS/2.  If MS wants my business they
can issue Word for OS/2 - soon, otherwise I'm of to AMI-pro.


Steven Gutz
AECL Research
Chalk River Laboratories
Chalk River Ontario
Canada K0J 1J0
GUTZ@CC49.CRL.AECL.CA
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy