From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:44:22 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Oct15.180912.22691@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.212953.5821@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.213415.29199@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>> 
>>>      Here we go again with the vaporware debate.  If the OS/2 Win3.1 beta
>>> is a valid discussion topic, so then is Cairo - neither is released yet,
>>> but both have some bearing on the future of the product.
>>>      Which will it be?  Does it have to be shrink-wrapped to be valid?
>>> 
>>
>>	Ahem, it is valid to be discussed if there is a real life product
>>that most people can get ahold of.  Cairo isn't even in alpha yet.  No
>>one except a few elites have even seen what it may look like.
> 
>      Well, those few elites and everyone who was at the last Object
> World.
> 
> 
>>  The 3.1
>>code of OS/2 is in the hands of most of the people here.
> 
>      Is this a true statement?
> 
> 
>>   We all talk
>>about NT and it is valid because it is a real live prodcut that a lot
>>of people have.  
> 
>      I still see several posts a day reminding me or another poster
> that we shouldn't be talking about Windows NT, since it is
> "vaporware."  Some sort of consistency would be nice - that's all
> I'm asking for.


	Well, I can't control the vaporware fanatics.  All I can
do is give my opinion.  NT is a pre-release product in the hands of
many in this forum and should be a discussable topic.  Windows 3.1
support for OS/2 is in the hands of many (myself included) in this
crowd also and is a relevant topic.
	Cairo is in no one hands on this net (if it is, please say
so!) and as such has no relevance.  Just like talking about OS/2
working on a Sparc is not relevant.

> 
>      It appears that your working definition is that anything that
> is in the hands of some of the people on the newsgroup is valid for
> discussion.  This does preclude any mention of the myriad OS/2 apps
> that will be available "real soon now".

	People can say what they want.  But people saying that the
apps will be here real soon is irrelevant.  They're not here (some
are but not many).  Yours and my response to this might as well
be "Well, Goodie, OS/2 apps will be here any day now.  So what?"


> 
>      It really is a fuzzy issue.  Since it doesn't appear that anyone
> is going to come up with a consistent definition that works, I propose
> that we drop the "vaporware" cry entirely and let people discuss
> whatever they feel like discussing, whether we have it running on
> our desktop or not.
> 
> 					-Phil

	I am more for, take whatever you dish out.  I am not going
to talk about OS/2 3.0 or how it will do this and that (as announced
by IBM) because I don't think it is relevant.  At the same time, I
will remind people who say "Well, Cairo will sing and dance...etc."
that it is not a real product yet by any means.

	Why should people on the net discuss something that no one
on the net has?  It just doesn't make sense to me.


=================================
Brad Wardell  **Happy OS/2 2.0 User**
Project Director
Stardock Systems (SDS)
Western Michigan University
=================================



> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.