From: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.4
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:15:51 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Sep3.171805.12724@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <3036@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>
>(B-level-security is already listed) Do you have a time frame for these
>others?  I mean if you think IBM has "ANNOUNCED" some things, you
>should see some of the things Microsoft has "ANNOUNCED". There is
>no end to Microsoft's "vision" for the future.  Until
>I at least get some sort of time frame, I assume it's very much vapor.
>If you have the time frames from official sources (or even trade rags),
>then pass them on.  POSIX compliance to my knowledge was only
>announced at Spring COMDEX and if I remember correctly Reiswig
>only used the phrase "eventually".  Sorry, but I don't consider
>that an announcement of a feature that we'll see anytime soon.

Look, all we're asking you is to be consistent.  MS may spew a date
out with one of their promises, but it's doubtful they will stick to
it.  I only go on their past track record.

So why penalize IBM for not promising something that it might not
be able to keep?

And I thought this list was an attempt by **you** to be objective.
But here you go saying stuff like 'I don't consider.'  Please. 

>That is IBM's problem.

No, I think it's your problem.

>I agree that Microsoft is more liberal about dates, but then I assume that
>the readers of the list know that, further it's not like they are that
>much more liberal.  Microsoft often talks about "vision", but the
>details I'm putting in the list don't come from that.
>I.E.  I'm not putting in Microsoft's pie-in-the-sky promises... why
>should I put in IBM's?

It's not any more a pie-in-the-sky promise than Microsoft's.  Neither
feature exists.  Just because Microsoft says it's going to do something
doesn't mean they will, now, does it?  Same goes for IBM.  

Either stick to available features for both products, or put 
planned items in for both products.  It's a matter of consistency.
I don't care how you announce the IBM future ideas (maybe by saying
'no date yet announced'), it is your list after all.  But out of
fairness and objectivity, you should include the IBM stuff!

>The "rules" I use need to be fair to Microsoft too.
>The rule is simple... If it exists now, or has an announced time frame
>not futher away than say '94, then I'll put it in.  Anything dated beyond
>(or even in) '94 is mostly nonsense/hope.
>In truth I only mention that Cairo comes out in '94 so that people
>can see just how far MS is from having an OO shell out.

Whoa...wait a minute.  It seems to me like you're giving MS every
benefit of the doubt...and IBM absolutely none.  Cut it out, or no 
one will pay attention to your list.  The OS/2 zealots will make
sure of that.  It'll be celebrated in word and song, even.  =)

>I put in things like that all over the place, but zealots have a
>tendency to only see the ones that affect their god.
>
>IBM may well eventually put OS/2 on Mach... but until we see them
>putting a time frame around it, we'd probably be best off assuming
>it is quite some time away.

And again, I say, that just because they don't put a time frame on it
and Microsoft does does not make it an inferior claim.  

I base this only on MS's (as well as IBM's) track record.  It is 
exceedingly difficult for these companies to make schedule.  And,
in fact, I'd rather see no timeframe than a misleading, or downright
false one.

NT is already a full year late.  And it exists, even, although
not completely.  How can you say that NT's nonexistent features will
fare any better, promptnesswise?

>Brian
>-- 
>C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
>University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
>Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now why would you want to do something like that?  =)

cpk

(That was a joke, son, a joke.)