From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 12 Sep 92 22:59:03 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep12.040230.6425@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (B
rian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <_9vn4l+.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>In <1992Sep11.184508.28227@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian S
turgill) writes:
>>
>>>Some quote from Zachmann's article with annotations by me.
>>>(Zachmann's is the indented part.)
>>
>>>     ...
>>
>>>     Why does Microsoft repeatedly insist that the
>>>     version of Windows NT distributed in July,
>>>     which nearly everyone assumes to be a beta, is
>>>Why would anybody think this is a beta?  Microsoft has NEVER said
>>>this... and goes out of its way to make sure people know this.
>>>Don't believe me?  Call (800) 227-4679 and try to order an NT beta.
>>>They'll tell you immediately that it's not one.
>>
>>Piffle.  Microsoft has invented a new term, "pre-beta", to describe what
>>is nothing more than a buggier-than-usual beta.  An alpha version is one
>>that is only being tested in-house.  A beta is one that is being tested
>>by others.  If Microsoft has released NT to testers/developers, what
>>they have released is a beta, by definition.  The terms "alpha" and
>>"beta" have a long history.
>
>The purpose of the early release is to encourage development of apps for NT.
>I'm sure a certain amount of it was to prove to DEVELOPERS that NT was real.
>Microsoft seems to have done a lot of soul searching in recent times and
>has realized it has a credibility problem.  Microsoft also realizes that
>the ONLY way to launch a new OS is to have ISV support -- a lesson IBM
>would do well to learn.

Indeed IBM should learn this.  (Though they do seem to be, albeit slowly)
Let's be honest though, MS released NT early primarily due to competition from
IBM.
>
>One can scream all one likes over the term pre-beta but come
>November at COMDEX... when Microsoft gets to announce that they
>have hundreds of shareware and freeware apps because they had the sense
>to 1) release a development environment early and cheaply and 2) had the
>sense to have a shareware contest, perhaps the intentionally blind
>will begin to understand that it was a VERY good idea.

Oohhh.  Hundreds of shareware programs.  Well, OS/2 had hundreds of these even
before it was released.  (Granted due to a version released years ago)  This
is a good idea, but I don't think people really place that much significance
in shareware.  The measuring stick of an OS's success is its success with
commercial software and it certaintly won't have all that much commercial
software upon its release.  (Please, no OS/2 doesn't either comments.  I'm
painfully aware of that situation)
>
>When NT ships having over 1,000 apps from day one... this group
>will  get to see a long line of OS/2 users that have been putting
>off buying OS/2 native apps, using their OS/2 2.0 as a cheap way
>to get NT.  The point is this, if you actually need a high-end
>system, why not get a full featured one that has ISV support?
>
This comment is FUD, pure and simple.  By the standard you claim, OS/2 also
has 1,000 apps from day one.  Also, who is putting off buying OS/2 native
apps?  They need to become availlable first.  Despite this, I can absolutely
garauntee you that OS/2 will have more applications at the time of its release
than NT.  (That is simply a function of release dates, but is reality
nonetheless)  OS/2 is NOT a "cheap way to get to NT".  OS/2 is quite different
from NT in a number of ways, not the least of which is the intended breadth of
platforms.  If you think that OS/2 is not a full featured operating system,
you have been sniffing a bit too much Scope lately.  It also has ISV support.
If you would like, I can send you a LONG list of developers for OS/2.  (And
anyone else for that matter.  Actually you can get it from hobbes)  These
aren't exactly no name developers either.  Most of the big names are there.
(Except MS of course)  Your comments are simply designed you scare those
people who haven't put enough effort into researching the systems to make an
uninformed descision.

>There are several fallacies going around in this thread.
>(I.E. this isn't in direct response to the author I'm following up to.)
>
>Microsoft has never announced a date for the beta. They have said
>they are targeting September or October. They have never said when
>NT will release but that they are targeting (internally) the end
>of the year.
>I've been following this VERY closely for about 4 months.  They
>have never said anything other than this in that time period.
>It is nearly 100% certain that the beta will ship before COMDEX and
>that NT will ship before June 1993.

Ahh.  It is nice to hear an NT supporter finally admit that NT is not going to
ship before years end and probably not until the middle of next year.

>It is quite possible that the beta will come out in October and NT ship
>in the 1Q93.  This is perfectly in line with what Microsoft has been saying
>for months, and if you would listen, you would have heard it.

True, I have heard a few MS people say something to that effect, but they
really have done nothing to stem rumors that it is supposed to be released
before the end of the year.  The reason they have done so is because it
potentally hurts OS/2 sales.  Kindly be honest about this fact.
>
>People keep claiming that OS/2 has vendor support.  From whom?
>What vendor has announced for OS/2 that hasn't announced for NT?
>Why did the NT developers conference have 4,600 and IBM is hoping
>for only 800 at their October conference?

Perhaps because NT is something new and a number of people are curious about
it.  Once again, I extend my offer to send you a list of the developers who
have so far *committed* to developing for OS/2.  It is a non-trivial number
and since you don't seem to know who, it includes such minor names as Borland,
WordPerfect, Lotus, Spinnaker, and Corel to name a few.  I'm amazed you
actually have the nerve to claim that no one is developing for OS/2.  Such
lies...

>Why is half my e-mail from this group requests from people on how to
>get NT?  If OS/2 is not having ISV trouble, then why is Zachmann
>complaining about all those vendors "following Microsoft down the
>garden path"?
>
Maybe because nobody knows the number?  (Hell, I didn't find out all that long
ago)  Zachmann made that statement because he is an overly biased fool, and
you know it.  The conclusion you attach to his statement is quite content free.


>I know you're all giddy about OS/2, and fine... I have no problem
>with that, but to ignore the lack of ISV support and IBM's poor
>bug fix record to date (Where is that _June_ CSD?  Why is Windows 3.1
>support going to be even later?) is (hmmmm... I'm having trouble
>finding a polite adjective.).  Seriously... if you really like OS/2
>and want it to succeed over NT, then I would quit spending my time
>bragging about NT's non-existant lateness... and would spend more
>time worrying about convincing ISV's to support OS/2 and to kick
>IBM's butt until they get OS/2's house in order.

What "June CSD"?  That was an unsubstantiated rumor, and you know it.  It is
painfully apparent that there is no longer any problem with ISV support, and
if there was any doubt of this, it should be gone by now.  Back to the CSD,
the ONLY statement IBM has mad about it is that it would be released in the
FALL.  By my calander June is not in the fall, in fact we haven't even gotten
there yet.  Most OS/2 supporter, aren't "bragging over NT's non-existant
lateness", instead, they are contradicting the false rumors that NT will
somehow be released around the beginning of the year.  IT WON'T.  I will be
more than happy to eat those words, but frankly, it will take an act of the
diety of your choice for it to happen.  In addition, many of us OS/2
supporters ARE kicking IBM's butt about it, but more importantly the actual
developers as well.
>
>...
>>Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
>>xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
>
>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.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
>

Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------