From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: nt goes "late beta"
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:36:12 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In message <1992Aug21.181514.4337@njitgw.njit.edu>,
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

DC>Any company that puts all of its resources into one product is looking
DC>for trouble.  If that one product doesn't succeed, it could mean
DC>failure throughout.  That's what happened to Ashton Tate.

I agree, but I doubt  that MS is taking that  big a risk. No one  argues
that NT will succeed, the only question is much how much or how  little.
Of course, if the first release of NT is a flaming disaster (circa  OS/2
v1.0), it might be a different story. But I expect that MS has enough on
the ball to prevent that from happening.

DC>We'll have to see what NT's pricing is.  If it sells for $200, then
DC>it's the same price as OS/2 + MM extensions!.   As for literature,
DC>most computer books sell for $30-$50 each in stores, this would add up
DC>to about $510-$850 for the 17-volume set.  Even if you consider half
DC>of them to be valueless books, it still comes to $260-$425 for the
DC>set. IBM is charging $240 for them.  That's unreasonable???

IBM is behind  the eight ball,  and should be  discounting the books  to
promote usage of  their system. I  was in the  World's Biggest Bookstore
today at lunch. I counted exactly four OS/2 titles available. I  stopped
counting Windows 3.1 books after reaching 75 (and that was about a third
of the titles). Even though the IBM prices aren't out of line, they  are
the _only_ source of information available at the moment, and they don't
even sell them  to bookstores! Microsoft  at least has  MS Press. I  can
walk into any bookstore and grab a Windows book from MS; why shouldn't I
be able to do the same for IBM's operating system? And of course when  I
call IBM to place an order, I  have to give them my customer number,  my
SE's name ("you don't have an SE?"), etc, etc.

DC>And as for the C compiler.  Look at other C compilers?  Watcom C/386
DC>sells for $700 (discount), TopSpeed sells for $500, Borland C (for
DC>DOS) sells for $500.  IBM's list price of $300 is abig discount.

Not given the quality of  the compiler and documentation. Having  played
with Borland, IBM,  MS, Lattice, Zortech,  and several other  C compiler
environments in the past,  I have more than  a little to compare  CSET/2
against. I'm not terribly impressed  with the speed or stability  of the
system. And of course, since we are a C++ development shop, it would  be
nice to have a  C++ compiler, but nobody  makes one (don't mention  GNU,
I'm talking about a supported C++ environment).

DC>What do you want?  Free?  It'd be nice, but it ain't gonna happen

What do I want? I want IBM to release or promote:

    -   a working C++ development environment; complete with all docs
        required to develop for OS/2 and PM, at a reasonable cost;

    -   SVGA drivers (Windows/NT has a generic 800x600 mode, why can't
        OS/2 have the same)

    -   shipments via air delivery;

    -   knowledgable technical people staffing the OS/2 support lines
        who realize that I don't have an SE, and that don't treat
        non-corporate customers as nuisances;

    -   the promised "June" CSD;

    -   third party book support; and

    -   FORMAL statements from IBM as to when SVGA drivers, tape
        support, third party applications and CSDs will be released; and

    -   [all together class] advertising and marketing.

DC>That's a specious argument.  MS can't give up anything because nobody
DC>trusts them, but IBM can afford to screw over customers.  Nope.  You
DC>don't get a good reputation by using it in that way.  And if OS/2
DC>didn't succeed, IBM wouldn't drop it - they'd end up supporting it at
DC>a loss until the "service expiration" dates on the products.

Saying NOBODY  trusts them  is not  only hyperbole,  it's clearly wrong.
Many people and companies trust  MS. Obviously, if no one  trusted them,
no one  would buy  their products.  Given that  they are  the number one
supplier of software in the  PC arena, it's obvious that  someone trusts
them enough to buy their products.

DC>MS, on the other hand, enjoys dropping products.  They won't support
DC>the MS-OS/2 packages they sold - they just tell you to "wait for NT".
DC>They won't support Windows 3.0 - they tell you to upgrade to 3.1, etc.
DC>It's not very nice to customers to be told to wait for the next
DC>version of a product when you have a problem.

Heh.  Would  that  MS  was  distinct  in  this.  I  find most if not all
companies want users to use  the most recent releases of  their products
before  they  will  support.  Try  getting  Novell  to support backlevel
Netware, or ask IBM questions about DisplayWrite II.

DC>Just like the didn't announce any firm dates for Windows 3.1.  It took
DC>over two years for what was originally going to be a 6-month job.
DC>Whatever they say (or claim to have said later on), people will be
DC>expecting NT on some reasonable schedule.  I recall many messages here
DC>claiming that NT would be released within a month of OS/2 2.0's
DC>release.  Now all the Microsofties (and advocates) deny having written
DC>the messages.

Well, I have a note here from  1989 where IBM denies that OS/2 2.0  will
slip  beyond  3q90;  and  various  botches  from  both  MS and IBM about
releases of any number  of products. I agree  that MS will probably  not
make a  4q92 ship  of NT  (at least  fully functional,  maybe they  will
release an "LA"  driver?), but the  official word from  MS is that  they
will. Time will tell.

DC>Consider Word for DOS 5.5 - it's about the slowest program around.

Really?  I've  not  seen  that  problem.  I  find it on a par with WP51,
actually.

DC>They took a good package (Word 5.0) and saddled it with a slow
DC>interface and didn't add any features.  When you report a problem,
DC>they tell you to get Word For Windows.

Well, Word 5.5 was the first MS Word I'd used, so I can't really compare
it with v5.0. I do know that you can install the v5.0 interface, though.
And since I switched to WP4WIN (company standard), I haven't played with
the MS word processors enough to comment. I will say that I liked the MS
Word for Windows more than the Wordperfect for Windows, but since we are
probably standardizing  on OS/2,  Word for  Windows got  thrown out  the
window (per se) for all the obvious reasons.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  When did my wild oats turn to shredded wheat?
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy