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: 26 Sep 92 18:44:02 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep24.184039.6311@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil L
afornara) writes:
>In article <7410@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes
:
>>In article <1992Sep22.010852.624@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil L
afornara) writes:
>>>     The Win32 API is not incompatible with the Win16 API.  And they
>>>certainly are a hell of a lot closer than Windows and PM.
>>
>>It isn't, huh? What happens when I write a program that depends on the Win32
>>API and try to run it on the Win16 API? Do I have a choice beyond cough and
>>die?
>
>     You misinterpreted my statement.  You also apparently haven't heard
>about Win32s.
>
>
>>>     I've never before seen the workings of a free market described
>>>as "a sleazeball trick."  Do you really believe that it isn't in every
>>>users best interest to have competition in the OS field?
>>
>>Competition, yes. Unfair competition, with beta releases to the entire
>>civilized world for no other purpose besides FUD, no.
>
>     This has been said before, but it apparently needs to be said
>again.  The SDK release is not a beta.  It is not intended for testing,
>it is intended for developing applications.  The purpose of the SDK
>is not FUD.  The purpose of the SDK is to ensure that there will be
>a large supply of Windows NT applications at the time that the OS
>ships.

MS didn't release it for FUD purposes?  C'mon you can't honestly believe that
getting NT apps was their only goal.  If you think that there will be a "large
supply of Windows NT applications" when NT is released, I do not think that
you will be very happy when it is released.  There will be some, but hardly
massive quantities of them.  If it wasn't intended for testing, MS shouldn't
have released it.  Regardless of what MS wants, they aren't so stupid as to
think that people won't judge this release.

>> MS is taking advantage
>>of its position with the press and others to try to keep people from looking
>>at OS/2 on its own merits. People used to bitch at IBM for this kind of
>>tactic; why aren't they bitching at MS now, instead of the bowing and scraping
>>we see so much of in this group?
>
>     I see plenty of bitching at MS, and it isn't all coming from you.
>     You also show no evidence for your assertion that MS is "taking
>advantage" of its press connections, or that MS is "trying to keep
>people from looking at OS/2 on its own merits."  Would you care to
>elaborate?

You haven't been paying very good attention have you?  MS at one point
declared that OS/2 couldn't possibly work very well.  Look at John Dvorak.  He
admitted that people had been feeding him a load of crap about OS/2.  Now
since MS is IBM's only major competitor in the PC OS market, who do you think
was telling him that?  It sure wasn't Digital Research.  What about all those
highly one sided adds which falsely claim vastly superior performance under
Windows?  How about MS virtually giving away Windows to nearly every vendor in
existance with the only requirement being that they *have* to bundle it with
their systems?  How about releasing the NT SDK at $69 dollars and *way* ahead
of when it was expected?  I can continue if you like.
I will state it flat out.  MS is doing everything in their power to keep
people from looking at OS/2.  There is nothing unusual about this, it's
business, but please be honest about it.

>
>>I'd agree, if it were fair competition. MS has tried to kill OS/2 for five
>>years now. That 2.0 has thrived in the face of MS FUD is a strong testament to
>>just how good a product it really is; otherwise, MS wouldn't have to resort to
>>sleazeball tricks to try to kill it.
>
>     I'm still waiting for some description of these "sleazeball tricks."
>You are including the release of the SDK, which is a fairly straight-
>forward business decision.  Are your other tricks similar, in that
>they would only be interpreted as "sleazeball" by someone with an
>agenda?

Well see above.
>
>                                               -Phil
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.
>

Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6924 comp.os.os2.misc:32126