From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 10 Oct 92 23:17:56 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct06.213627.3688@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Ske
lly) writes:
>In article <rhoward.718334894@matd> rhoward@matd.gatech.edu wrote:
>> I have followed a bit of discussion about the pros and cons
>> of bundling all the network support in the base package.  I
>> tend to agree with the non-bundlers.  But....
>>
>> One of the arguments the NT'ers have used throughout this
>> discussion is that a bundled network product will work
>> better because it is more "tightly integrated".
>>
>> Hasn't anyone thought it a bit interesting that the much
>> vaunted modular, micro kernel based, object oriented operating
>> system that NT is supposed to be *needs* to have the network
>> stuff bundled to achieve "better" or "decent" performance
>> and functionality?  What's the point of a modular or micro
>> kernel based OS?
>>
>> Please enlighten....
>>
>> Robert
>
>I'm a bit curious about why people don't want networks bundled.  This is
>regardless as to whether the network is more integrated or not.

Pay attention please and read this very slowly.  *Some of us don't wan't to
pay for things we aren't going to use!*  I have basically zero use for
networking on my own PC.  I do have stuff for doing it, but I don't need it
and didn't pay for it and currently don't use it.  Why should I be forced by
the system vendor to buy something I don't need or want, just because it is a
bit simpler for them to ship it together.

>
>The only two reasons I came up with as to why people wouldn't want
>bundled network software are the following:
>
>1) You think the final product would be cheaper if these things were not
>   included.
>
>Well, I hate to say it, but software doesn't work that way.  Software
>is almost all startup up cost and and very little production cost.
>Software has no intrinsic value besides what people are willing to pay
>for it, and if what you say is true, that most people won't be using
>the networking products, then the networking products will be worth little
>to them.  They will be willing to pay what they were willing to pay for the
>orrigional WNT product, minus the value of the networking products, which
>was little or nothing.  The net price will not have changed.  All that
>will change is the possible price for the WNT with the networking, which
>may go up, because the people willing to buy it will pay more for it.

So no money went into developing that networking software?  If people want
and/or need the networking, they *will* buy it.  If they don't need it, don't
force them into it.  Are you claiming that NT would cost just as much if we
removed networking, multiprocessing, and security features?  Of course it
wouldn't.  In fact people would really bitch and moan about this.

>>So in asking to remove networking, you are asking to raise the price of
>the networking version, and not lower the price of the non-networked
>version.

No you are lowering the price of the non-networking version.  The costs didn't
go into that version and so the company can't honestly claim that the
pdevelopment price is just as much.
>
>This is IMHO of course, and any more input, positive or negative, may be
>useful.
>
>2) You're worried about using up extra space on your hard drive.
>
>Delete the networking stuff off of your drive.

Why have it there in the first place?>
>
>What are the other reasons that people don't want networking.
>"'cause I'm not going to use it" is not a valid answer.  Where is
>the networking getting in the way.  Why is having it there making life
>worse for you.

Make life worse for me? No, of course not.  Make me a bit poorer?  Definitely.

>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy