From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:18:43 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug21.181514.4337@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.141431.11063@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>1) Microsoft has bet the company on NT succeeding, it's clear that doesn't
>>hold true for IBM as a whole.
>
>Any company that puts all of its resources into one product is looking
>for trouble.  If that one product doesn't succeed, it could mean
>failure throughout.  That's what happened to Ashton Tate.

Yes it MIGHT not be wise... then Gates has more money than you and I, perhaps
he knows something about business we don't!

>
>>3) IBM has dumped a ton of money into OS/2 1.X and 2.0, and they unfortuately
>>insist on viewing that as a single expense.  They seem very reluctant
>>to do the things necessary for success, like make MM a part of the OS/2
>>base package.  Because OS/2 2.0 (later) comes with Windows 3.1 MM extensions
>>and users have to pay $149 for OS/2 MM extentions... who in their right
>>mind would develop for the OS/2 ones?  Likewise, IBM overcharges for
>>development literature, their C compiler (even at $295 it's overpriced), etc.
>>Talking to people internally at IBM it always came down in the end to
>>the need for OS/2 (as a whole) to make money.
>
>We'll have to see what NT's pricing is.  If it sells for $200, then
>it's the same price as OS/2 + MM extensions!.   As for literature,
Very wrong... OS/2 lists for either $159.95, or $199 depending on whether
or not they changed the list price in this last round of changing
the discount pricing.
>most computer books sell for $30-$50 each in stores, this would add up
>to about $510-$850 for the 17-volume set.  Even if you consider half
>of them to be valueless books, it still comes to $260-$425 for the
>set.  IBM is charging $240 for them.  That's unreasonable???
The size of the SDK set for Windows is about the same as the OS/2 set, possibly
larger... it sells for $150.  Where did you get $240.. last I checked it
was $299... have they dropped the price?

>
>And as for the C compiler.  Look at other C compilers?  Watcom C/386
>sells for $700 (discount), TopSpeed sells for $500, Borland C (for
>DOS) sells for $500.  IBM's list price of $300 is abig discount.
>
>What do you want?  Free?  It'd be nice, but it ain't gonna happen
THOSE COMPILERS HAVE C++ TOO! (Sigh... I'm having that angry problem again :-))
Borland at least is much less buggy, and is otherwise full featured
(it has a class-library, it comes with documentation, it has a source
profiler, it has an assembler, ...).
I'm not as familiar with the others, but as they compete with Borland I'll
assume they have similar features.  Watcom for example OEM's Microsoft's MFC
class library.

>
>>4) Microsoft embarrased itself over abandoning OS/2 after numerous statements
>>to the contrary.  They can't afford to do that again.  On the other hand
>>from a bottom-line standpoint IBM might well be better off if OS/2
>>doesn't succeed, because they can gracefully let things ride as is and still
>>have kept their promise.  IBM has plenty of other systems to make money
>>from.
>
>That's a specious argument.  MS can't give up anything because nobody
>trusts them, but IBM can afford to screw over customers.  Nope.  You
>don't get a good reputation by using it in that way.  And if OS/2
>didn't succeed, IBM wouldn't drop it - they'd end up supporting it at
>a loss until the "service expiration" dates on the products.  
I'm arguing that IBM has a couple of incentives NOT to try
(cost of the total project, massive bureaucracy -- some of which
would rather drop OS/2).
Microsoft has many reasons to try.

>
>MS, on the other hand, enjoys dropping products.  They won't support
>the MS-OS/2 packages they sold - they just tell you to "wait for NT".
>They won't support Windows 3.0 - they tell you to upgrade to 3.1, etc.
>It's not very nice to customers to be told to wait for the next
>version of a product when you have a problem.
Ah... where's your proof that beyond the IBM/Microsoft dispute that
MS enjoys dropping products.  Even w.r.t to OS/2, I sincerely doubt
that Microsoft is enjoying it...  isn't this a wee bit irrational?

>
>>5) Microsoft has not been stupid enough to announce firm dates for shipment
>>and can thus not have (much) pride on the line, if things aren't ready in
>>December -- and can give it the extra month or three that it needs.
>
>Just like the didn't announce any firm dates for Windows 3.1.  It took
>over two years for what was originally going to be a 6-month job.
>Whatever they say (or claim to have said later on), people will be
>expecting NT on some reasonable schedule.  I recall many messages here
>claiming that NT would be released within a month of OS/2 2.0's
>release.  Now all the Microsofties (and advocates) deny having written
>the messages.
Yes they may have "lied"... and IBM said they weren't releasing a beta on
March 31 too... (and as all the initiated know... the final compile happened
on April 1).  My experience says that OS/2 2.0 GA has "beta" written all
over it.  I doubt you'll agree, but I'm far from alone in that view.
I don't approve of all the hype on NT release dates, but I've been guilty of
poor releases and slipped dates myself.  Also, I now have a copy of NT
in my hot little hands that shows me quite well its current status.

>
>>6) In terms of a large project in recent history... Microsoft has a better
>>track record than IBM.  IBM is mainly living on the laurels of past success.
>>Consider Excel 4.0 -- know of any similar IBM successes in recent times?
>
>Consider Word for DOS 5.5 - it's about the slowest program around.
>They took a good package (Word 5.0) and saddled it with a slow
>interface and didn't add any features.  When you report a problem,
>they tell you to get Word For Windows.
You should try Word for Windows... it's great!  :-)

Seriously,  all I mean is that it's clear when Microsoft sets their mind to
something, it happens.  IBM doesn't seem to have a mind (at least not
a single, focused one).

>
>-- 
>   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
>  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
> ((|,)
>  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.

Brian
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy