Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:29:43 NFT
From:         Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRORS12.BITNET>
Subject:      F.y.i.

f.y.i..


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: 1992 in review.
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:12:09 GMT


Journal:   PC-Computing  Oct 1992 v5 n10 p58(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

MICROSOFT  IS SO  CONCERNED ABOUT  OS/2's POSSIBLE  success that  it's
putting on  a road show  just to convince  people that they  shouldn't
even try  OS/2. As far  as Microsoft's concerned,  we should wait  for
Windows NT or use Windows 3.1, no matter how limited their power.

A mole at  Microsoft has distributed  copies of an  internal marketing
memo  that outlines  the company's  strategy for  burying OS/2  in the
minds of anyone  even considering it. I'll outline  some highlights of
the 40-page  presentation to help  you evaluate the  sales pitches and
the  sometimes dubious  information  flying  around about  Windows and
OS/2. There is nothing worse than disinformation from pitchmen.

Microsoft's  key concern  is listed  in the  "Tactics" section  of the
memo:  "Whenever possible,  take the  high road.  The material  can be
inflammatory. It  may also give  the customer not  actively evaluating
OS/2 the impression  that we're worried about OS/2  and plant the idea
in their mind that they should evaluate it."

In  other  words,  leave  customers  in  the  dark  if  they  show  no
inclination  toward OS/2.  If they  do show  interest, then blast them
with this material.

The  sales reps  are told  to "use  squeeze positioning:  Squeeze OS/2
between the capabilities of Windows 3.1  on the desktop and Windows NT
on the  workstation and server." Then  memo instructs: "Important! Use
the term native Windows applications  when talking about Windows apps.
Important! Do not use the word seamless to describe OS/2 2.0's support
for native Windows applications."

The presentation goes  into a hard sell from  there. A slide indicates
that OS/2  will not even  load on 24  percent of the  machines tested.
Included  in this  list are  the names  of the  failed machines: "NCR,
Northgate, AT&T, Gateway,  and Dell." No model numbers  or details are
given on the slides or the memo,  but there seems to be an implication
that no  machine from NCR, Northgate,  AT&T, Gateway, or Dell  can run
OS/2. I was  just corresponding with a fellow  who was happily running
OS/2 on a Gateway 386 machine, so I wonder about these assertions.

If I  were a corporate Microsoft  client looking at this  list, I sure
wouldn't want  to buy any of  those machines, even to  run Windows. It
sounds  like  there  are  obvious  compatibility  problems.  Maybe the
mentioned vendors should straighten out Microsoft on this issue before
people begin to assume that these companies make dubious machines.

The  memo gets  better. Part  III of  the presentation  goes into high
gear.  Called  "Myth  Slides,"  this  section  shows  Microsoft's real
concerns and its litany of responses to these issues. According to the
memo, the Myth Slides are to be  used only on a customer who questions
Microsoft's claims.

Here  are  a  few  of  the  myths  and  Microsoft's  responses. First,
Microsoft attacks  the criticism that  Windows is just  a powerful DOS
shell. Although  its arguments are  sound, Microsoft admits  that file
I/O goes  through DOS; Windows needs  DOS to boot and  uses DOS to run
DOS programs.  It's amusing that Microsoft  calls Windows an operating
system but  admits it won't  boot or perform  file I/O. But  OK, we'll
stretch the definition.

The second  myth explored is that  "OS/2 is fully 32  bits." Microsoft
retorts that  various 16-bit components in  OS/2 cause bottlenecks. In
this  slide, Microsoft  compares OS/2  not to  Windows 3.1  but to the
unreleased  Windows  NT,  which  is  shown  as  100  percent  32  bit.
Great--give me a copy.

The next  myth is interesting:  "Windows NT is  a 1993-94 Technology."
Microsoft states, "Windows NT is on  track for a 1992 release." When I
see  shrink wrap  at Egghead,  then  I'll  believe it.  No offense  to
Microsofties, but I've heard these promises before.

Onward to "OS/2  is a better Windows than  Windows." Here Microsoft is
right:  It's not.  On my  system, OS/2  runs all  my Windows apps just
fine.  I'm  really  a  DOS  user  looking  for  more  performance  and
versatility. I  tell my friends in  the graphic arts who  need the GUI
and Windows to get Windows 3.1 (or a Mac) or wait for OS/2 Windows 3.1
support.

I suppose  that leads  to the   real joke  of the  presentation, where
Microsoft calls the phrase "OS/2 is a better DOS than DOS" a myth. Its
argument is  based on the  fact that OS/2  is bigger than  DOS, so how
could it be better?
[This is the most stupid argument I've ever heard, well, almost :-) ]

By  declaring this  a hoax,  Microsoft brings  the entire presentation
into question. Gee, guys, is OS/2 good for anything at all? No? Funny,
since Microsoft is a codesigner and  only recently changed the name of
OS/2 3.0 to Windows NT. Who are we trying to kid?

The key here  is that Microsoft doesn't want anyone  to even try OS/2,
and  you have  to wonder  why. The   way I  see it,  OS/2 is  the best
solution for me  today. I agree with Microsoft that  it doesn't run on
every system, and I don't know if  it's because of wacky BIOS chips or
strange motherboard  designs, but I seriously  doubt that this dilemma
will be  any different with  Windows NT. In  fact, it could  be worse.
Whatever the  case, OS/2 is  an inexpensive multitasker  that ends the
need for extenders, caches, memory managers, and other costly add-ins.
If Windows  NT is better,  then I'll install  it. After all,  it's not
that hard  to swap operating systems  nowadays. Maybe Microsoft should
follow its own  advice-- "Take the high road"--and  dump this negative
and misleading presentation.

[other articles deleted]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU