From: slug@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Date: 26 Jan 1993 00:06:35 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: magritte.cc.utexas.edu



In article <1993Jan25.064002.3937@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>IBM has been behaving quite badly recently, w.r.t to telling the
>truth about OS/2 2.0.  Only in one case do I believe they've
>told outright lies, but they have definitely been misrepresenting
>things other times.
>
>Below are three important examples:
>
>-----------
>NUMBER OF OS/2 2.0 APPS

First of all, if vertical apps are not considered shipping apps, then what
do you consider them?

Bear in mind that OS/2 is aimed largely at the business world, and if I recall
correctly, they are the prime users of vertical apps.  OS/2 *needs* those
vertical apps.  I suppose you'd tout any NT vertical apps as vital to the
survival of this nation!

>
>-----------
>NUMBER OF OS/2 2.0 SALES
>
>Let's take a look at the facts:
>
>From the first quote, we have 1 million sales in 4 months.
>From the second source, we have ~.5 million more in next 3 months,
>leaving 2 months in 1992 where they had hoped for .5 million more sales.
>
>At the October conference they were saying that OS/2 sales numbers were
>increasing dramatically, but look:

My how you can skew facts when you need to.  It seems to me that if the
conference was held in October, then that does *NOT* mean that sales numbers
were through the *END* of October.

Therefore :  1 million in first 4 months 
            .5 million in second 2 - 2 1/2 months
            .5 million in next 2 1/2 - 3 months

Now, take that to the bank!  Also, please bear in mind that a *significant*
number of those first 1 million apps *did* ship in "March".  Yes, they went
out at midnight, to large corporate accounts.

I would definitely say that OS/2's sales can be considered to be growing, 
but heaven forbid you admit that things are looking good for OS/2, especially
when NT is slipping so much that it is barely standing.  But more about that
later....

>
>----------
>OS/2 2.1 SHIP DATE

Ohhhhhh....  This one's gonna be fun.  Brian, I hope you have fire insurance...

>
>Quote from InfoWorld: December 28, 1992/January 4, 1993; Page 9
>
>	Sticking to its philosophy of not delivering any version of
>	OS/2 before its time, IBM extended the beta program
>	for OS/2 2.1, which could push back delivery of the
>	product to March.
>
>
>     ENHANCEMENTS TO THE BASE PRODUCT
>          In the fall:   32-bit graphics engine; Windows 3.1; device
>     drivers to support XGA, SVGA, and 8514 displays in seamless mode.
>     ...
>


Hold on... this is too much to digest all at once.

You, Brian, are so fond of touting that Windows NT is already available to
the general public (as in anyone who wants it) for a mere $69 (you even put
it in one of your .sig files).

Why are you willing to call Windows NT "AVAILABLE" and "HERE NOW" when by
MicroSoft's own admission, IT WAS NOT EVEN IN BETA YET????????????????

You can be such a hypocrite!!!!!!!!!

BY YOUR OWN RULES, IBM *did* provide the above support in the fall.  The
service pak came out with the 32-bit graphics engine, and the 2.1 beta was
released with the Windows 3.1 enhancements.  There were drivers for SVGA in
the SP, and more drivers in the 2.1beta.

Oh, I forgot, Microsoft is handicapped, so they are allowed to consider NT
available when it is in "late-alpha", but you will not extend consideration
to IBM for a damn-good 2.1 beta.  Get a life.  You are starting to rant and
rave to hard.  As Shakespear said in Hamlet, "Me thinks he doth protest too
much" ie- you are flaming so hard against OS/2 to hide NT's inadequacies.

A

>
>And if that is not enough how about this quote from a slide shown at
>the October OS/2 developer conference.
>	OS/2: 1992 ENHANCEMENTS
>
>	* 32 bit multimedia extensions
>	* Improved performance
>	* 32-Bit Graphics Engine
>	* 32-Bit Seamless Hi-Res Display Drivers
>	* Windows 3.1 Support
>	* Additional Printer Support
>	* Laptop/Notebook Support
>	* Service
>
>

Well, it looks to me like IBM did provide most of this list.  I have no idea
about the laptop stuff, though.

The Multi-media has been available for months.  It just was not incorporated
into OS/2 2.0.  In fact, it was more or less completed around June 1992

>Anyway you look at it IBM promised that OS/2 2.1 would be out in 1992.
>Yet (provided InfoWorld got the quote right) they are _blatantly_ denying it.

Thought we covered this- the beta is here, so OS/2 2.1 is here.

>
>(BTW, I'm not criticizing IBM for delaying the shipment of 2.1... it looks
>like they've finally learned their lesson and are waiting till the bugs
>are more or less out. I am criticizing them for lying about having 
>said that they would deliver Windows 3.1 support in 1992.)

Funny, I could run 3.1 apps on my system using the beta in 1992.  Do you
have a different calendar over there in You-Tah?

Now for the other side of the coin-

WHERE THE HELL IS THE GA OF WINDOWS NT????????????????????

Microsoft has been promising it RSN, and long ago they said it would be out
in the fall of 1992.  Then they slipped it and slipped it, and just slipped it
yet again!

Microsoft is allowed to blatently lie their asses off to you and you forgive 
them and continue to rant and rave at IBM.

What did Microsoft do to you to earn this loyalty?  They can shit in your 
face, yet you still grovel for the honor of being able to lick their toes
if they wiggle them in your general direction.

Quit being such a hypocrite.

Microsoft touts all Win 3.1 apps as being NT apps since it can run them
(as well as those apps that will use the WIN-32 API's).  By that same vein,
then OS/2 has 25,000 apps since it can run most DOS, WINDOWS and OS/2 apps.

ANOTHER MICROSOFT LIE:
OS/2 has sold 2,000,000 copies.  Bill Gates said that they would begin
developing for it if OS/2 hit that mark in a year (I do not believe that he
said by the end of 1992, but in one year (from March 1992)).

Now, the big baby screams and cries if someone mentions OS/2, and he claims
that yes, IBM may have sold 2,000,000 copies, but he meant that if 2 million
were in use, and clearly nobody is using OS/2- it is shelfware (but Win 3.1
is not shelfware).

Brian, I pity you.  Windows NT may be a great product, but I will never use
it because Microsoft are a bunch of lying, back-stabbing, two-faced assholes,
and I refuse to compromise my integrity by using any product of theirs.

>
>--------
>
>Now to all those OS/2 fans out there -- how is that IBM is more honest/ethical
>than Microsoft?  I know I've heard you make the argument, but I just
>can't get the facts to add up that way.  For that matter, how about an
>explanation from IBM?
>
>
>Brian
>-- 
>C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
>University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
>Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679


-- 
slug@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  //  glen@cs.utexas.edu      ****  Glen A. Graham  ****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work.  I want |  Fools wander,
to achieve immortality through not dying.   --Woody Allen    | Wise men Travel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy