From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 07 Oct 92 19:09:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct6.161408.15202@cu23.crl.aecl.ca> gutz@cc49.crl.aecl.ca writes:
>In article <1992Oct05.190659.24067@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.141621.6764@cu23.crl.aecl.ca> gutz@cc49.crl.aecl.ca writes:
>>
>>     OS/2 is indeed selling - but neither of us has any clue how well.
>>We have some numbers from IBM, and we have some conflicting numbers
>>from Microsoft.  Who's to say which is closer to the truth?
>
>How about PC Magazine?  OS/2 has been on the top 15 for a few weeks now,
>and as I'm sure even you must be aware, PC magazine does not count
>direct sales, which certainly amounts to a substantial chunk of total.

     OS/2 has been out of the top 15 for the past two weeks.
     I'm not sure where PC Magazine gets their numbers, either.  Do
they receive them from the manufacturer, or from the retail outlets?


>>>>[whole lot of quibbling by both of us deleted]
>>
>>
>>     Complete garbage?  Interesting.  I was trying to point out a
>>logical flaw in the argument that Microsoft _must_ be producing
>>OS/2 apps.  It was a hypothetical - Microsoft is _not_, to the best
>>of my knowledge, producing any applications for OS/2.
>>     Slow down and read what I've written, please.  It will lead to
>>fewer misunderstandings.
>
>Apparently we both need to read.  Do you honestly think that if MS
>released any apps now that it would not affect NT sales later.

     I don't know, and neither do you.  I suspect that it might (and
said this in some post somewhere - I don't remember if it was this
thread or not), but don't have any numbers of back it up.


>  Don't
>be a fool!  If I buy Word for OS/2 now and I liked it.  There would be
>no reason for me to spend $499???

     Please provide a source for your $499 figure.


> for NT plus the upgrade cost of the
>app at some later date.  An MS app for OS/2 right now would kill NT
>and be both know - as does Bill Gates.

     This still doesn't follow.  People are buying OS/2 2.0 while
there are virtually no apps available - those same people, who
presumably are more interested in OS technology than the typical
user, will almost certainly take a look at Windows NT regardless
of which OS/2 apps are on the market.


>>>>      I think OS/2 may fail.  I think Windows NT may succeed.  At
>>>>this time I'm not willing to make a more definite statement.
>>>
>>>That's exactly what you are paid to think, and that's no fault of yours.
>>
>>     I wasn't aware that I was being paid to think about OS/2 and
>>Windows NT.  Thank you for providing me with this new information.
>>
>Tell me Phil, how long do you think MS would have you on staff if started
>saying "NT is shit, long live OS/2"?  I doubt that you'd be working there
>by the end of day.

     I believe that you are incorrect.  It is made quite clear in
my posts that I am not posting company policy - I speak for myself,
and I hold my own opinions, regardless of my employer.


>  Yes, you're paid to think NT will succeed in the OS
>market and don't attempt to mask it.  Or perhaps you aren't smart enough
>realize who butters your bread? :-)

     It will be good for me, and every other Microsoft stockholder,
if Windows NT does well.  This does not change my opinions on the
product - it certainly has its strong and weak points.  I am not,
however, being paid in any way, shape, or form to post to Usenet.


>>>But I do remeber Bill Gates saying that OS/2 would be the OS of the future
>>>back when MS controlled it.
>>
>>     And the public said "No thanks, we'll take Windows."  Bill was
>>wrong.
>
>Did they really?  That's not really true - they were saying, we're pissed off
>with DOS we need a GUI.  How many GUI's were viable at the time Windows
>3.0 was released?  Maybe only Gem Desktop.

     The public certainly made a conscious decision not to buy OS/2 in
its early form.


>>     You can't seriously believe that Microsoft's success is due to
>>luck.
>
>Yup!  Gates bought DOS and happened to catch IBM on a good day and made
>a deal to sell it to them - and the rest is history.  It took years
>and a few versions of Windows before people finally accepted it. Windows
>success wasn't due to what MS did, rather it was due to companies like
>Corel, Borland at the like, making apps for it.  MS can thank pure
>luck that these guys didn't develop for GEM.

      Interesting theory.


>Sure I've been reading - Have you?  This is an OS/2 group, and if you
>have no other interest here than agitating real OS/2 users, then get the
>hell out!

     Sigh.  If people are going to continue to post misinformation
about Windows NT, then I'll stick around to correct them.  If people
are going to justify their biases and hide them behind the term
"logic", then I'll stick around to point out their error.

					-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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy