From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 10 Oct 92 22:54:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct10.063949.16171@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu wrote:

> 
> >What I was hoping you'd do was to give me a real answer as to why
> >you don't want to have it around.  Does it take up space?  Does
> >it cost to much.  Does it give you hives.  Does it make your os of
> >choice look bad. 
> 
> Umm, I did give an answer:  it may not be one you like...
> Like I said, it costs too much when you don't need networking.
> One could buy OS/2 2.0 for $195 or NT for "under $500".  Tell me
> what advantages NT has when one does not need networking/multi-user/
> security.

Your answer, NT may be to expensive with networking.  Well, the only
price we have for NT now is $69.  I don't see that as very expensive.

As for the under $500 number, well, I would say that
"under $500" means "we don't want to set a price yet", and
not "$499.95".  I suspect what the marketing guys are going to
do is look at the prospective market for NT, and set the price at
what the market will pay.  If the market is not willing to pay
$500, then the price won't be $500.  If the demand/price curve
tops out at $149.95, then that's what it may sell at.  Or it may
top out at $250.  However, because you yourself were complaining
that the $500 number is too much, I would take yourself as a data point
on the demand/price curve and estimate that the price may be less.



> 
> >> I already have OS/2 2.0 .  But if I didn't, all I have to do
> >> is to call 1-(800)-3IBMOS2 and pay $149 (or $99 as an upgrade
> >> from DOS, or $79 as an upgrade from Windows), but I would have
> >> to do it before October 31 when this OS/2 sales promotion ends.
> >> Or I can wait until next year to buy NT for "under $500" to
> >> get features I don't need.  (blatant OS/2 advertising intended :)
> >
> >I'd put the same for another OS, but since there is a definite predjudice
> >against people with microsoft in their email address, I'll refrain.  No
> >use generating even more flame traffic.
> 
> I have noticed that some people strongly criticize Microsoft (the
> company), but I have not seen ``a definite prejudice against people
> with Microsoft in their e-mail address''.  I have seen some OS/2 fans
> criticize people who happen to have MS in their e-mail address, but
> this does not prove your assertion.  Try changing your header to
> petesk@not_microsoft.com and see what happens.

I seem to remember a thread about limiting MS employees abilities
to post things about MS products and other products on the net.
This was not about employees of companies in general, but about
MS employees.

> 
> But you are wise not to promote NT prices on an OS/2 newsgroup.
> You can, of course, issue an RFD, wait a month, issue a CFV,
> wait for 3-4 weeks, issue a tally, and have your NT advocacy n/g.
> That way you and Brian can give out all the NT tidbits and prices.
> PS (from MS) and BS (with an MS in CS) advocating NT (an OS from MS)
> 
> Then again, go ahead, promote NT prices here.  I'll do it for you:
>    Attention everyone:  Why buy OS/2 now for less than $195 when
>    you can buy NT next year for "under $500".  Don't hurry, don't
>    act now.

Oh, sorry about the discussion of pricing above. 
> 
> >
> >petesk@microsoft.com
> >My Opinions...
> 
> mlevis@not_microsoft.com
> My Scorpions...
> 
> P.S.  Seriously, I would be willing to take a look at a special
>       version of NT for my machine if MS would unbundle stuff
>       like networking/security etc and reduce the normal price
>       of this special version to "under $200".  Otherwise, by not
>       using these bundled features, NT will roughly be like an
>       overpriced OS/2.

Wait and see what the price of NT is, then maybe you can complain.
Until then, your complaints are based on speculation which is most
probably incorrect.


petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...