From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Phil Lafornara
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:51:14 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

[was Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift]

In article <1992Aug11.183237.20234@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>     Apologies for the vast amounts of quoted text in this one.
>It appears that any time I delete something, it gets totally forgotten
>by anyone responding.
>
>
>In article <1992Aug11.004322.13748@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug07.183833.16002@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug7.033623.20824@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Aug06.182611.16955@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>>>     Wouldn't you expect that they'd get squashed by the majors once
>>>>>the big-name apps start coming out?  If we assume that the success
>>>>>of an app is based on its penetration into the corporate markets,
>>>>>then those same MIS guys who are sticking with IBM ("no one ever got
>>>>>fired for choosing IBM") are going to be the same guys that stick
>>>>>with Wordperfect.
>>        ^^^^^^^^^^^ Phil mentions WP here
>>>>
>>>>WordPerfect is supporting OS/2 with WP 6.0 for OS/2.
>>>>OS/2 users can support WordPerfect by buying WP 6.0 for OS/2.
>>>>They cannot buy MS Word 2.0 for OS/2.  Instant loss for MS.
>>>
>>>      This is irrelevant.  I was talking about small vendors, not
>>>Microsoft.  So was the original post.  MS apps were never mentioned.
>>
>>Hey, you are the one that mentioned WordPerfect!  Unless you
>>think that WP is a small vendor...
>
>     Are you being intentionally dense?  I was talking about the
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ name-calling? :(
>_original_post_.  You keep replying to my replies.  Go back and
>read the rest of the thread, if it hasn't expired at your site (it
>has here, damnit).

It expired here already.  But I know the *original* person said that
OS/2 apps will be better than their Windows *counterparts*.  I was
comparing WordPerfect 6.0 for OS/2 with its Windows *counterpart*
(WP 6.0 for Windows, not WP 5.1 for Windows).  Where am I being
intentionally dense?

Run GORDON.EXE to retrieve articles that have expired at most sites.
;)

>[stuff deleted]
>>>      Yup - this is true.  You did say that comparing vaporware
>>>with existingware wasn't valid.  I was merely pointing out that
>>>this comparison was exactly what the original poster was making.
>>
>>WordPerfect 6.0 for Windows is vaporware.
>>WordPerfect 6.0 for OS/2 is vaporware.
>>I thought that this is what you were talking about.
>
>      This is not what I was talking about.  This is not what
>the original poster was talking about.  This is what you were
>talking about.

See earlier paragraph.

>>>      Nope.  Go back and read it again.  It said nothing about
>>>Windows apps running under OS/2.  It said (paraphrase) "OS/2 apps
>>>will blow the doors off their Windows counterparts"
>>
>>If an OS/2 app supports HPFS, flat memory, etc., why wouldn't it?
>
>     It might.  Until these OS/2 apps exist, though, it's kind
>of a silly point to be making, don't you think?  Those Windows
>counterparts (at the moment) run infinitely faster than the
>OS/2 versions, since the OS/2 versions don't exist in the vast
>majority of cases.

With all these upgrades being offered by companies, I expect
new OS/2 versions to arrive with new Windows and new DOS versions
(to replace existing, older versions).

>>>      Irrelevant again.
>>
>>You used the word "irrelevant" again.
>>	OS/2 is irrelevant...
>
>      OS/2 is not irrelevant.  Your constant attempts to raise
>straw-man arguments are.

Huh?

>>>      This could be another shot in the foot.  At this moment,
>>>OS/2 supporters are slamming Windows NT for having those three features.
>>>"We don't need them," they say, and go about their business.
>>
>>Well, guess what?!  The persons who say, "I don't need them" probably
>>don't need them.  [*I* don't need these features]
>>
>>There are certain OS/2 persons who want/need one or more of these
>>features, while there are certain other persons that do not need
>>any of these features.
>>
>>An OS/2 person says, "I don't need them" -> Phil thinks: "No OS/2
>>user needs them.  This could be another shot in the foot".  :)
>
>      It's just typical of the standard OS/2 advocacy position -
>"Windows NT has portability, multi-user and multi-processor capability.
>I don't need these things.  Therefore, Windows NT is bad."  "OS/2 will
>have portability, multi-user and multi-processor capability.  I don't
>need these things, but someone else might.  Therefore, OS/2 is good."

Where in the world did you arrive at this?

Sure, NT will have these features.  Who says that this makes NT bad?
Sure, OS/2 will have these features.  Who says that this will make
OS/2 better than NT?  As Gordon Letwin would say, "please give a
quote or reference."

Remember, not everyone needs/wants multi-user or multi-processing
features.

Or are you being intentionally dense?  ;)

>
>
>>Don't forget about PETE.EXE (Pete can't spell, so "all MS programmers
>>can't spell" -- Phil).  :)
>
>      Of course, the OS/2 counterpart to PETE.EXE just blows the
>doors off Pete.  :-)

I thought it blows the windows off of Pete. ;)

>      If Buckminster Fuller were alive today, would he say "I am an
>.EXE?"


>Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         

Not a Spokesmodel for Microsoft.
| 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 |

-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp syrinx.umd.edu  (128.8.2.114)  for   ::  .--.
::   Rush lyrics,  gifs,  and  information.   :: (OS/2)
:::: Get the Rush FAQL in dir /rush/special ::::  ~--~