From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:48:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <7437@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.184039.6311@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <7410@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>Competition, yes. Unfair competition, with beta releases to the entire
>>>civilized world for no other purpose besides FUD, no.
>>     This has been said before, but it apparently needs to be said
>>again.  The SDK release is not a beta.  It is not intended for testing,
>>it is intended for developing applications.  The purpose of the SDK
>>is not FUD.  The purpose of the SDK is to ensure that there will be
>>a large supply of Windows NT applications at the time that the OS
>>ships.
>
>Get real. Do you honestly mean to tell me that MS will reject and ignore bug
>reports on the SDK/beta? (Are they really that STOOPID?)

Simply because the main purpose of the PSDK is for developing applications
doesn't mean that MS will ignore bug reports.  OS/2 2.0 isn't a beta right
now (most people will agree here), but I'd hope that IBM isn't ignoring
bug reports.

>MS can publicly say it's not a beta all they want. The simple fact is that it
>fulfills all the requirements of a beta: it's prerelease code, and it's being
>tested beyond the group that built it. 

Actually, I thought a beta also had to be feature-complete.  The NT PSDK
is not.  However, the distinction is largely meaningless; people can report
bugs if they want and they can evaluate it if they want.  However, that isn't
its main purpose.

>The Jargon File (available for FTP from
>pit-manager.mit.edu) says, "to beta-test is to test a pre-release (potentially
>unreliable) version of a piece of software by making it available to selected
>customers and users." This sounds like a perfect description of the NT
>SDK/beta, the selection criterion being that the customer has a CD-ROM drive
>and is willing to spend a paltry $69. The SDK/beta passes the duck test: it
>walks like a beta, quacks like a beta, and smells like a beta.

>If the purpose of the SDK/beta was really to ensure that there will be a large
>supply of Windows NT applications at the time that the OS ships, then why is
>it available to ANYONE with $69 and the hardware to run it? That purpose would
>be accomplished by simply making it available to qualified developers.

What, exactly, is a "qualified developer"?  I could write an NT application
and enter it in the NT shareware contest and, possibly, win (terribly
unlikely, though).  I suppose MS is making it available to ANYONE because
ANYONE can conceivably write an NT app with it.  (Maybe you want them to
check to see if the user knows how to program first?  Give them a quiz or
something when they try to order it :) ).

>It's available to everyone because MS thinks that that will keep them willing
>to wait for NT and not jump to OS/2. MS will never admit it, but their actions
>speak far louder than their words.

Actually, if people need something other than DOS/Windows NOW, looking at the
PSDK will probably not stop them from moving to OS/2.

The primary reason for the PSDK is to develop applications.  At Seybold SF,
both Frame and Image-In demonstrated NT applications.  (A quote from the
Frame guy: "NT will ship early next year and we'll be out right after.")
If they had to wait for the real beta (next month), they wouldn't be nearly
as far along, now would they?

>
>Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can

- Mike