From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:00:22 GMT

In <1992Sep29.180844.4739@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Sep29.030113.15991@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.180214.3087@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>
>>>>>>But os/2 is a totally different story.  Once you install it, you
>>>>>>use it.  That's that simple.  Better dos than dos and better windows
>>>>>>than windows.  Is there in this logic, if it is a logic, not a fact,
>>>>>>at all?
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, I know at least two people, who have OS/2 2 installed on
>>>>>their machine, but almost never use it. Both have copies bought
>>>>>via store/mail order, not free or beta copies, or upgrades.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And I know at least one person who has bought the NT pre-beta CD-ROM and
>>>>does never use it. So what? 
>>>
>>>     Read the original quote.  Wolfgang has proven Min's statement
>>>false by counterexample.  The usage statistics on the Windows NT
>>>PDK are irrelevant in this case.
>>>
>>
>>Phil, please, try to make some sense.  How can anyone prove an example
>>false by a counterexample?  An example is an example.  It can perhaps
>>be falsified by proving that the example was just made up.  But an 
>>example cannot be proven false by another example.  Understand?

>     You didn't use an example - you made a statement.  "OS/2 is a
>totally different story.  Once you install it, you use it."  Your
>statement has been proven false by counterexample.  Why are you
>having a hard time understanding that?

Actually no, Phil, the example given DOESN'T disprove the statement.
Note that the example give states that they "ALMOST never use it"
[emphasis mine], not that they NEVER use it.  Hence it was installed
and they do use it.  The only way the statement can be false is if the
person who installs it simply doesn't use the entire machine or else
is sufficiently clueless to ENJOY wasting large amounts of diskspace
for something they never use.  Note that it says INSTALLED ON THEIR
MACHINE, not merely purchased.


>>can be installed and not be used.  I supplied a couple of cases that
>>support the original poster's point and said your ***assertion*** that
>>his argument was ***fallacious*** and based on ***unfounded assumptions***.

>     Please demonstrate to me a single post written by myself which
>is "pure FUD".

Please DEFINE "pure FUD" (as opposed to 'impure FUD', I suppose).

[In other words, this "show evidence" line is getting REAL old --
personally, I have better things to do than hunt back through all your
old postings (or anyone elses), Phil, even if I found them worthwhile
enough to keep around.  If YOU have time to engage in this sort of
exercise, it sounds to me like you don't have enough to do.

>>Now, back to the example business.  The reason why I didn't respond to
>>Wolfgang's post was simply because I thought his post was not worth
>>comment or counter-argument.  You can't win an argument by way of
>>just saying I know such and such case. 

>     You can win an argument by presenting counter-evidence to
>contradict a claim.  Wolfgang's evidence was anecdotal, but still
>quite believable.  Are you seriously suggesting that he was lying?

Well, I'm seriously suggesting that it doesn't constitute the
counter-proof of the original statement that you say it does, so
there's no need to suggest he was lying.

>     Wolfgang never made the claim that every copy of Windows sold
>was being used.  You, however, did make a similar claim about OS/2.
>He proved your statement false, but made no counterclaim.  Therefore,
>he has made no statement that you could prove wrong.

Not in what I read, he didn't (although it was probalby his intent).
The quote that it is claimed that Wolfgang refuted is that people use
OS/2 AFTER IT IS INSTALLED ON THEIR MACHINES.  This is sort of
tautological, since once you install the operating system on a
machine, you either use it or you don't use the machine.  Of course,
there are things like 'dual boot' and such,  but this seems like a lot
of trouble to go to in order to NOT use an operating system.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy