From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:10:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.174624.29207@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Dec31.000144.10417@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>	Let me ask:  Is it everyones opinion that OS/2 is sucha bad
>>	product that it cannot stand on it's merits alone and that we
>>	have to buffer these merits with blatant lies?
>
>No, but then you seem to have some pretty selective rules for
>determining what are 'blatant lies'.


	Nope.  Is "all" a lie or isn't it?  I can *prove* it is a lie.
	Try running a VCPI program under OS/2.


>>	1) OS/2 does NOT run more DOS programs than DOS5.  If it does,
>>	I must be doing something wrong.  For instance, Autocad doesn't
>>	seem to run so well. Neither does Comanche:Maximum Overkill.
>
>Ok.  You're doing something wrong.  We can put that in the ad, if you
>like. 


	Wanna tell me what I'm doing wrong, or are you talking through your
	hat?


>>	2) OS/2 might run more Windows programs than 3.1 if you include 
>>	ancient programs and cheezy shareware, but I don't and neither
>>	do most customers.  I think it's a little dishonest to
>>	pretend that the ability to run ancient 2.x programs outweighs
>>	the ability to run currently released applications.  In fact,
>>	incompatibility with unupdated programs is almost *assumed*,
>>	while compatibility with all present releases -- at the
>>	very least -- is implied by the word "more".
>
>Funny thing, though.  That 'assumed' compatibility with unupdated
>programs?  *WINDOWS* doesn't meet it.


	Try it again.  I used to wonder if it was reading ability or
	deliberate misinterpretation.  

	Reread the last sentence or two, and get back to me.


>>	3) Some older 16 bit OS/2 programs broke under OS/2 2.0, or
>>	so I've heard.  I do not stand by this last statement, but I
>>	am almost certain it is true.
>
>I gathered this as well.  


	Well, we finally agree on something.


>>	*Why* is it necessary to lie?  If you're going to put a qualifier
>>	in there, put an HONEST one, like "most".  I prefer not confusing
>>	people and just omitting the qualifier altogether.
>
>Nobody lied, except that last one 

	Gimme a break.  It is quite EASY to show that OS/2 does not
	run "all" DOS or "all" Windows programs.  Try some Windows
	OCR programs under OS/2.  Oops, can't do it.  Why is that?
	Oh, because they're 386e programs.  Well,we didn't mean *ALL* programs,
	just "all" programs.

	It's a *lie* Fred.  An untruth.  A falsehood.  The only way 
	it isn't a lie is if the original poster and you are both quite
	ignorant of OS/2 and what it can and cannot run.


>(that I assume was the product of
>not thinking it out -- like you said, backward compatibility tends to
>be *assumed*).  


	I also pointed out that backward compatibility is also assumed
	to be *limited* but current compatibility is assumed to be 
	*complete*.  I don't assume that my 1992 386 PC will run these
	CGA games that I had back in '85, say, like the original version
	of Star Flight (which, BTW, doesn't run).  


>If you really want to see lies, take a look at the
>various MS promises prior to each upgrade of Windows and in the course
>of advertising the old ones prior to upgrade.  


	I agree completely.  On the bulletin board above mydesk I
	have a copy of the MS 5 page ad that they sent out (they called
	it a "newsletter", but I only ever got one copy, and it was
	basically an oversized ad for 3.1) that says, in big letters,
	100% compatible with Windows 3.0.  I have this circled in red.
	It's right under my Better Dos Than Dos, Better Windows Than Windows
	ad for OS/2, and some ads for SuperPrint (I think they've gone
	out of business--I haven't seen it outside of the "budget" shelf
	for a long time).


>For example, Windows
>3.1 is supposed to run ALL Windows 3.0 programs -- but it doesn't;
>they left this little caveat out about those 'rules' that MS itself
>breaks that programs would have to follow to run on Windows 3.1.


	Exactly.  And you and I both criticize them for it.  If MS was
	really stupid, they'd pull the same thing for NT because it 
	alienated a *lot* of people. 

	Does this mean that IBM should be doing what you and I both 
	consider to be misleading, abhorrent and stupid??


	How clear can I make this?  Just because MS does something
	DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.  IBM should show a little more class than
	MS, because that's one of IBM's biggest selling points.  

-- 
	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
	         ---  Boycott == censorship == cowardice  ---
	Do I even need to point out that my views do not represent
	those of my employer, institution or relations?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy