From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:12:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.185228.10773@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>...BUT THERE IS NO REASON TO EXPECT TO
>NEED TO BUY A CD-ROM TO DEVELOP SOFTWARE FOR A PC WHICH DOESN'T
>INCLUDE A CD-ROM.

Microsoft, undoubtably, regards the CD-ROM drive as a convenience to install
the pre-Beta.... I doubt that Microsoft considers the CD-ROM drive as the
basic configuration for an NT user system--perhaps for the basic NT 
pre-Beta developer/tester--but not for the user.

I develop software constantly on a 486/50 with 32 megs of RAM.  I do not
seriously consider this as a "basic" system for my end-user... there is
a significant difference between a DEVELOPMENT machine and the USER's
machine.

Microsoft probably considers that every developer who needs to take a first
(And subsequent) look at NT should have a CD-ROM drive.  This, in general,
will save both Microsoft and the Developer money in the long run.

>
>>Seriously, we're talking about DEVELOPER's.  I can buy a CD-ROM drive
>>and write it off.  No problem.  A "user" may have a problem--but "users"
>>aren't who the SDK is aimed for.
>
>Ah, I see.  It's all a racket to let developers buy CD-ROMS and deduct
>them.  Of course, this works best with big developers.  Which explains
>Microsoft's whole attitude.  They think they've become the Old IBM.
>Perhaps they should take a look at the fate of Old IBM?

EVEN SMALL DEVELOPERS CAN DEDUCT CAPITALIZATION COSTS!  $229 extra for a 
capital outlay is simply not that much money.  If it were $2299--THEN
there's a problem (some small companies may not NET that much money).  If
$229 is too much money, then why the heck does the developer need to look
at NT???? What will it profit Microsoft?  It seems like good business
sense to me.

>
>>I have seen many companies distribute software ONLY on high density
>>floppies... mostly on the high-end software market.  Software aimed for
>>a developer for a particular -type of machine can more justifiably be
>>"forced" for a particular configuration.  Any developer not ready to
>>spend $200-$300 for capitalization isn't a developer (as an OS
>>manufacturer) that would make or break the manufacturer.
>
>That's right, and high density floppies ARE A STANDARD PART IN ANY
>MACHINE BUILT IN THE PAST 5 YEARS -- CD-ROM DRIVES ARE NOT.

Nope.  Three years ago they were still selling PC-XT's.  Don't exaggerate.
*I* even have a clunky XT on my network...


>
>>>Oh, I would choose it PREFERENTIALLY, too.  I would also, however,
>>>recognize that the world does NOT all own CD-ROM drives and make
>>>provisions for that.  But not Microsoft.  THEY will write the rules
>>>for the market, and you'd better by God march to their music.
>
>>Only for the SDK.
>>If they did the same for the final release.... then I'd wonder.
>
>What makes the SDK different, to your mind?

Because it's targetted towards developers with the potential of shaping the
future OS market.  The pre-Beta SDK appears NOT to be aimed to ALL developers,
only for those that could potentially effect sales.

>
>>Of course I wouldn't be upset--if the nail promises 600 times more strength,
>>is a thousand times less likely to be inadvertantly bent, is 600 times
>>better in it's grip so it won't loosen, and can be hammered 600 times
>>easier than the old version...  I never turn down high tech if there is
>>a distinct advantage that justifies the cost.
>
>So just where is this 3 orders of magnitude gain in half a dozen
>things that pre-Alpha NT SDK gets you by coming only on CD-ROM?
>

600 1.2mb floppy disks ~= 1 CD-ROM.    Therefore, large applications (ala
NT pre-beta SDK) are "600" times easuer to "hammer" than the old version.
It is also, therefore, easier to reinstall should a crisis arise (e.g.,
it's grip is better).  It is a much more durable medium.... etc. ad nauseum.

Not the best analogy, but good enough.

>
>
>>MOST of the music industry customers used tape three years ago.  I've 
>>actually seen music stores that ONLY sell audio CD's.  Again, though,
>>I'm sure Microsoft will distribute their software on multiple media
>>WHEN IT IS COST EFFECTIVE TO DO SO (ie, the software is COMPLETED).
>
>And if CD-ROM on computers was as common as it is on stereos, I
>probably wouldn't be complaining.  But it's not.

Which is Microsoft's gamble, not yours.  However, if you want a first look
at the SDK, it's the only game in town (for good or ill).

>
>,...........
>>If you're a valid developer, Microsoft probably (and rightly so) considers
>>that perfectly acceptable.  It is an Alpha, after all.
>
>Please define 'invalid developer'.
>

I would say, that for the market that Microsoft is undoubtably aiming at
(although, as I mentioned before this is conjecture), the pre-release of
the NT-SDK (and there the "valid" developers) are those that potentially
can have an effect on the success of the "real" release of NT... those 
that have the potential of writing a "killer app".

>>Microsoft isn't forcing you to do anything.  If you don't want to get a
>>CD-ROM drive to load this ALPHA software, then Microsoft (I'm presuming
>>here) doesn't feel you NEED to load this ALPHA software.  If you're not
>>willing to go to the grocery, should they send their produce to you?
>
>And of course this says nothing at all to you about the Microsoft
>corporate attitude?  No, of course it doesn't.  It wouldn't.


Oh, I've always hated Microsoft's (and IBM's for that matter) corporate
attitude.  But I don't let such biases affect my judgment of the pro's
and con's of an investment (such as a CD drive).  If I did, I would NEVER
do business with ANYONE--and probably end up bankrupt in the end.

>
>>One CD has Microsoft Bookshelf on it (I use it a lot!).  Another has
>>So Much Shareware (for my BBS, but it comes in useful when I'm looking
>>for something), the other has Simtel 20 archives (also for my BBS, but
>>also very useful).  All this stuff is on my network so everything is
>>accessible from everything else.
>
>>True, not many people have the luxuries I have... but just because I
>>can't afford a Ferrari Tessarossa doesn't mean it's an awful car.  Just
>>because you can't own a CD-ROM drive (for whatever reason) doesn't mean
>>that the company that ONLY supports it is into some grand conspiracy.
>
>What would it mean to you if you went to pick up a delivery and they
>would ONLY give it to you if you drove a Ferrari Tessarossa?

If I really needed the delivery, and the Ferrari was a pittance to buy
(compared to my income or potential income)--I'd simply buy the Ferrari.

>
>>CD-ROM technology is useful as applied to computers.  I have a 2 gig
>>tape backup on my network--and it gets used FAR less than the CD-ROM
>>drives.  This doesn't mean that my hard disks are useless... but it
>>(CD ROMs) does augment my system very well.
>
>Well, hip hip hooray for you, but I don't need one.
>

Then don't buy one.



Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2051 comp.os.os2.advocacy:4677