From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:34:44 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep14.193753.3287@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.171654.19640@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>Yes, and IBM counted ALL that number of licensees into that 1,000,000
>they announced.

Your sources?

>Big corporate sites don't send in the proofs of licenses, they get
>their SE's to send in a single form that states they're eligible for
>X copies.

Big corporate sites don't bother upgrading a package they don't intend
to use.

>The upgrade offer had a limited lifetime.  Anyone that thought
>they might want to use OS/2 2.0 would have been crazy not to upgrade ASAP.
>Thus I'm guessing that something like 500,000 of the existing 800,000
>will have already taken advantage of the offer.

And if they didn't intend to use the package, they still wouldn't care.

>>What do PM screen drivers have to do with running Windows apps?  You
>>love these statements don't you?  You know, I could claim that NT was
>>of no use to DOS users because it didn't include a Netware server, but
>>it wouldn't make much sense, would it?
>
>PM screen drivers have  a lot to do with windows if you want seamless ones,
>and personally, I'll not use it any other way.  I'm far from alone on this...
>even in this narrowly focused group, one sees others complaining about that.

You seem to think that a complete operating system is absolutely
useless if it can't run seamless windows.  Well, I guess I'll convince
NJIT to throw out all their mainframes since they can't run seamless
windows, either.

>Who says NT won't have a NetWare server?  I know for a fact it's being
>negotiated already.

Don't start this.  I said "I could claim", that was rhetorical.  

>>Nobody said "well".  They said it runs.  And it does.  And power-users
>>of Windows (like myself) know that Windows chokes on itself with less
>>than 8MB when you try and push it.
>
>That's bull.

OK.  How many DOS boxes can you open under Windows 3.0?  My system
would crash with more than three.  And if you run multiple
applications at once (Word, Excel, Actor, etc.), your 4MB system ends
up thrashing a lot worse than an acceptible level.

>>These are Windows 3.1 "in use" figures.  You seem to think that all
>>apps sell the same.  MS only has a 75% disuse figure because they give
>
>Microsoft has a 70% disuse figure.

Oh, I'm sorry.  Big difference, there.

>>shipments (aside from PS/2 bundles) have been either paid for or
>>requested.  Companies are not likely to order a package they don't
>>intend to use, and they're even less likely to PAY for a package they
>>don't intend to use.
>
>That is crazy... any major place I know of has tons of things they get
>for evaluation purposes.

What company standardizes on evaluation copies?  If my company has a
hundred computers, IBM won't send me a hundred evaluation copies.  And
if I don't pay for the rest of them, I'm in big violation of many
laws. 

>My point is that apparently DESQview users are not interested in
>native applications.  Otherwise they would not have picked the platform.

What's your fettish with native applications, anyway?  They picked the
platform because it does a great job of multitasking DOS applications.
What else is it supposed to do?

>Of course... there's at least two companies working on it now (or
>so said Allistair Banks in the win32 group.)

Who is this?  Any representative of either of these two companies?  Or
is this yet another unsubstantiated rumor (like NT's shipping date)?

>>So, if you've an unusual piece of hardware that only includes DOS
>>drivers, you're SOL with NT.  MS can't develop everything on their own
>>(maybe they're trying - this would explain the delay :-), and they still
>
>What delay?

Deceber '91 release -> March '92 -> December '92 -> June '93

>>have to convince hardware vendors to write drivers for NT.  Giving
>>away DDK's won't solve that problem.
>
>Yes, but only a small minority will have this problem.
>Well at least NT will have a DDK before it's released! :-)

Why bother have the problem at all?  MS likes screwing over the "small
minority" of users.  Like those XT owners who used Windows in Real
Mode. 

>WHAT SORT OF MUCK-SUCKING SWINE ARE YOU?  Please assume I've sent you e-mail
>with worse language describing your ancestory in an appropriate fashion.
>I'd actually send it, but you're probably not worth the effort.

What a response.  Worthy of your talents...

>>>I've also seen rumors that Novell requestors will come with DOS 6.0.
>>>Both will likely be released in the next two months.)
>>
>>With no hype?  This is very un-MS-like.  I'd expect the advertising
>>campaigns to begin in the next two months, with the units shipping in
>>six. 
>
>Sorry.... I guess Microsoft hype just doesn't live up to your expectations.
>Besides I doubt they want to hype it as they'll want as many as possible
>to go directly to NT.

Why'd they develop a product they don't intend to sell?  I guess it's
the same group of people who made Word and Excel for OS/2.
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy