From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:55:32 GMT

In <1992Oct15.180912.22691@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Oct14.212953.5821@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.213415.29199@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>> 
>>>      Here we go again with the vaporware debate.  If the OS/2 Win3.1 beta
>>> is a valid discussion topic, so then is Cairo - neither is released yet,
>>> but both have some bearing on the future of the product.
>>>      Which will it be?  Does it have to be shrink-wrapped to be valid?
>>> 
>>
>>	Ahem, it is valid to be discussed if there is a real life product
>>that most people can get ahold of.  Cairo isn't even in alpha yet.  No
>>one except a few elites have even seen what it may look like.

>     Well, those few elites and everyone who was at the last Object
>World.

Really?  If it isn't even solid or complete enough to be in Alpha yet,
what did they give people?  Blank disks?  :-)


>>  The 3.1
>>code of OS/2 is in the hands of most of the people here.

>     Is this a true statement?

Well, you can get it with a phonecall, and it has all the
functionality the final product is supposed to have (unless what I
heard is right, and seamless 3.1 isn't in the Beta -- in which case it
isn't a 'real' Beta, as far as I'm concerned).

>>   We all talk
>>about NT and it is valid because it is a real live prodcut that a lot
>>of people have.  

>     I still see several posts a day reminding me or another poster
>that we shouldn't be talking about Windows NT, since it is
>"vaporware."  Some sort of consistency would be nice - that's all
>I'm asking for.

You want consistency?  Ok.  How about this?  Until something ships a
REAL BETA (i.e., a COMPLETE test copy) it is still in the vapourware
category.  Hence, Windows/NT is still vapour.  OS/2 with WIN-31 is not
(maybe). 

>     It appears that your working definition is that anything that
>is in the hands of some of the people on the newsgroup is valid for
>discussion.  This does preclude any mention of the myriad OS/2 apps
>that will be available "real soon now".

Usually those seem to get mentioned when people start talking about
all the Windows/NT stuff that WILL BE available (in the sweet by and
by, when NT is finally done and shipping).

>     It really is a fuzzy issue.  Since it doesn't appear that anyone
>is going to come up with a consistent definition that works, I propose
>that we drop the "vaporware" cry entirely and let people discuss
>whatever they feel like discussing, whether we have it running on
>our desktop or not.

Fine, Phil.  That means that I can talk about something that does
everything NT does, everything UNIX and X do, plus everything OS/2
does.  When will it ship?  Oh, 'someday'.  I think it makes a lot of
difference when you start comparing things as to just what stage of
life they happen to be in.  Comparing NT to OS/2 with WIN-31 is
probably just about right, since I think we can be pretty sure that
(at least) that variant of OS/2 will be shipping by the time NT is
ready; the question there is just what else will be in OS/2 by then.
When it comes to Cairo, perhaps it makes more sense to compare to
something like Taligent Pink, since the timeframes there seem to be
closer (assuming nobody slips badly).

If you don't want to at least discuss things that are expected to be
commercially available within the same YEAR, what's the point?  The
other guy can always say, "Yeah, but just wait until ...".


-- 
"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.