From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 5 Oct 1992 14:37:23 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct5.030508.5441@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:

>Or people who think that networking should be built into the operating system.
>If you put it into the os, it costs much less than an independent package and
>is probably better integrated into the system.  I've looked at IBM's packaging
>for tcp/ip.  Indeed, I've purchased it.  Costs me $600 bucks if I want the
>whole package and it is still an add-on.  Quite good, but an add-on.  Of
>course, it isn't a networking package, just an implementation of tcp/ip.  If I
>want the networking package, I've got to buy it in addition.  I still think
>that including it in the os makes sense.  The cost, spread over thousands or
>million of users is very reasonable.  You don't agree.  

If you put it in the OS, it may cost _you_ less, but it costs me more, since
I'm now paying for a feature I'm not going to use. Should I be forced to
subsidize your network just to get a particular OS? An add-on can be just as
well integrated into the system as a feature that's there by default; that's a
minor issue. (BTW, how isn't IBM's TCP/IP for OS/2 a nwetworking package? An
iumplementation of TCP/IP is, by definition, a networking package.) Any cost
for a feature that's of no use to me is too much.

>Jay, again you don't have to buy NT.  Microsoft isn't going to force you to do
>so.  You object to the idea of "paying" for the networking.  Fine.  I'm pretty
>sure that history is going to confirm that networking is going to be important.
>Indeed, is important in most institutions...now.  I'll accept the point you 
>don't want to pay for that networking...now, but will be happy to pay for it
>when you need it.  I'd like to have networking built into the OS...right now.
>Again $69 dollars isn't so bad.  

Oh, but if you buy the MS company line, that $69 isn't for the general public,
and isn't even beta-level code for what's there.

Maybe networking is going to be important. I'd like to see the Internet come
into my house. I also admit that I'm significantly atypical in my computing
usage. The average computer user outside of academia is _not_ interested in
networking. Look at DESQview/X: They got loud screams about their choice of a
non-TCP/IP network transport to be included with the package, but
substantially all of that screaming came from academic users. Once you spend
some time in the real world, your opinion might change as well.

>I'm sure that a final price will be set before the product ships.  I'm equally 
>sure that the "pre-beta" costs 69 dollars and includes the final product.  I'm
>equally sure that 69 dollars is a reasonable price.  I'm not sure what the 
>final price will be for the shipping version, but I am sure that it won't cost
>me any more than the $69 I've already spent.  

Oh, but the general public can't depend on that; after all, it's purely for
developers.

Your $69 argument is a red herring. We (or at least I) am talking about
shippable, usable, production code. The real-world product will be almost
certainly between $490 and $500, based on MS's own statements.

>Jay, again.  Will's employers have said, publically, that they didn't pressure
>Will.  Microsoft has said that they didn't pressure Will.

You haven't answered my question. What does Will have to gain by making the
story up? Both Ziff-Davis and MS have something to gain by lying about
pressuring Zachmann, ZD a recovery of their supposedly impartial image, and MS
relief from their increasingly sleazeball image.

>Thousands of other
>people work in the same industry in which Will works. Dozens of them write 
>columns.  Will suggests that he's the only one who is honest and isn't bending
>to pressure from Microsoft.  I find that absurd.  Do you think that everyone
>in the trade press is on the take?

No, but I do believe that the other columnists are either honest MS bigots or
bowing to MS pressure. There's no doubt that MS can make it hard on someone
who doesn't toe the party line.

>I don't know what Will's motives are, maybe he believes his accusations.  
>You, of course, will believe what you choose to believe.  I'll believe in your
>signature....(grin)

I do believe in my .signature. Microsoft's actions are not explainable by
stupidity.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)