From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft claims a 4Q92 delivery for NT
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:39:38 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <3769@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU>, rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden) writes:
> Well, I just got my new copy of Computer Shopper and do I have some wonderful
> .advocacy news!  ON page 62, there is an article: MIcrosoft Sticks Its Neck
> Out---Promises Windows NT by Year-End. and here is what it says:
> 
> 	Microsoft, losing none of the cockiness that goes along with being
> the NO. 1 software company in the market, has stuck its neck out, saying it
> expects to ship Windows NT before the end of this year.
> 	Shipping a software upgrade on time is often trouble enough; the
> logistics get infinitely more complicated when the product in question is a
> new operating system.
> 	But Microsoft is pulling out all the stops in order to ship its
> 32-bit operating system before IBM's OS/2 2.0 gains a stronger foothold in
> the market.  There had been rumors that the ship date might slip into early
> 1993, but at press time, Microsoft reported smooth progress toward
> completing the project on time.
> 	Microsoft also said it had lined up over 100 other software companies
> to write applications for NT.  At the same time, Microsoft announced that LAN
> Manager for NT would be ready to ship by December.
> 	Paul Maritz, the senior vice president of the company's systems
> division, said Microsoft ultimately expected thousands of developers to
> eventually make the commitment to the 32-bit Windows NT.  Applications
> written to the Win32 specification will be source compatible between 32-bit
> Intel systems, RISC systems, and multiprocessor systems.
> 
> One word in response to this:
> 
> 				RIGHT!!!
> 
> I guess that probably deserves some flames but if a product is not
> officially in beta testing and they expect to be able to get it out to
> the public in about three and a half months when they spent more than that
> amount of time beta testing Windoze 3.1, I just cannot swallow that much.
> Yes, I have run Windows 3.0 and 3.1.  I could not go more than an hour
> without either one dying is some fashion.  I now run OS/2 (is that only
> half and operating system??? ;^))) and am able to crash it once a week if
> I really try to do so purposefully.  In fact, the only reason that my
> machine usually goes down is when I want to change some system configurations
> like the com ports or add or subtract some device drivers.

	Hmmm.  It sounds like FUD to me.  How can they possibly release
a resonably bug free OS with so little beta testing?  Even little DOS 5
was being beta's forever.  Everyone had a beta of DOS 5 and Windows NT
is not even in wide beta yet.  They had BETTER ship it then before 93!
Otherwise this will offer absolute proof that MS is simply trying to 
scare people from OS/2 2.0!

================================================================
Brad Wardell: From Western Michigan University.
"You go ahead and play with NT.  I have some real work to
 get done with OS/2 v2!"
================================================================