From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Beta-zoid (wuz Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...)
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:36:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.123344.24479@cu23.crl.aecl.ca> gutz@cc49.crl.aecl.ca writes:
>In  <1993Jan24.155604.28247@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>  jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>
>< much stuff deleted >
>>  
>> I understand from messages read on other services (BIX and Compuserve)
>> that Windows NT has been made available on floppies (at least some have
>> gotten it).  I assume they don't supply all the docs and development
>> tools that the CD holds (yikes, hundreds of floppies!  I want my NT on
>> 360K disks...), and I gather the Intel based NT arrives of something
>> like 30 floppies (sounds like OS/2 2.x to me).
>>  
>> OTOH, with CD-ROM readers available for around $200 or so (admittedly
>> very low end stuff, but it works!), I don't think this is quite the
>> problem for most people that some would make it.  Indeed, it is much
>> easier for the average Joe (!) to buy a CD-ROM reader than to get FTP
>> access...
>>  
>> Joe Malloy / WB2RBA / jmalloy@hamilton.edu  
>> Associate Professor of German / Hamilton College / Clinton, NY 
>>  
>
>Let me get this straight.  In order to use NT, Microslosh expects me to
>buy about $600 worth of RAM?  OK I can handle that.

Hey, I don't care if you don't wanna do nothing!  But your argument sure
sounds silly: it's pretty much the same argument we got when OS/2 was
first released...  Hmmm, if you need to spend $600 on RAM, then either
you've got about zero K installed now or are reigned in on a tight
proprietary leash.
 
>
>In addition you ( and possibly they ) think I should shell out another
>$200 ( more like $300 ) for a CD drive.  And there's more - I'll need
>to chuck my hard drive and buy a bigger one at about $400

I don't see that the requirements for a test bed for NT are all that
dissimilar to a system that runs OS/2 well (or are you one of those
people running OS/2 2.0 in 4 MB ram?  Have a lot of time on your hands,
eh? :)  You can get CD-ROM drives for much less than $400, by the way,
though you may have to do a little paging through magazines or visit a
few shops.   

>Plus another "under $500" for NT itself! HA!

Since the only version of NT available is the beta and since it costs
$69 plus $20 for second-day air shipping and includes shipment of the
current beta, the next beta, and the final release, I don't see how it
would cost you $500 (or "under" -- I suppose $89 is "under $500").  But
if you'd like I can get you a copy for, oh, say, $120...just mail me a
check!
>
>Who in the metally stable world is going to think this is cheaper than getting
>OS/2 off the network for $0?  Even those that don't have access can still
>buy it from IBM cheap. (The 2.1 release on floppies will be less than $150),
>or even ask a computer jock (we all know one) to get it from an FTP site.

I'd assume this question was rhetorical, but since it's so wrongly put,
I guess it's not.  This may come as a surprise, but only the tiniest
fraction of the worlds's population has ftp access!  Yes, sad, but true.
Even many a technically-inclined computerist doesn't have ftp access
(and the wise people on BIX, for example, clamor for it).  So ftp
access, which, by the way, costs somebody somewhere something
(TANSTAAFL), is a very limited means of distributing software (now,
before you jump on a high horse and claim that I've just criticized IBM
for doing something bad, I haven't; they're entitled to distribute (or
not) as they see fit; in fact, I think ftp access is good, though our
connection is slow and I don't have time to babysit it over so many
floppies...)).  

BTW for those interested: The Clinton White House is apparently now on
line with a Compuserve address for e-mail to an appropriate office (or,
perhaps, trash bucket?).  But since it's compuserve, not even Bill C.
can ftp the OS/2 beta...

>Let's figure out the totals for my system, which is a 8Mb 486 with 100Mb HD.
>
>NT				OS/2
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ram: 	$600		OS/2 2.1 release:	 $150
>HD:	$400
>CD:	$300
>NT OS:	$499.99??
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>	$1699.99			 $150
>
>
>Even if NT is available on floppies, AND I can get NT for $69, it still very
>pricey at over $1000.

This list, of course, pure horse hockey, but go ahead, pretend!

I suppose I could make the same sorts of grandiose -- but false --
claims you make and argue that *everybody* of importance already has a
CD-ROM drive and enough memory to test NT, but I know that's not true.
And you, too, know that your note above simply fails any reasonable
reality check.
>
>And what does NT give me that I don't already get in OS/2:?
>
>C2 security  - Great, I can keep my wife from looking at all of those sexy
>		bitmaps I use!

Shame on you!  Go wash your mouth out with soap right now! Where are
your family values?  :)

>Networking - Now if I only had 2 machines!

You don't have at least 2?  (This is a serious question; my spoue and I
have been investigating local, home, networking so as to make our
computing lives easier...we both use our machines quite heavily.)   

>Windows Interface - WOW, I'm sure all OS/2 users will agree that this is
>			much better than the WorkPlace - NOT!

Yup, why bother with an OS that will attract ISV support for clever
alternatives to the rather tepid Progman/Fileman combination when you
can be stuck with the Workplace Shell (ugly, ungainly, awkward, buggy)
for no additional charge and no real alternative?

>I'm sure NT will be a useable prduct (in time), but for me an most other
>personal and business users, it will be just too damn much money to
>spend on a Operationg System.  I'll keep OS/2 thanks.

If you seriously think that OS/2 doesn't require significant computing
resources, then you're fooling only yourself.

>
>NT seems to be a great product with no market.  If it's aimed at file servers
>why does it need a Windows interface.  If it's an OS aimed at desktops why
>is going to be so expensive?  If it's aimed a displacing UNIX on workstations,
>Microsoft is mental.  UNIX is more than OS - its a religion.  I really think Gates
>has lost his marbles on this one.

How dare you claim Bill Gates ever had any marbles to lose in the first
place!!  I demand a retraction!  (Um, that was some more humor, btw.)
At any rate, you may well be right and NT may slide off the face of the
earth into the Eternal Bit Bucket of Despair(tm).  OTOH, there are some
good reasons to conclude that OS/2 2.0 is halfway into The Bucket(r)
already.  More likely, however, is that both will survive and flourish
well enough to keep users happy.  I sure don't see my life being
improved by the failure of OS/2 or NT (in fact, I could probably lead a
healthy, happy life with neither!), but I'm certainly not so afraid of
either that I have to post false information about them...

>
>
>Steve

Joseph T. Malloy / WB2RBA / jmalloy@hamilton.edu
Associate Professor of German / Hamilton College / Clinton, New York

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy