From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Date: 28 Jan 1993 16:44:56 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan28.015157.22799@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
|In article <1k75n1INNrum@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
|>In article <1993Jan27.212704.23292@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
|>
|>[exchange deleted]
|>
|>Why is it your job to point out IBM's problems?
|>
|>Who screw's up more often?  I think the size of the screw has a lot to
|>do with things.  
|>
|>o MS has dropped OS/2 and a lot of folks don't like that.  
|
|True.  But they did so to concentrate on Windows and NT and many people
|do like that.  IBM continues OS/2 development on its own, so we have the
|best of both worlds.  What's the problem?  Is MS the only corporation to
|make a medium-sized adjustment to its plans?

First of all, I don't think dropping OS/2 was a medium-sized
adjustment.  It was a very large adjustment that in fact was the
reason OS/2 was delayed.

|
|>o MS's support to users is generally less well done than MS's.
|>(Infinite holds on the phone for instance.) 
|
|In one sense, I can't argue this point since I've never needed to call
|MS for anything; I've never had problems with their products that I
|couldn't get straightened out on my own or via an on-line service or the
|net.  IBM, on the other hand, has this wonderful help line that took a
|few days to decide that OS/2 2.0 GA wouldn't run on my machine and that
|I should return it for a refund (that's *real* helpful!) even though the
|net helped me to get it going.  

Well, not all of us have access to on line services.  Do you think the
Air Force would pay for a CI$ connection?  No way!  Their FORTRAN
compiler, as stated by a previous post, was (is?) really terrible.
They were no help at all, and it *was* their problem.

|>o Outright dropping of support for previous releases of a lot of
|>applications has not endeared MS to a lot of folks.
|
|I haven't experienced this myself, but I can see where it would be a
|problem for those who don't upgrade products every now and again.  I
|doubt there are few people on the net who don't take advantage of most
|upgrade offers for the software they like or use.>

When you use vertical applications, upgrading is not always a
reasonable solution.  We're talking $100,000 or more to change an
application.  User's want the new features of an OS upgrade, but we
sometimes can't let them upgrade until the primary application is
changed--and that costs time and money.

|>o Taking 2 years after Windows 3.0 to produce 3.1.
|
|Um, no offense, but IBM's record getting OS/2 2.0 out is nothing to crow
|about.  Remember they were going to release 2.0 in 1991?  Then it was
|going to have a 'summer' (1992) CSD that would add Win 3.1 support?
|Frankly, I'd just as soon MS and IBM take their time and do the job
|right.  They seem to be doing this these days; why discourage them?>

Um, no offense, but who's fault was it tha IBM had to take OS/2 and
make it work.  Ever try software maintenance, Joe?  Trying to
understand someone else's code is very difficult.  (Not as difficult
as me trying to understand German, however :-) ) The task was too big
to throw away what had been done, but bringing in a whole new team and
learning what had been done, what needed to be done, and how to do it
within the constraints of the existing system is *very* time
comsuming.

IBM did release changes to OS/2 all summer, BTW.  They just didn't
consolidate them into a CSD until October.  They do an excellent job
of identifying problems and making the updates available.

|>o Calling Windows NT "Windows NT 3.1" instead of 1.0.
|
|This, of course, is silly.  What's in a name?  Do you imagine some poor
|blighted souls will stumble into Egghead and pick up NT thinking it's
|really just Windows 3.1?  :)>

What's silly?  What I'm saying or what MS is doing.  Yes I agree that
what MS is doing is silly.  And yes I can conceive of someone getting NT
and thinking it's Windows 3.1.  The implication here is that the two
systems are the same, but in fact the only thing that is the same is
the user interface.  The internals are 100% new.  That means that
despite MS's best efforts, there will be bugs and incompatibilities.

|>o There have been a lot of complaints about MS taking other vendors
|>ideas and developing those ideas themselves.
|
|If this is true, if, in fact, they steal ideas, then that's truly
|reprehensible.  I have yet to see any proof of that, though; one hears
|mostly rumors on c.o.o.a, where one expects to see MS-bashing.

I never claimed they were true.  That's why I said "There have been
complaints..."

|>Maybe MS has not lied about NT ship date, but I consider their
|>promises to get NT out in 92 (various dates, not just Dec) to be just
|>as bad as your description of IBM behavior.
|
|See above re: IBM and ship dates for OS/2.  People are fallible and may,
|with the best intentions, be wrong.  Both IBM and MS have made the same
|mistake (you might want to call the planned release dates of NT 'fud'
|but one could easily say the same of IBM and it's 'LA' release of
|OS/2...

Yes, See my comments above too.  My belief is that IBM has not
purposely made statements that they did not believe at the time they
were made.  My belief, also, is that MS did make public statements
about the release of NT that they did not really belive they could
reasonably make.

|>There was a thread in this newgroup that said MS would present NT at
|>Spring Comdex, but it wouldn't be released until May.  Well NT was
|>demonstrated at the Fall Comdex, so what's the big deal about Spring
|>Comdex? 
|
|Dunno.  Maybe it'll be feature complete and better optimized?  I don't
|even know if that matters.  But why would you wish to prevent them from
|displaying anything they want to show?  IBM does similar things with
|'technology demonstrations' long before something ever becomes product,
|and sometimes it never does...  Wouldn't life be dull, though, if we had
|nothing to look forward to?

I don't wish to prevent MS from displaying anything.  My comment was
generated from my impressions when I read the initial statement.  The
statement led one to initially believe that NT would be released at
COMDEX but a more detailed reading said that it wouldn't be released
until a target date of May.  Was the statement wrong?  No.  Was it
misleading?  I think so.  Most people would expect MS to demonstrate
the latest and greatest version of NT at COMDEX.  The same people
would also expect IBM to display their latest and greatest there too.

The biggest point is that the fact that an announcement was made at
all is the announcement implied new information.  Information is
defined as the reduction of uncertainty.  There was no new information
in the announcement.



--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
bdubbs@hal.kelly.af.mil       |  Scrupulous Lawyer