From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:49:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

In article <1992Aug19.201251.2536@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>CD-ROM that might be useful to me?  The ability to load the Windows/NT
>>>SDK.  That's it.  It's not worth buying a CD-ROM drive for.
>
>>The ability to have a distribution media that costs only a buck to send.
>
>That's an ability for Microsoft, not for me.
>

Would you rather buy a clipart library for $5.00 (600 megs) on CD, or one
(the SAME one) for $150.00 (plus shipping/handling) because it comes on
300 floppies?  What is cheaper for the manufacturer is usually cheaper
for the end user.

>>The ability to be able to start the install of a large application
>>(PS4 insurance data base, Unix, SDK, Kings Quest V, Wing Commander) without
>>having to actually sit there and feed floppies.  
>
>Frankly, that slight utility isn't worth my while to purchase a CD-ROM
>for.  AFter all, I only install things once, usually.
>

Good for you.  But that isn't the only "utility" of CD-ROM.  Do you have
600 megs of hard disk space on your system free for historical stock data
back five years?

>>The ability to have access
>>to large amounts of organized data (business lists, on-line manuals,
>>encyclopedias, language references, libraries, clip art).  
>
>For this, CD-ROM makes some sense.  But I don't do this and it has
>nothing to do with software development.  I find online manuals to be
>somewhat less than useful, by the way.

I didn't do it until I did it either.  Then I found it insanely useful...
so much, I've wondered how I did without it in the first place.

>
>>The ability to
>>acquire lots of shareware software for a song--without having to spend
>>DAYS downloading via modem...
>
>This, too, isn't a problem or a need I seem to have.  It would be a
>handy application if one was running a BBS, though (which I'm not).

Don't tell me you haven't come up with a problem like "gee, I need a TSR
to feed keystrokes to DOS so I can automate such and such"--and then
have to search throughout the county (or Usenet) for a solution.  It's
one of those things I didn't feel was useful until I could do it--and now
it is very useful.

>You need to pull your head out and read what was said.  First, no one
>ever denied that CD-ROM had its uses.  In point of fact (remember
>fact?), I explicitly mentioned things like large collections of
>clipart as being a good use of CD-ROM.  I also said that anything that
>is used FROM the CD-ROM (as opposed to using the CD merely as a
>distribution medium for something that should be installed on a hard
>drive) is probably a good use of the medium.  
>
>So, that would seem to deal with the "denying that it [CD-ROM] is [a
>good, useful technology]" part of that final caluse.  I quite simply
>never did that, and your contention that I did is incorrect at best
>and deliberate falsehood at worst.

Actually you said it was useless because you cannot write to it.  If you
need to, I'll send you a copy of your message.  I hope it isn't necessary
because (supposedly) we're all professionals and you're quite as capable
to go back through this thread as I am.


>
>Now then, let's look at the remainder of that clause.  The one that
>characterizes me based on actions I never took in the first place.
>First, the "simply because of preconceived bias and prejudices" part.
>Please tell me just what my 'preconceived bias and prejudices' are
>supposed to be, based on this thing you claim I did which never
>happened.  Be explicit.

How about the phrase "Microsoft attempt to dictate to its customers"  Ring
a bell?

>
>And that brings us to the "is lacking professionalism" part.  Next
>time I'm out your way, I'll drop in and explain the libel and slander
>laws to you in person.  Meanwhile, how long, pray tell, have YOU been
>in the profession of developing software .  Just what, pray tell, do
>you think gives you the right to lie about what I said, draw
>irrelevent conclusions, accuse me of bias and prejudice, and then
>impugn MY professionalism?

I did not say (in that last post) that YOU were biased.  I merely stated
the general fact that basing one's conclusions on bias or prejudice was
lacking in professionalism.  If I present a garment for anyone, and you
say that it's cut only to your size, that's your perogitive.  :)

>
>In other words, to keep it simple, just who in the fuck do you think
>you are?
>

See above.

>>>YOU CAN'T WRITE TO A FRIGGING CD-ROM!  Why is it that folks at
>>>Microsoft don't seem to be able to understand that?  WHY WOULD I WANT
>>>TO BUY A MASS STORAGE DEVICE THAT I CAN'T WRITE TO?
>>>

Oh, if (certain people) aren't biased or have pre-conceptions, why is it
that they mention one "offender" by name.  "Next time I'm out your way,
I'll explain the libel and slander laws to you"  :)


>
>One more time, for the reading impaired.  Nobody said there weren't
>good applications for CD-ROM.  Now, please pull your head out into the
>real world briefly and remember the thread.  Recall that everyone has
>been 'defending' CD-ROM because it stores so much and is so cheap
>COMPARED TO WRITABLE MEDIA and that they've been defending it based on
>advancing technology from ONE WRITABLE MEDIA TO ANOTHER. 
>
>Now the, let's try this one more time.  As a software developer, I
>have little to no need for a mass storage medium that is READ ONLY.  I
>don't do census data, desktop publishing, computer artwork, run a BBS,
>or do any of those other things that CD-ROM makes sense for.  What I
>do is develop software.  I DO NOT NEED A CD-ROM, EXCEPT THAT MICROSOFT
>SEEMS TO THINK THAT ANYONE WHO THINKS IT MIGHT BE WORTH THEIR WHILE TO
>TAKE A LOOK AT THE PRE-ALPHA OF WINDOWS/NT HAS TO HAVE ONE. 


Oh, I see.  My apologies.  I didn't think that when you thought "Microsoft"
you mean "Microsoft and Sun"  or "Microsoft and Professional Systems" or
"Microsoft and Walnut Creek"...  

You are absolutely right.  You don't NEED a CD-ROm drive.  You don't
NEED an computer at all.  But Microsoft is in the enviable position to
say "But if you don't have a CD-ROM or Computer... you won't be able to
load NT from our distribution."

>
>I can't make it any simpler than that, and I can't make the letters
>any bigger without sending you a graphics file.  Is it plain yet?
>
>>I am quite certain that Microsoft understands the read-only nature of
>>CD-ROM.  Perhaps, you should give them a little credit: the way I see it
>>software is getting bigger and bigger--and we NEED some sort of
>>mass-producable media to distribute the applications of tomorrow.  Whether
>>it's CD or not, we'll discover in about ten years.  Microsoft is banking
>>that it's CD-ROM.  I think they're right--given the strengths that the
>>CD media has.
>
>Yes, and exactly my point.  Perhaps 10 years from now it might make
>sense to deliver only on CD-ROM.  PERHAPS.  Right now, it is sheer
>arrogance on the part of Microsoft.  What percentage of the machines
>sold to software developers have CD-ROMs on them?  I'm sitting in a
>building full of people right now, and there isn't a single one in
>sight. 

Arrogance on "some developers" you mean.  :)  Mentioning a company by
name, and claiming they are the only people at fault can be misconstrued as
preconception or bias... or just the fact you're like the Fox and the Grapes.

>
>>>
>>>This isn't an upgrade to a newer technology, and it is NOT cheaper for
>>>me.  It might be much more convenient for YOU, but that's Microsoft's
>>>problem, not mine.  I CANNOT WRITE TO A CD-ROM.  THEREFORE, THERE IS
>>>NO REAL REASON TO BUY ONE EXCEPT FOR ARROGANT VENDORS WHO SEEM TO
>>>THINK THEY CAN FORCE THEM ON PEOPLE.

But there are other reasons to buy a CD-Rom drive, no?  Just because YOU
don't have a need or desire to own a drive doesn't mean nobody has the
need or desire.  Again, Microsoft isn't forcing CD-ROM technology on 
you.  You can always get the CD, and borrow/rent a player to copy it to
your favorite media.

>
>>Why is it you keep lambasting Microsoft?  Are you mad at Corel for
>>distributing their software on CD?  
>
>No, but if that were the only way the distributed it and there wasn't
>clipart involved, I would have a few words to say to them about it (if
>their software was something that was useful in my professional
>field).  I *AM* somewhat hacked off at Sun for doing away with tape
>distribution as an option.
>
>>Are you upset at Morningstar for
>>distributing stock data and fund data on CD?  
>
>Nope.  I don't need it, and this is another one of those applications
>involving large quantities of data that are READ FROM THE CD-ROM (not
>installed on the hard drive).
>
>>Heck, are you mad at
>>Phillips for DEVELOPING the technology in the first place?  
>
>Nope.  Why should I care?  Like I said, they're handy for some things.
>You quite clearly still don't even understand the issue.
>
>>If you don't
>>like the fact that some vendors choose to distribute their software in 
>>the cheapest way possible (for them), then don't buy it.  Nobody's 
>>forcing you to.
>
>Quite right.  I shan't.  And I will make it plain why I don't.


Go about 100 lines up.  "ARROGANT VENDORS WHO SEEM TO THINK THEY CAN FORCE
THEM ON PEOPLE"--your words, neh?  but glad you're beginning to see the point.

>
>Obviously you don't, since you don't even understand the basis for the
>complaint, apparently.
>
>What I get is that you can't read, based on your 'response' to issues
>that have nothing to do with what I was complaining about.
>

Enough of this.  You have your views, I have mine.  It's plain that
Microsoft, Sun, Walnut Creek, PS4, and others have theirs.  Personal
attacks are not proper on the net.