From: mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:55:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct8.055535.25729
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

B
>>Jay, the danger in making the kind of assumption you make in the above 
>>paragraph is that you haven't a clue if I've spent any time in the real world
>>(I have, years with a mainframe vendor and more years as a database consultant)
>>Additionally, you run the risk of being accused of not knowing what you are 
>>talking about.  Why, when I worked installing banking systems for interbank
>>payments, I used networks for business.  the 
>
>(the paragraph ended there in the original)
>Ah, but did you use TCP/IP networks? How much time have you spent in
>environments where networking isn't of all-consuming importance? 
>I happen to think networking is neat stuff, but there are plenty of cases
>where it simply isn't vital, or even necessary, to a given enterprise.
>i
Jay, you've some trouble maintaining the thread.  
I'll drop it.  

>>>The real-world product will be almost
>>>certainly between $490 and $500, based on MS's own statements.
>>Lets see what it costs, when a price is established.  
>
>Why would MS be making public statements about the price of NT being "less
>than $500" if the price would wind up being $199? They'd have run off
>customers for no gain at all. That's why I've said repeatedly that NT will be
>$499.95, and any other price would be idiotic of MS.
>
Once again, lets see what the price ends up.

>>Gosh, Jay.  I don't know.  Perhaps IBM has bribed Will?  Perhaps Will is going
>>to go to work for a competitor?  Perhaps Will has a persecution complex?  
>>Perhaps Will is dishonest?  Perhaps Will's perception of what happened is just
>>plain wrong?  It would be foolish of me to claim to understand Will.  Just 
>>because he  
>
>(again, the original paragraph ends there)
>I'm much less inclined to believe that any of those that influence how WIll
>would write (going to work for a competitor, for example, has little to do
>with what he would write for ZD) are indeed the case than I am that MS is
>being its usually sleazy self. I would note, though, that it's real hard to
>perceive getting a phone call from MS right after returning from a conference
>with his editor about writing more favorably about Windows any other way than
>what Will has said.
>
Jay, seems to me that you enjoy believing in conspiracies.  It seems somewhat
sophomoric to me, but it gives you pleasure.  You've seen the notes from Will's
editor who has denied that the meeting Will discusses every happened.  Will
then got a phone call from Microsoft about a meeting that didn't happen.  Sigh,
I'll give up this discussion.  If other writers, any other writers, begin
to accuse Microsoft of "payola" or if we see some real journalism which suggests
that Microsoft should be accused, I'll believe it.  Until then, I don't believe
Will.

BTW, I'm sorry about the problems with the newsreader terminating lines.  I'm
having some trouble getting the reader working correctly under the os/2 tcp/ip
package.  

>>>I do believe in my .signature. Microsoft's actions are not explainable by
>>>stupidity.
>>I thought we were talking about Will Zachman?
>
>We were talking about Zachmann and MS...
>-- 
>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)


-- 
Mark Huth                         * Is it too wild to want to get into 
Mhuth@u.washington.edu            * Space someday?
Compuserve 70346,563              *
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy