From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:51:57 GMT

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?

>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.  
>
>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.>

>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?>

>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?  :)>

>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.
>
>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...
>
>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?

>
>Now, should we address IBM's shortcomings. By all means.  But a long
>list of items, all negative, seems out of place in this newsgroup.
>   -- Bruce
>--
>Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
>bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
>                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer

I guess I don't get it.  IBM and MS seem pretty darn similar to me
(heck, their stock values have so adjusted themselves, maybe they're now
both worth the same amount!).  And competition is good, no?  Sit back
and enjoy the fruits of their labor!

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

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy