From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:29:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.210350.6017@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>This June "rumor" wasn't just on USENET.  It was in most of the trade rags.
>Why can't you face the fact that IBM WANTED everyone to believe this.
>Here's a quote from a posting I made two or three weeks ago.
>Did anyone else notice in the July OS/2 Monthly the article that had the
>interview at COMDEX with John Soyring?  Here's the question that upset me:
>        JOEL:
>        I understand that sometime in June, you're coming out with a 32-bit
>        graphic engine upgrade.
>        JOHN SOYRING:
>        ... (denial that it's 16-bit omitted -- it's a "hybrid")
>        ...
>        So we got to the point in March where the 32-bit graphics engine
>	was done. They finished the coding, we finished the internal
>        testing, and it was meeting specifications. We also had a decision.
>        Both were operating very well. One had extensive external testing
>        as well. Which one did we ship initially? Which one would you
>        ship if quality was you top objective?
>        ...
>This is Soyring talking in March.
>Here he is POINT BLANK asked about the June ship date. Does he deny it?
>Does he discourage it?  No, in fact he makes it sound like it could be
>ready before June.

Brian!  Unbelievable.

Here's the relevant quote -- he hasn't finished answering that
question!

Soyring: "...Our top priority remains quality.  What we want to do is
get the full 32-bit graphics engine out among the beta testers and get
the feedback from them.  THEY'LL TELL US IF IT'S RIGHT, AND WHEN IT'S
RIGHT WE'LL SHIP IT.  We'll update OS/2 2.0 at that time, or allow
users to update as well as update our own manufactured line."
[Emphasis mine.]

Remember, this interview was conducted on April 7, and Soyring nipped
that rumor in the behind.  I don't know how he could have made it any
clearer: there is no specific date, it will come, but we won't promise
ANY DATE.  When it is ready, then we'll ship.  Not before.

>Maybe you prefer IBM's leak approach to informing their customers, but
>I prefer Microsoft's  -- at least I have some idea when they're hoping to
>do something and when they're actually saying it will happen.  For example,
>if next week's trade rags confirm that Computer Shopper article that was
>posted here, then I'll believe NT really might make end of year, or at least
>January.

The trade rags did not quote IBM, and IBM personnel (cf. the case
above) were going around specifically discouraging a June date.  What
more do you want?  What part don't you get?  A Spencer column does not
constitute an official IBM declaration.

IBM was COMPLETELY straightforward with its customers in this matter,
according to every piece of evidence I have.  I'm the first to
criticize their mishaps, but this isn't one of them.  The "June CSD"
was purely RUMOR, and you believed it, despite what IBM was saying
throughout, in plain terms.  You could have even ignored what IBM was
saying and listened to me -- I continually qualifed the "June CSD"
rumors as just that, rumors.  Go ahead and check news archives if
you'd like.  I'm quite sure that, nine times out of ten, I qualified
the "June CSD" phrase in some substantial way.

As for Microsoft, the Chairman himself, Bill Gates, said that Windows
3.1 would be delivered in May, 1991.  It was eleven months late.  And
you wonder why people are laughing at NT delivery dates (many of which
have already passed, incidently), EVEN WHEN THEY COME FROM MICROSOFT?

Look, I like Microsoft products.  They make a darn fine word
processor that I like to use.  But history gives every indication that
Microsoft is totally unreliable when it comes to ship dates, even
those dates given on the record by company representatives in an
official capacity.  History also indicates that IBM is scrupulously
reliable when it comes to announced ship dates.  With very few
exceptions, they deliver when they say they'll deliver.  Now, that
doesn't mean I'll never do business with Microsoft, it's just that I
(and most other consumers) simply discount their assessments as so
much hyperbole, and, in our own minds, arrive at more realistic dates,
then plan accordingly.  I think I prefer the IBM approach, though,
since it is a lot less uncertain.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | The OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST is avail. from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/faq.
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | Or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP").
of Chicago, 60637       | Family Values Means a Job
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy