From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:06:25 GMT

In <1992Oct8.163321.13640@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In <1992Oct01.190528.6818@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>>In article <1992Sep30.210022.2904@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>In <1992Sep29.180844.4739@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>

>>     I'm deleted a godawful amount of context here to save some
>>bandwidth - if you need to read it, go back and find the old article.

>Ok, me too.

But you didn't go back to read the old articles, see below.

>>     OK, if you're up for some hardcore quibbling:

>>     Installed doesn't necessarily mean "currently installed."  It
>>could mean "was installed and has been deleted."  The original
>>statement doesn't preclude using that definition.
>>     Way back when this thread started, though, the basic argument
>>(and I'm paraphrasing) was "Every copy of OS/2 is in use, but every
>>copy of Windows isn't".  The second part I believe is correct - the
>>first is far less likely.

>This thread must have started some time ago, then, because I've been
>reading for a while now and never saw anyone make a contention like
>*that*.  I do, however, think there is probably a lot higher
>percentage of idle Windows packages out there than there are OS/2
>packages. 

Irrelevant. The statement which triggered my remark "I know at
least two people who have OS/2 installed, but almost never
use it" was 
   "OS/2 is different. Once you install it, you use it. It's as
   simple as that"

(Quoted from memory, because I don't have my logfiles at hand).

Simple prove by counterexample. "It is impossible to have 
OS/2 installed and not use it". "Wrong. It *is* indeed possible,
I know somebody who has OS/2 installed, but does not use it".


>>>>     You can win an argument by presenting counter-evidence to
>>>>contradict a claim.  Wolfgang's evidence was anecdotal, but still
>>>>quite believable.  Are you seriously suggesting that he was lying?
>>>
>>>Well, I'm seriously suggesting that it doesn't constitute the
>>>counter-proof of the original statement that you say it does, so
>>>there's no need to suggest he was lying.

>>      It depends on definition and context.

>Even so, the 'counter evidence' contained the phrase "ALMOST never use
>it [emphasis added]" and hence was 'counter evidence' for anything at
>all. 

You logic is flawed. I could have said: "I know somebody who has
OS/2 installed, but does not use it, SOMETIMES", and it would have
served as a counter-example, nevertheless.

I didn't say NEVER, btw, because at least for the installation,
he HAD to use OS/2.

What really amuses me is that one person argued that my
statement was obviously wrong, because installation == use,
in his opinion, and another person (you) argues that my
statement doesn't mean anything, because of the "almost".

Oh well. 

>>>  This is sort of
>>>tautological, since once you install the operating system on a
>>>machine, you either use it or you don't use the machine.

>>     Not true, as you prove by your own words below:

>>>  Of course,
>>>there are things like 'dual boot' and such,  but this seems like a lot
>>>of trouble to go to in order to NOT use an operating system.

>>     Dual boot is fairly useful.  I have a machine that dual boots
>>DOS and Windows NT.  Can you guess which one I use and which one
>>sits idle on the hard drive?

>Yes, and DOS is quite a bit smaller.  People can leave it installed
>the same way they leave Windows installed, since it's only a Meg or 3
>of space, anyway.  Of course, if you run that up by an order of
>magnitude, it winds up being an awful lot of space to waste on
>something that isn't being used.  That would be the case if someone
>installed OS/2 and then didn't use it.

The one person I was talking about has recently installed his second
600 MB drive, because his first one became full, and is now slowly
filling it up. Why should he delete his copy of OS/2 2, as long as
he has plenty of unused space?

I still have two of the three copies of OS/2 1.x I own (my employer, 
to be precise) installed on my various PCs, but almost never
use them, because there is no reason to do so. Why should I 
delete them, as long as my local disk isn't full?  

>Hence, I think it is a safe statement to make that if someone has OS/2
>installed on their machine, they are using it (the same applies to NT,
>which is also a gawdawful lot of space to waste if you aren't using
>it). 

This is an entirely new meaning of "safe", at least for me. But you may
blame the fact that English is my third language, for that.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware