From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 12 Sep 92 03:13:20 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep11.184508.28227@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (
Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <7300@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes
:
>>In article <1992Sep10.211055.11590@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu
(Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>Also if you want to read something really sick, check out Zachman's NT bashin
g
>>>article.... I think he's finally come completely unhinged.
>>
>>Oh, yeah? What, exactly, did he say that's not truthful, and that hasn't been
>>said here in this very newsgroup?
>>(Yes, I've read the article.)
>
>Some quote from Zachmann's article with annotations by me.
>(Zachmann's is the indented part.)
>
>       ...
>
>       Why does Microsoft repeatedly insist that the
>       version of Windows NT distributed in July,
>       which nearly everyone assumes to be a beta, is

>Why would anybody think this is a beta?  Microsoft has NEVER said
>this... and goes out of its way to make sure people know this.
>Don't believe me?  Call (800) 227-4679 and try to order an NT beta.
>They'll tell you immediately that it's not one.

You are making a terrible assumption.  You are assuming that people always
have the real facts.  You know that it isn't a beta, I know that i isn't a
beta, but I have seen countless references even on this forum to the SDK as a
beta.  Some people just don't read the facts or only listen to rumors and
don't investigate any on their own.  Despite this, Zachmann has uttered no
falsehoods here.  Many people really do think it is a beta.  ( Of course some
people still think Elvis is alive too)

>       really a "prerelease version for developers"
>       and not a beta at all? What does this "beta
>       that is not really a beta" mean?
>       It means three things, First, Windows NT is way
>       behind schedule. Second, the July version is
>       pretty much a mess, so much so that Microsoft

>The July release is a "mess" only in terms of 16-bit support
>everything else is reasonably stable. Which if he had bothered
>to try it, he would know... OS/2 supporters... remember when people
>kept reviewing OS/2, having never looked at the product?

Most of appears to be pretty stable, I'll agree, but it does look like NT is
behind their stated schedule by at least 4-6 months.  Remember we are in Alpha
right now with no indication of it ending imminently, and beta testing is sure
to take several months so it does appear to be behind schedule.  (I'm guessing
middle '93)  Also do you have any evidence that he has not tried it?  He may
very well have and genuinely thinks that.  Whether he is right or not is a
different matter altogether.

>       does not want anyone to use it as an indicator
>       of the function or performance of the final
>       version. Third, Microsoft is so worried about
>       the growing momement for OS/2 that it chose to
>       put out a half-baked, incomplete version of
>       Windows NT rather than admit how badly the NT
>       schedule has slipped.

>I'm sure they released the developer pre-release in part due
>to pressure from OS/2, and also because they wanted to have
>an app base from day one.  It really bugs me to see people in
>the press criticizing this move... in truth... everybody
>ought to do this.  It's much more convenient for the developers
>and the customers when this is done.  The only reason most
>places have strict controls on their beta is that they're afraid
>their competitors will do comparisons on the not yet finished
>product.  Microsoft should be applauded for being brave enough
>to do this! (And of course IBM should be too for it's earlier
>generally available beta.)

Your assesment of their motives seems to be reasonably accurate, but I think
that OS/2 pressure was by far the biggest reason.  It really seems to have
forced their timetable.  I also agree that it would be better if more people
did this, but there aren't many companies that can take the media pressure
that goes along with it.  Right or wrong, when the media gets a hold of
something, they blab about it with no qualms about what its current state is.
MS has done a good job of damage control and it appears things may actually be
working somewhat to their advantage in some cases.  It is a tightrope act
though.
>
>       ...
>
>       The current "prerelease" version requires a
>       minimum of 12M bytes of memory, according to
>       Microsoft; 16M bytes is recommended.  Word has
>       it that the upcoming "beta" may be a bit
>       slimmer but nowhere close to the promised 8M
>       bytes. Windows NT obviously makes OS/2 2.0 look
>       lean and mean by comparision.

>Anybody that tried to run an OS/2 2.0 beta in 6 megs,
>knows that it was quite painful... but it works ok now.
>People already have tried NT in 8 megs... it's painful,
>but there's not reason to believe that 8 megs in not
>unreachable.  As to the 16 meg recommended.  This
>is for developers.  Most developers use more than
>8 megs for OS/2... I'd say most use 16 megs.
>(I use 20, I know several people that use 32).

This part is more FUD than anything else on Zachmann's part.  Nobody really
knows how well NT will operate with 8 megs of RAM.  On the other hand,
developers are not normal users and while I would love to have more RAM, the
next logical step up from 8mb is 20mb for me, which I cannot afford.  (4meg
SIMMS)  If NT doesn't operate well in 8 megs, I probably won't run it unless a
rich uncle I am unaware of dies and leaves me some money.  I would at least
like to try it though so this is an important consideration.
>
>
>       The most amazing thing about all this is the
>       number of developers who are following
>       Microsoft down the garden path with NT. In
>       fact, aside from Microsoft, few software
>       venodrs are really making any money selling
>       Windows applications.  Windows NT will
>       certainly have a far more limited market than
>       does Windows 3.1 for a long time. These
>       wanna-be Windows NT developers must have a
>       masochistic death wish. Maybe they are all
>       independently wealthy and don't need to make
>       any money selling their applications.

>Gee all those developers wrong... and Zachmann desparately
>trying to save them!!!! :-)
>Sounds like "everybody's wrong, but Johnny" to me!

Well, I do think that many vendors have fallen a little too far under MS's
spell.  NT will have a more limited market than Windows, but so will OS/2 for
some time to come.  I think that Zachmann went overboard somewhat here.
Obviously, Win apps must be making some money for somebody other than MS
otherwise it would be a dead platform no matter how good MS marketing is.  I
think NT will be a reasonably good money maker as will OS/2.  I think there is
room in the future for both systems with Windows eventually getting the shaft
in the somewhat distant future.  But all that is just speculation on all our
parts.>
>       ...
>
>He sounds pretty unhinged to me.
>
At the very least his objectivity seems to be disappearing.

>Brian
>--
>C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
>University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
>Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
>

Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5101 comp.os.os2.apps:5936