From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:33:21 GMT

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.

>     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. 

>>>     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. 

>>  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.

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). 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.