From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 05 Oct 92 19:06:59 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct5.141621.6764@cu23.crl.aecl.ca> gutz@cc49.crl.aecl.ca writes:
>In article <1992Oct01.185753.6638@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>
>>     IBM could predict 4 million - that doesn't change the current
>>facts.
>
>Agreed, IBM, like Microsoft, can predict that cows will fall from the sky
>on Tuesday.  But the fact remains that OS/2 is selling - and probably better
>than MS could have guessed.

     OS/2 is indeed selling - but neither of us has any clue how well.
We have some numbers from IBM, and we have some conflicting numbers
from Microsoft.  Who's to say which is closer to the truth?


>>     OK - we were using different definitions.  I thought you were
>>referring to a specific app, while you were apparently talking
>>about a set of applications.
>
>I don't think we are using different definitions.  I want to use OS/2 and
>I need a word processor.  I really don;t care if it's Word or something else.
>If I learned Word I can take a bit of time to learn something else.

     That's not the definition I was using.  Reread my paragraph and
you will see what I originally meant.


>>     Hmm... A couple of thoughts.  If Microsoft were indeed developing
>>OS/2 apps, it would be in the company's best interest to make sure
>>that OS/2 users knew that these apps were coming - otherwise they
>>might go out and purchase a competitor's product.  True?
>
>No not true - in fact complete garbage.  If I had just spent millions on my
>new OS, which although superior in many ways to OS/2, I would still need
>to get a foot hold in the market.  The easiest way to do that is to make
>my OS run my apps, and not produce my apps for OS/2.

     Complete garbage?  Interesting.  I was trying to point out a
logical flaw in the argument that Microsoft _must_ be producing
OS/2 apps.  It was a hypothetical - Microsoft is _not_, to the best
of my knowledge, producing any applications for OS/2.
     Slow down and read what I've written, please.  It will lead to
fewer misunderstandings.


>>      I think OS/2 may fail.  I think Windows NT may succeed.  At
>>this time I'm not willing to make a more definite statement.
>
>That's exactly what you are paid to think, and that's no fault of yours.

     I wasn't aware that I was being paid to think about OS/2 and
Windows NT.  Thank you for providing me with this new information.
     Just out of curiosity, which part of the above am I being paid
to think?  That there is a possibility that OS/2 may fail?  That there
is a possibility that NT may succeed?  Or that I'm not willing to make
a definite statement on either?


>But I do remeber Bill Gates saying that OS/2 would be the OS of the future
>back when MS controlled it.

     And the public said "No thanks, we'll take Windows."  Bill was
wrong.


>  MS has a pathetic track record when it comes
>to envisioning the future - The key MS's success is that they magically end
>up in the right place at the right time - but how long will thier luck
>continue??

     You can't seriously believe that Microsoft's success is due to
luck.


>  You can tell people the NT is the greatest, but when it boils
>down, the consumer will do whatever he wants, and niether IBM nor MS will
>be able to control it.

     Exactly what I've been saying all along.  Have you been reading
the posts that you are replying to?

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.