From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
Date: 04 Jan 93 18:48:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan4.111435.685@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.205457.17495@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>> 
>> 	Capability-wise, NT is equal to or greater than OS/2.  It offers
>> 	things that OS/2 only offers when given some costly networking
>> 	upgrade.  Most users don't need this stuff, though, so OS/2
>> 	probably offers more bang for the buck.
>> 
>> 	It also offers more bang for the buck in terms of performance,
>> 	but OS/2 is hardly more solid than the NT beta. 
>> 
>>  (recent fud to the contrary inthis base on an obviously misconfigured
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>   machine, ignored).
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>OUTBURST MODE ON:
>
>The only thing misconfigured about my  NT-crashes-constantly
>"FUD" was your brain. NT was installed on virtually identical systems and no
>mods were made by manual means. But it ran poorly and spent the rest of the
>time falling over.

    Steve, for what it's worth, I believe that Windows NT didn't run
on your machine when you tried it.  I will not, though, that you
didn't go through the installation process at all - you swapped in
a hard disk, which could result in the system not being properly
configured for your machine.  "Virtually" identical doesn't mean
truly identical.


>Just for the record....it won't run at all, now. It stuffed it's file system
>and won't even boot up.

     Maybe this was caused by yanking the hard drive out of so many
machines and swapping it into others?  All it takes is one good knock
to hose a hard drive.


>If you are going to call me a liar, fine. But I get to say I'm no liar and
>that I don't like you calling me one in a public forum. I don't for a moment
>expect you to be big enough to apologise......but you do owe me one.

    I don't think you're a liar.  I do think that your attempts to
generalize your personal experience with Windows NT to sweeping
statements about Windows NT as a whole are FUD, and I've told you
why.


>You refuse to believe anything bad about NT and ignore it. Then, since all
>the bad things have been ruled out of order.....NT must be great! 

    Let me say this:  My own personal experiences with Windows NT
are in direct conflict with the reports that you've published here.
I've been running it for months with no major problems.


>I'm not blinkered. Hell, I've posted half a dozen bug reports about the OS/2
>2.1 beta in c.o.o.m. over the past few days.....
>
>At least OS/2 runs.....

     And so does Windows NT.  Steve, try getting the original CD, then
install it properly on your machine and report back.  If you're still
having trouble with it, I'm sure that someone in the beta program
will be glad to listen to your bug reports.

				-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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy