From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:46:24 GMT

In <1992Dec31.000144.10417@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <30DEC199218072507@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec29.181546.1151@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu 
>>(Yamanari) writes...
>>>In article <8230@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) 
>>>	So we're agreed that using the word "all" is a lie, right?  So
>>>	*pull the word*.
>>
>>Okay, we'll pull the word "all".  How's this sound as a replacement:
>>
>>	...with an operating system that runs more DOS programs than MS DOS 5,
>>	more Windows programs than Windows 3.1, and all OS/2 programs.
>>
>>Is this better?
>>

>	Let me ask:  Is it everyones opinion that OS/2 is sucha bad
>	product that it cannot stand on it's merits alone and that we
>	have to buffer these merits with blatant lies?

No, but then you seem to have some pretty selective rules for
determining what are 'blatant lies'.

> 
>	1) OS/2 does NOT run more DOS programs than DOS5.  If it does,
>	I must be doing something wrong.  For instance, Autocad doesn't
>	seem to run so well. Neither does Comanche:Maximum Overkill.

Ok.  You're doing something wrong.  We can put that in the ad, if you
like. 

>	2) OS/2 might run more Windows programs than 3.1 if you include 
>	ancient programs and cheezy shareware, but I don't and neither
>	do most customers.  I think it's a little dishonest to
>	pretend that the ability to run ancient 2.x programs outweighs
>	the ability to run currently released applications.  In fact,
>	incompatibility with unupdated programs is almost *assumed*,
>	while compatibility with all present releases -- at the
>	very least -- is implied by the word "more".

Funny thing, though.  That 'assumed' compatibility with unupdated
programs?  *WINDOWS* doesn't meet it.

>	3) Some older 16 bit OS/2 programs broke under OS/2 2.0, or
>	so I've heard.  I do not stand by this last statement, but I
>	am almost certain it is true.

I gathered this as well.  

>	*Why* is it necessary to lie?  If you're going to put a qualifier
>	in there, put an HONEST one, like "most".  I prefer not confusing
>	people and just omitting the qualifier altogether.

Nobody lied, except that last one (that I assume was the product of
not thinking it out -- like you said, backward compatibility tends to
be *assumed*).  If you really want to see lies, take a look at the
various MS promises prior to each upgrade of Windows and in the course
of advertising the old ones prior to upgrade.  For example, Windows
3.1 is supposed to run ALL Windows 3.0 programs -- but it doesn't;
they left this little caveat out about those 'rules' that MS itself
breaks that programs would have to follow to run on Windows 3.1.

Geez, are you Brian with a new account, or what?

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