From: mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 5 Oct 92 03:05:08 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <7490@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.194717.18452@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:
>>Jay, like you, I suppose that it would be nice if we could pick and choose 
>>the components that will be included in whatever os we decide to run.  I'd 
>>suggest that what you ask is not a trivial undertaking.
>
>...but it is indeed possible...look at IBM's packaging for the OS/2
>components. If I don't want TCP/IP, I shouldn't have to pay for it anyway.
>NT's "ya gotta get it all" approach is clearly the wrong thing to all but NT
>bigots.

Or people who think that networking should be built into the operating system.  If you put it into the os, it costs much less than an independent package and is
probably better integrated into the system.  I've looked at IBM's packaging for
tcp/ip.  Indeed, I've purchased it.  Costs me $600 bucks if I want the whole
package and it is still an add-on.  Quite good, but an add-on.  Of course, it
isn't a networking package, just an implementation of tcp/ip.  If I want the 
networking package, I've got to buy it in addition.  I still think that 
including it in the os makes sense.  The cost, spread over thousands or million
of users is very reasonable.  You don't agree.   
>
>>Further, I'd suggest
>>that the future (whenever that is) will bring an increase in networking.  While
>>dear old dad doesn't need a network now, he probably will want to be connected
>>in the future.  You've got a network now and it would be a "Good Thing" for
>>you to have tcp/ip.  I'd suggest that including network capability in future
>>os's will become more important.  You don't want to pay for it...ok, don't.  
>
>Having the capability available _for_ the OS is a Good Thing. I'll probably go
>buy TCP/IP for OS/2, but not necessarily from IBM. Having it a mandatory part
>of the OS is a different matter.
>
>If Dad wants to set up a network in the house, he can. Until then, he
>shouldn't have to pay for it.
>
>>Argument by analogy can always be taken to the absurd.  Mexican dinners aren't
>>operating systems.  Microsoft is attempting to meet the needs of a very large
>>segment of the market by including networking in the base product.  It is 
>>fairly unlikely that Microsoft will come to your house and force you to buy
>>NT.  In a similar vein, you can decline to buy the super deluxe dinner.  
>
>At least my favorite Mexican restaurant will let me order dinner my way if I
>don't like the standard combination. Yes, I can decline to buy the super
>deluxe dinner; NT forces me to buy it if I want that system. Similarly, NT
>includes multimedia. I don't want it, and don't want to pay for it, and won't
>make use of it. I'm stuck with buying it anyway.
>
Jay, again you don't have to buy NT.  Microsoft isn't going to force you to do
so.  You object to the idea of "paying" for the networking.  Fine.  I'm pretty
sure that history is going to confirm that networking is going to be important.
Indeed, is important in most institutions...now.  I'll accept the point you 
don't want to pay for that networking...now, but will be happy to pay for it
when you need it.  I'd like to have networking built into the OS...right now.
Again $69 dollars isn't so bad.  
>>You object to the cost of NT.  However, we haven't any real idea of what the 
>>cost of NT is, as yet.  Final pricing isn't available.  The only price, so far,
>>is $69 bucks.  
>
>MS employees here echo the official line that nt will be "under $500". It's
>utterly idiotic for MS to make that statement and not have the final price be
>$499.95.

I'm sure that a final price will be set before the product ships.  I'm equally 
sure that the "pre-beta" costs 69 dollars and includes the final product.  I'm
equally sure that 69 dollars is a reasonable price.  I'm not sure what the 
final price will be for the shipping version, but I am sure that it won't cost
me any more than the $69 I've already spent.  

>>As to Zachmann, I'd suggest that Will has made it clear that he does have an
>>ax to grind.
>
>If MS had put as much pressure on me as they did on him, through his
>employers, I'd have an axe to grind too. What does Zachmann have to gain by
>making this stuff up? Until I see a reasonable answer to that question - and
>I've gotten some mail from MS employees claiming that they didn't do anything,
>but no backup - I'll continue to believe Zachmann.
>Jay, again.  Will's employers have said, publically, that they didn't pressure
Will.  Microsoft has said that they didn't pressure Will.  Thousands of other
people work in the same industry in which Will works. Dozens of them write 
columns.  Will suggests that he's the only one who is honest and isn't bending
to pressure from Microsoft.  I find that absurd.  Do you think that everyone
in the trade press is on the take?  Wouldn't this make a sensational story for
the regular media?  Can't you see the headlines "Microsoft guilty of payola!!"
I don't know what Will's motives are, maybe he believes his accusations.  
You, of course, will believe what you choose to believe.  I'll believe in your
signature....(grin)
-- 
>Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
>    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
>  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)


-- 
Mark Huth                         * Is it too wild to want to get into 
Mhuth@u.washington.edu            * Space someday?
Compuserve 70346,563              *
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy