From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:34:11 GMT

In <1992Aug17.162636.19288@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <mcdonald.208@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:
>>Now that I've got your atttention, let me note two points:
>>
>>1) The poster is from Microsoft

>So?  Your posting is from a .edu, does that make you a liberal?  :)  One 
>should judge a statement on it's merits without any bias or discrimination.
>Like it or not, Microsoft has done much for the PC industry... and one of
>the major reasons we can *have* a discussion like this is because Microsoft
>had developed a useable operating system, applications, and marketing to
>make the PC what it is today.  Sure there are a lot of other companies out
>there that contributed to the PC revolution, but Microsoft has had a lot
>to do with it.  Give credit where credit is due.

They'ave also done much TO the PC industry.  Let us also give BLAME
where it is due.

>>
>>2) A CD-ROM drive does not write, so it is perfectly useless for normal
>>   people who want to store their own data....

>Yes--CD-ROM is useless for storing your own data.  But nobody has even
>suggested that CD-ROM will *replace* hard disk drive storage.  And even
>though it is a read-only media, it doesn't make CD-ROM "perfectly useless."
>Books and VCR rental tapes are "read-only" media (for all intent and purposes)
>and nobody says it's "useless": BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING USEFUL ON IT 
>ALREADY!  ROMs, are read-only media, but your system wouldn't run without
>one.  So are audio CD's. 

The point is, a lot of us have no pressing need for ANYTHING a Cd-ROM
will do for us.  It is, in that sense, totally useless.  Unless, of
course, one of the more arrogant software houses elects to only
distribute on CD-ROM.  Then, of course, why everyone MUST just buy
one.  No thanks.  Yeah, they're handy for some things, but the
marginal utility is just too low for me (and, I suspect, a lot of
others) to think it's reasonable to be 'forced' into buying one.

>>.....It **requires** that you
>>   pay money to someone else for the CD-ROM

>Yes, it ***requires*** you to be honest and pay for commercial software
>that you use.  Having a CD-ROM, I can truthfully say that I found it
>much more convenient to be able to install software from ONE CD-ROM than
>nine or so 1.44mb floppies.  

>Whether or not the media is CD-ROM, 3.5" floppies, 5.25" floppies, or
>cassette tapes--you will always have to "pay money to someone else" to
>use it (if it's commercial software).

That's not the point.  The point is that I cannot use it AT ALL except
for things I buy.  I can't, in other words, store MY stuff on it.

>>
>>3) If people are going to buy, in quantity, a new very expensive drive,
>>   it had better write as well as read. Consider the Net optical drive.
>>   I'm not quite sure why it has failed. It failed Next because they
>>   tried to use it **instead of** an adequately fast hard disk.

>True.  For a very expensive drive.  600mb of storage for $200 is not
>"very expensive."  A Net optical drive costs around $2500 for 300mb and
>*then* $250 for each 300mb media.  CD-ROM costs less than $5 per disk
>(depending on the software).  Heck, you can get the ENTIRE simtel library
>for only $20!

But it's READ-ONLY storage.  You're comparing it pricewise to
soemthing I CAN WRITE TO.  Not being able to write to it makes it
pretty useless to me as storage.

>CD-ROM will NEVER replace a good hard disk.  But remember this: hard disk
>technology is getting cheaper, and software is getting larger.  What 
>better installation medium is there than CD-ROM?  Tape?  CD-ROM is cheaper
>to reproduce--and the "failure/decay" rate is much lower (making the
>media more reliable for large amounts of data).

Tape makes more sense to me.  I can use the tape for other things
(like backups and giving copies of my stuff to other people).  I can't
do that with the CD-ROM.

>When 32bit mega apps start appearing, would you rather install them from
>20 floppies (ala OS/2 2.0) or from a single 'Rom?

Well, given that I don't own a CD-ROM and don't plan on having one for
the foreseeable future, I prefer the 20 floppies.  At least I can read
those. 

>>
>>Doug McDonald

>Doug, as a supplement to your good, fast drive... CD-ROM is pretty good.
>It (as I said before) will never replace hard disk technology--but as 
>a distribution medium it's one of the best there is.

One of the best there is FOR THE DISTRIBUTOR and IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE
SOME OTHER NEED FOR THE CD-ROM DRIVE.  Except for things that are
INTENDED to be used from the CD itself and not 'installed' on the hard
drive, from the USER point of view requiring a CD is the WORST
distribution medium.


-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1935 comp.os.os2.advocacy:4230