From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: HELP: Where OS/2 2.0 CSD?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:04:23 GMT

In <1992Sep10.213455.21500@ans.net> db3l@ans.net (David Bolen) writes:

>In article <1992Sep10.170914.16107@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>But Steve, a lot of us DID buy it with the understanding that we would
>>get Win3.1 support and all the 32-bit stuff that wasn't in it yet.  I
>>don't know about this "many 'additional' programs" you cite, but as
>>for the other things, a lot of us are expecting it in a free CSD.

>Well, the best I can say is that it's unfortunate that you placed so much
>dependence on rumors.  IBM never announced anything official about the
>contents of the upcoming CSD, except perhaps just recently, and I'm not even
>sure anything is official yet either.  Certainly nothing was known back
>when you would have been considering the purchase of 2.0.0.

Note that I already mentioned this in the posting you're replying to.
If I want a lecture, I'll hire a professional, thanks.  Meanwhile,
companies that want to make headway against arrogant giants like
Microsoft do well to listen to USER EXPECTATIONS.  That's what I'm
talking about.

>Yes, IBM had a real nice track record for OS/2 users in terms of upgrades (I
>didn't have to pay anything since v1.0), and people were certainly talking
>about it, but there was no official declaration that it would have to
>continue.  Again, if you wanted to place your money on it happening, that's ok
>- it's your money.  But don't complain if it doesn't come out that way -
>it was your choice to put the money down.

Wrong.  'Complaining' is how customers get vendors to do things.  This
"don't complain" remark is garbage.  Perhaps if more people complained
earlier, the PC software marketplace wouldn't be having the problems
with buggy apps and overpriced bug fixes that it has now.

>Just a couple of points:

>  - I don't think I would consider Windows 3.1 support (or even the 32-bit
>    GRE for that matter) as a bug fix.  Not supporting 3.1 wasn't a bug in
>    2.0, as it wasn't a design point - 3.1 wasn't yet available when 2.0
>    was finished.  For the 32-bit GRE, it's a performance boost, and a nice
>    new feature, but it doesn't really fix a *bug* in the current release,
>    it just improves on it.  If IBM adds this items to OS/2, I don't think
>    you can complain if IBM calls it a new feature as opposed to a bug fix,
>    nor even if they choose to charge for getting that feature.  

I don't think I care whether you would consider them bug fixes or not.
I would, since the whole idea behind OS/2 is to be 32-bit and run
OS/2, Windows, and DOS programs all together.  If it won't run Windows
3.1 programs, a lot of people are quite honestly going to consider
that to be 'broken'.

>You're the consumer - as with any other product, you set your expectations
>based on what information you have, with some sources more reliable or official
>than others.  You have to adjust your expectations based on the source of
>information as well as the content.  In this case, I think you may have placed
>too much emphasis on word-of-mouth or network rumors.

We'll see, won't we?  I wonder why so many people are running around
spreading FUD about the CSD.  Don't you?

>This isn't to say that what you "expect" won't happen.  I just don't think
>you have all that much to complain about if it doesn't, your expectatations
>not withstanding.

Wrong.  I will have LOTS to complain about.  What I won't have is
reason for action, since IBM never PROMISED that those things would be
free.  Hell, Microsoft (and every other software seller -- read the
shrinkwrap warranties sometime) doesn't even promise that an
application will do ANYTHING, other than be on defect-free disks.  If
there is a bug, well, they never promised you it would be bug free, so
you don't have all that much to complain about.  Right?

I just hope the folks at IBM who are handling OS/2 have better sense
about this than some folks here on the net trying to create FUD about
the CSD costing money, not including this or that fix, etc.


-- 
"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.misc