From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Date: 10 Oct 92 21:58:20 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct06.000924.3557@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil L
afornara) writes:
>In article <92279.171537ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>>In article <1992Oct4.114442.12346@netcom.com>, timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
>>>Actually, I believe that Brian is right about this.  3.1 support (non-beta)
>>>will be in OS/2 sometime in December.  Since Windows 3.1 was released
>>>April 6th, the code was done in March (and I assume IBM had it in March).
>>
>>Why does everybody think that a feature OS/2 has in beta doesn`t count while
>>always talking about NT which isn`t in beta at all?
>
>     If you hadn't deleted the original context, you might know that
>the paragraph above is in support of Brian Sturgill's claim that
>Win 3.1 support in OS/2 took 9 months to complete.
>     Actually, if you read the paragraph that you responded so
>vehemently to, you'll notice that nowhere in it does Mike say that
>any feature "doesn't count."
>
>
>>If you tell me OS/2 has`t Win3.1 support I tell you your beloved NT simply
>>doesn`t exist. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT NOTHING.
>
>     Interesting - what OS am I using right now, then?  It said
>Windows NT when I started it up...
>
>
>>Another thing in this thread is that people (I think Brian, but I`m not sure)
>>not start arguing with promises. NT has a better shell because in the
>>mid-nineties MS will (as they tell us) have a better shell. Perhaps you sell
>>your computer today and buy one again when you have an OS to run on it.
>
>     "Better shell" is an opinion.  Some people don't like the WPS.
>Some people (gasp!) actually like the Windows interface.  The Cairo shell,
>when it comes out, will have some people that like it.  Whatever IBM
>comes up with next will also have its fans.

This is true some people do.  However, the Windows interface doesn't even have
sufficent power or flexibility for Windows 3.1 much less a much more powerful
system like OS/2 or NT.  You seem to have misread what he said though.  Cairo
is quite irrelevant except for FUD purposes.  It might be quite good, but it
will not be released for a good bit of time even in beta form and thus really
shouldn't be a serious conversation point.
>
>
>>In the meantime you can use your fingers to count.
>
>     Very clever.  If only you read as well as you write.
>
>
>>Why buy NT when someday at the end of this century some software company may
>>exist that might have an OS which will blow NT out of the drive doors of your
>>computer?
>
>     Why buy OS/2, for that matter?  Everyone should be running
>CP/M!

You obviously caught what he was saying here, so why did you twist it?  OS/2
is a good system that is selling right now.  NT, though it is in a pre-release
form (pick you favorite description), still is a promise.  That doesn't change
the fact that it will be released in the foreseable future or that it looks to
be quite good, but as far as the real world is concerned, it is a promise and
nothing more.  NT supporters, (as well as certain OS/2 supporters) have been
touting features that really won't be an issue for at least a year, and maybe
never.  Cairo is one of these,  OS/2 running on Mach is another.  There are
lots of examples on both sides.  NT is currently a future OS and all the hype
in the world will not change that.  (and the beta doesn't either)  MS pitting
a future OS against a current OS in a hype war.  This is a tactic that is very
effective, because it becomes very hard to get objective opinions on the not
yet released OS.  It also has the side effect of poisoning some people's
opinions before they are totally formed.
>
>
>>If you need an OS today you have very little choice. If you can wait then you
>>probably don`t need your computer anyway.
>
>     For many, many people DOS is totally sufficient for their
>computing needs.  They can afford to wait as long as they want - they're
>still getting their work done.

If DOS is sufficent for their needs, then I seriously doubt they will move to
NT either.  If OS/2 doesn't have anything they need then neither will NT.

>
>                                       -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.
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy