From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:46:44 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep25.193932.6365@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes
:
>In article <wPy-m5A@engin.umich.edu> spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexe
t II) writes:
>>>...in the past six months) Microsoft's performance has been excellent.
>>
>>"Excellent" is a very vague term.  I think it is safe for me to say that not
>>everyone shares your optimistic appraisal of the situation regarding Microsoft
.
>>While it is true that Microsoft has sold many combinations of DOS and Windows
>>3.X, that in and of itself does not necessarily qualify as having done an
>>"excellent" performance, in my humble opinion.
>
>I think you are being unfair.  Brian was very clear in qualifying his statement
>with the fact that he refers to the "past six months..."--and if MS performance
>has not been "excellent" in this time frame, it has certainly been above
>average (probably due, in no small part IMHO, to the fear MS has about OS/2).
>
>>
>>Furthermore, the situation regarding NT is not yet settled.  From a business
>>standpoint, Microsoft has not to my knowledge had one dollar of income from
>>NT sales.  From a technical standpoint, NT is not even finished.  While you
>
>It probably has not made one dollar BECAUSE it isn't finished.  But they've
>"sold" NT to the media--which (if NT comes out soon enough) could mean much
>more to its future success than selling a few thousand pre-beta SDK's.  Again,
>its all timing--and MS NT may come out too late.

This is a good point.  They do seem to have done a very good job selling it to
the media.  They also seem to have done a good job convincing significant
portions of the media that OS/2 isn't worth their time.  Frankly, I find this
to be piss poor journalism, but it does seem to have happened.
>
>
>>may be of the opinion that Microsoft's performance regarding NT is "excellent"
,
>>I must state that my opinion on Microsoft's performance in DOS/Windows isn't
>>nearly as glowing as yours.
>
>I thought he was talking about Windows AND NT?  As to performance, this is
>subjective; I think MS's attitude towards their products has been fine
>recently.

Yes, towards theirs.  Not anyone elses though.  (Whether they should be is
another matter)
>
>>
>>As far as "proving your case" goes, I cannot speak for anybody else.  As for
>>myself, however, please let me assure you that your "whole day of small free
>>time" has been in vain, for it has proved absolutely *nothing* to me.  You
>>have provided absolutely *no* evidence of any deception, either direct or
>>indirect, on the part of any IBM personnel.  (I must state that I do not
>>consider what you say to be evidence -- others may feel differently.)  You hav
e
>>to date provided *no* hard evidence that IBM has failed to deliver what it has
>>claimed it would deliver.
>
>I don't think Brian has actually, blatantly accused IBM of deceiving ANYONE.
>He seemed to only be trying to quench a rumor that all of OS/2's woes will
>be fixed this month (or next month) or Before December Fifteenth.  I think
>this is very responsible behavior--I wish someone had done this before
>regarding the "June CSD" rumor.
>
Brian accused IBM of decieving *him*.  I think I still have a mail message
which explicitly states so.  Brian is upset at IBM because he thinks they
ripped him off.  (I will make no judgements as to whether he is justified in
thinking this.  That is his opinion and he has a right to it)  This aside
however, if *anyone* thought that all of OS/2's woes would be solved this
month, then I would suggest that that person is a very foolish individual.  I
do tend to agree though, it is responsible behavior and someone should have
done it in June.  However, it probably should have been presented in a much
less adversarial fashion.  In addition it drew so many flames, because there
was no proveable evidence backing that claim up.  He may very well have been
right, but many OS/2 zealots (and NT zealots) don't like reality.  It can't be
manipulated as easily.
>>
>>Your *opinions* (let me emphasize that word) regarding the delivery and
>>marketing practices of IBM and Microsoft have been well-noted in this forum,
>>and are very much appreciated.  At this point, however, it seems to me that
>>you are merely repeating yourself, like a broken record.
>
>And he has always said that these were opinions, and quoted references
>to substantiate them.  Well, maybe "always" is a tough word... er, "usually"
>is much better.

Unfortunately some of those references were unsuitable.  As I stated before,
nobody really has a good solid piece of evidence that they can *prove* beyond
most doubt as to how many users any given system has.  It is mostly just
semi-educated guessing.
>
>>
>>Perhaps it is time that you give the subject a rest.
>>
>
>And perhaps we should stop picking nits.
>
>>>Brian
>>
>>--
>>D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR
>
>My opinions
>
>Joe
>

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