From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 6 Oct 1992 18:45:30 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct5.235450.23451@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:
>In article <7493@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>Any cost for a feature that's of no use to me is too much.
>I'd argue that your view is very shortsighted.

Well, maybe; shortsighted or not, though, it's the prevalent one. Unbundled
software is the preferred way to go; if not, we'd be seeing more programs come
with unrelated software.

>Jay, the danger in making the kind of assumption you make in the above 
>paragraph is that you haven't a clue if I've spent any time in the real world
>(I have, years with a mainframe vendor and more years as a database consultant)
>Additionally, you run the risk of being accused of not knowing what you are 
>talking about.  Why, when I worked installing banking systems for interbank
>payments, I used networks for business.  the 

(the paragraph ended there in the original)
Ah, but did you use TCP/IP networks? How much time have you spent in
environments where networking isn't of all-consuming importance? 
I happen to think networking is neat stuff, but there are plenty of cases
where it simply isn't vital, or even necessary, to a given enterprise.

>>The real-world product will be almost
>>certainly between $490 and $500, based on MS's own statements.
>Lets see what it costs, when a price is established.  

Why would MS be making public statements about the price of NT being "less
than $500" if the price would wind up being $199? They'd have run off
customers for no gain at all. That's why I've said repeatedly that NT will be
$499.95, and any other price would be idiotic of MS.

>Gosh, Jay.  I don't know.  Perhaps IBM has bribed Will?  Perhaps Will is going
>to go to work for a competitor?  Perhaps Will has a persecution complex?  
>Perhaps Will is dishonest?  Perhaps Will's perception of what happened is just
>plain wrong?  It would be foolish of me to claim to understand Will.  Just 
>because he  

(again, the original paragraph ends there)
I'm much less inclined to believe that any of those that influence how WIll
would write (going to work for a competitor, for example, has little to do
with what he would write for ZD) are indeed the case than I am that MS is
being its usually sleazy self. I would note, though, that it's real hard to
perceive getting a phone call from MS right after returning from a conference
with his editor about writing more favorably about Windows any other way than
what Will has said.

>>I do believe in my .signature. Microsoft's actions are not explainable by
>>stupidity.
>I thought we were talking about Will Zachman?

We were talking about Zachmann and MS...
-- 
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)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy