From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:12:40 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep14.184750.2475@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>I'm sorry if you think it is an announcement, but I've never seen Microsoft
>say anything but that they were targeting that date as their ship date.
>I'm sorry if you prefer your vendors to never tell you anything until
>the last minute, but I prefer Microsoft's approach.  I have some general
>notion when it's likely to come out, and the a few months before I'll know
>when it really will be available.

If the "target" anouncements cause developers (and users) to change
their spending patterns in anticipation, then it becomes more serious
than "we were wrong" when they decide to change plans.

>>Because if it happens to take off, someday, these users want the free
>>GA release that they'll get for buying the $69 SDK CD.  You can be
>>certain that NT's GA will cost lots more than $69.
>
>I see... Microsoft is giving people a good deal now, and has promised
>to do so with competitive upgrade offers later, and thus when they
>finally get around to the real release this will cost a lot?
>Are you crazy?  Why would they do that?  They would be stupid not
>to make a direct attack on OS/2 via competitive upgrades.  And in this
>sort of sense, surely you would not say that Microsoft is stupid?

Do you think this price will be forever?  And MS has never sold
anything cheap before.  Maybe this is new, but I remember having to
pay $100 to upgrade Word 4.0 to 5.0, and I was very annoyed by this.
When they release 5.5 (which I didn't get), the competitive upgrade
price was the same as the normal upgrade price.  Nice way to reward
existing customers?

MS has never been "nice" in their pricing before, I don't expect them
to be now, either.

>>What poor bug fix record.  MS has never fixed a bug in any of their
>>programs, to date.  They just tell you to buy the next release.  And
>>don't tell me anything about WinWord 2.0a - I still can't get further
>>than a busy signal when I call them about getting it.
>
>Funny, I got Word for Windows 2.0a for free, and Word for Windows 2.0b
>is on order (for free).  Even if it were true... why does that let IBM
>off the hook?

I tried to.  I've still never gotten through on the phone.  Maybe they
need more lines and operators.

>Then why did John Soyring et. al. lead us to believe it would?

Led who to believe what?  He posted a rumor on the Net.  This is very
different from posting "tentative release dates" in major news
magazines. 

>When I purchased OS/2 for home, I did so with the understanding that
>I'd have a fixed version in June (which I took with a grain of salt
>to mean summer, after all IBM was already demoing Windows 3.1 and
>saying the graphics engine was done but needed more testing.)

Do you always make purchasing decisions based on unsubstantiated
rumors?  Oops, I'm sorry, you're running NT.

>IBM even led people to believe that Windows 3.1 would be a part of
>the CSD.

No, a few netters said so.  Reiswig only said that they were working
on it.  He showed a beta.  And nobody official said that it wouldn't
be in the CSD, anyway.

>I am not alone in believing this.  I guess next time
>I personally deal with IBM, I'll make sure I get it in writing.

You should treat all corporations (especially your beloved MS...) with
this level of contempt/respect.  No corporation has ever done anything
without publishing the intent in writing.  Of course, when MS places
something in writing, it often doesn't mean anything, either.

>Maybe IBM didn't put it in writing, but they sure as hell encouraged
>people to believe it.  I cannot believe that people that can argue
>that IBM is more moral than Microsoft, can let IBM get away with this
>kind of behavior.  In my view IBM is the more sleazy... they claim to
>be above this sort of thing.  Microsoft just claims to be in business.
>One thing is especially certain... IBM rumors are utterly untrustworthy.
>Keep this in mind as you hear these rumors about huge volumes of
>OS/2 shipping.

The Net is a wonderful place for "proof by repeated assertion", isn't
it?  One IBM person posts something he overheard, everybody repeats
it, and all of a sudden you think IBM will be bound by it.

>Yeah, right. :-)  I've never seen an announced ship date for you from
>your parents... thus you are just a rumor and I can ignore you too! :-)

Then I expect you won't reply to this message that's coming from a
non-existant person.
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy