From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:30:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

In article <1992Aug18.173411.16366@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>They'ave also done much TO the PC industry.  Let us also give BLAME
>where it is due.

True.  I blame them for several things (which I shan't get into here).  But
as a company, it is their right to choose the distribution medium they
want... just as it is your right to choose to buy it or not.  I don't
feel it's valid to criticize Microsoft for using CD's to distribute their
SDK--anymore than I blame one of my suppliers for distributing software
only on high density floppies.  It's THEIR choice--I can switch companies
or buy a compatible drive--that's my choice.


>
>The point is, a lot of us have no pressing need for ANYTHING a Cd-ROM
>will do for us.  It is, in that sense, totally useless.  Unless, of
>course, one of the more arrogant software houses elects to only
>distribute on CD-ROM.  Then, of course, why everyone MUST just buy
>one.  No thanks.  Yeah, they're handy for some things, but the
>marginal utility is just too low for me (and, I suspect, a lot of
>others) to think it's reasonable to be 'forced' into buying one.
>

There is no pressing need for 1.44mb floppies either (200K of extra data
storage for how much more money per disk??)  But the merits of the floppy
spoke for itself--until you are hardpressed to find any new computer that
DOESN'T have one.

Most companies sell software in a variety of formats.  Sierra, for example,
distributes software in anything from 360K to 1.44mb to CD-ROM.  I buy
the CD-ROM, of course, since the storage requirements aren't as great as
floppies (I wish I had a nickel for every floppy that went bad on me because
I forgot to close a box in my garage).

If I were distributing betas of an operating system, I'd choose CD too.
It's far cheaper to mail a CD than it is to mail two boxes of floppy disks.
It's far cheaper to mail a CD than it is to download an operating system
at 14400 baud.

Again, nobody is "forcing" you to buy it.  If you don't want it, don't buy
it.  Same goes for everything else in life: cable TV, air conditioning,
luxury automobiles...

>>Whether or not the media is CD-ROM, 3.5" floppies, 5.25" floppies, or
>>cassette tapes--you will always have to "pay money to someone else" to
>>use it (if it's commercial software).
>
>That's not the point.  The point is that I cannot use it AT ALL except
>for things I buy.  I can't, in other words, store MY stuff on it.

But that doesn't stop you from buying audio CD's, does it?  If you wan't
to store your own stuff, buy a hard disk.  One shouldn't complain that a
tool is useless because it only does what the tool is designed for--and 
not what YOU want it for.  I'm not upset that my wirestripper doesn't
unscrew screws--I just buy a screwdriver.


>
>>True.  For a very expensive drive.  600mb of storage for $200 is not
>>"very expensive."  A Net optical drive costs around $2500 for 300mb and
>>*then* $250 for each 300mb media.  CD-ROM costs less than $5 per disk
>>(depending on the software).  Heck, you can get the ENTIRE simtel library
>>for only $20!
>
>But it's READ-ONLY storage.  You're comparing it pricewise to
>soemthing I CAN WRITE TO.  Not being able to write to it makes it
>pretty useless to me as storage.

No, I'm trying to show that, for DISTRIBUTION PURPOSES, it is far CHEAPER
to use CD-ROMs.  Yes, you'll argue, "it's cheaper for the distributor, not
for the user"--but (optimally) what is cheaper for the developer will
eventually work it's way down to the user.  The same machine that is used
to crank out Led Zepplin CD's, can be used to crank out Software X--so
with the backing of two industries (music and computers) CD-ROM can
potentially be the cheapest, and most distributable medium available.

>
>Tape makes more sense to me.  I can use the tape for other things
>(like backups and giving copies of my stuff to other people).  I can't
>do that with the CD-ROM.
>

Consider what it takes to dupe a tape compared to what it takes to stamp
out a CD.  Consider what it takes to MAIL 3 150megabyte tapes compared to
what it costs to mail one CD.  Consider that a 150 megabyte tape drive
COSTS the same as a 600mb CD-drive (and the CD-drive can be used to
listen to music too :).  Consider that stuff stored on CD will generally
last longer than tape because of magenetic decay and susceptibility to
dirt...

>>When 32bit mega apps start appearing, would you rather install them from
>>20 floppies (ala OS/2 2.0) or from a single 'Rom?
>
>Well, given that I don't own a CD-ROM and don't plan on having one for
>the foreseeable future, I prefer the 20 floppies.  At least I can read
>those. 

Ahhhhh.  The crux!  So said the fox when he couldn't reach the grapes...
"they're probably sour anyway..."

>>Doug, as a supplement to your good, fast drive... CD-ROM is pretty good.
>>It (as I said before) will never replace hard disk technology--but as 
>>a distribution medium it's one of the best there is.
>
>One of the best there is FOR THE DISTRIBUTOR and IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE
>SOME OTHER NEED FOR THE CD-ROM DRIVE.  Except for things that are
>INTENDED to be used from the CD itself and not 'installed' on the hard
>drive, from the USER point of view requiring a CD is the WORST
>distribution medium.


honestly: the first CD-ROM drive I bought doubled as the only audio CD
player in the house.  Since then, I found that the thing was so useful I
bought two more drives ($150 each)--and a player for my stereo (the drive
was much more useful for software than for sounds).
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy