From: lmorris@mdd.comm.mot.com (Larry Morris)
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:06:53 GMT

In <1993Jan25.064002.3937@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:


Miscellaneous drivel deleted.

>Let's take a look at the facts:

>From the first quote, we have 1 million sales in 4 months.
>From the second source, we have ~.5 million more in next 3 months,
>leaving 2 months in 1992 where they had hoped for .5 million more sales.

Do you or do you not make a distinction between upgrades and sales?  You take
an IBM statement about # shipped and translate it to number sold.  Talk about
disinformation, are you a statistician or an advertising exec?  You seem
to have some of the skill base.  A large number of the very initial SHIPMENTS
were upgrades.  I wouldn't consider those sales.

>Here is an excerpt from "ibmplans.txt" on ftp-os2.nmsu.edu.  It
>is a part of an IBM document detailing IBMs near-future plans for OS/2
>(and a little MS bashing as well).

Yeah, its a plan.  When does MS "plan" to ship NT.  I have lost track
of all the planned NT release dates.  I prefer that they ship when it
is damn well ready.  Even MS seems to have learned that you can't ship
alpha code as version 1.0.

>(BTW, I'm not criticizing IBM for delaying the shipment of 2.1... it looks
>like they've finally learned their lesson and are waiting till the bugs
>are more or less out. I am criticizing them for lying about having 
>said that they would deliver Windows 3.1 support in 1992.)

Well, we agree on something.  They should wait till it is right.  I don't
however think that they should ship a new version/CSD every couple weeks as
they add new features.  This makes it damn aggravating to both IBM and the
customer when it comes to updates, bug tracking, etc.  Anyone who is really
waiting for 3.1 support can buy the December CD.  It is more solid than the
CSD in my experience.

>Now to all those OS/2 fans out there -- how is that IBM is more honest/ethical
>than Microsoft?  I know I've heard you make the argument, but I just
>can't get the facts to add up that way.  For that matter, how about an
>explanation from IBM?

Well, IBM does work on my reported bugs.  They do supply me with updates.  They
haven't yet pulled a MS on me and done a total about face on their stated plans.
I'm sure we each have our own experiences.  Yours and mine appear to really
differ.  Right now I have OS/2 running SLIP and X-windows to work.  I run WIN 3.1
apps alongside X apps, and ftp all via modem.  I need to do this, and
MS doesn't provide a solution.  If NT comes out and works better than OS/2, then
I will jump into the Microsoft camp.  This ain't a religion, its a product.  I 
will use whatever is best for the job, and right now that is OS/2.
-- 
Internet:    <lmorris@mdd.comm.mot.COM>   |  Larry Morris
 ...uw-beaver!sunup-----\                 |  Motorola/Mobile Data Division
 ...uunet-----------------!mdisea!lmorris |  19807 North Creek Parkway
 ...van-bc!mdivax1------/                 |  Bothell, WA  (206) 487-5810
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy