From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:40:08 GMT

In <1992Aug19.234956.1606@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.201251.2536@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>CD-ROM that might be useful to me?  The ability to load the Windows/NT
>>>>SDK.  That's it.  It's not worth buying a CD-ROM drive for.
>>
>>>The ability to have a distribution media that costs only a buck to send.
>>
>>That's an ability for Microsoft, not for me.
>>

>Would you rather buy a clipart library for $5.00 (600 megs) on CD, or one
>(the SAME one) for $150.00 (plus shipping/handling) because it comes on
>300 floppies?  What is cheaper for the manufacturer is usually cheaper
>for the end user.

As I've said (repeatedly), if I did desktop publishing and needed to
have a bunch of clipart online, I would have a CD.

>>>The ability to be able to start the install of a large application
>>>(PS4 insurance data base, Unix, SDK, Kings Quest V, Wing Commander) without
>>>having to actually sit there and feed floppies.  
>>
>>Frankly, that slight utility isn't worth my while to purchase a CD-ROM
>>for.  AFter all, I only install things once, usually.
>>

>Good for you.  But that isn't the only "utility" of CD-ROM.  Do you have
>600 megs of hard disk space on your system free for historical stock data
>back five years?

If I needed to do this and had the ability to master my own CD's so I
could put the data on there (assuming I don't buy it commercially),
then I would own a CD.

>>>The ability to have access
>>>to large amounts of organized data (business lists, on-line manuals,
>>>encyclopedias, language references, libraries, clip art).  
>>
>>For this, CD-ROM makes some sense.  But I don't do this and it has
>>nothing to do with software development.  I find online manuals to be
>>somewhat less than useful, by the way.

>I didn't do it until I did it either.  Then I found it insanely useful...
>so much, I've wondered how I did without it in the first place.

Then our needs are obviously different.

>>
>>>The ability to
>>>acquire lots of shareware software for a song--without having to spend
>>>DAYS downloading via modem...
>>
>>This, too, isn't a problem or a need I seem to have.  It would be a
>>handy application if one was running a BBS, though (which I'm not).

>Don't tell me you haven't come up with a problem like "gee, I need a TSR
>to feed keystrokes to DOS so I can automate such and such"--and then
>have to search throughout the county (or Usenet) for a solution.  It's
>one of those things I didn't feel was useful until I could do it--and now
>it is very useful.

I've never had a significant problem with finding or writing the
little things I needed.  Certainly not enough to make it worthwhile to
keep a CD-ROM full of shareware mounted (which, of course, involves
buying both the CD drive and the CD).

So, what do you do when you need something and it isn't on the CD?
After you look all through the CD, of course.

>>You need to pull your head out and read what was said.  First, no one
>>ever denied that CD-ROM had its uses.  In point of fact (remember
>>fact?), I explicitly mentioned things like large collections of
>>clipart as being a good use of CD-ROM.  I also said that anything that
>>is used FROM the CD-ROM (as opposed to using the CD merely as a
>>distribution medium for something that should be installed on a hard
>>drive) is probably a good use of the medium.  
>>
>>So, that would seem to deal with the "denying that it [CD-ROM] is [a
>>good, useful technology]" part of that final caluse.  I quite simply
>>never did that, and your contention that I did is incorrect at best
>>and deliberate falsehood at worst.

>Actually you said it was useless because you cannot write to it.  If you
>need to, I'll send you a copy of your message.  I hope it isn't necessary
>because (supposedly) we're all professionals and you're quite as capable
>to go back through this thread as I am.

I said (taking context into account) that it was useless TO ME; it was
being touted as being so cheap, with all the price comparisons being
made to WRITABLE MEDIA.

>>
>>Now then, let's look at the remainder of that clause.  The one that
>>characterizes me based on actions I never took in the first place.
>>First, the "simply because of preconceived bias and prejudices" part.
>>Please tell me just what my 'preconceived bias and prejudices' are
>>supposed to be, based on this thing you claim I did which never
>>happened.  Be explicit.

>How about the phrase "Microsoft attempt to dictate to its customers"  Ring
>a bell?

Sure.  What do YOU call it when they specify a 'new and different'
media for your installation kit?

>>
>>And that brings us to the "is lacking professionalism" part.  Next
>>time I'm out your way, I'll drop in and explain the libel and slander
>>laws to you in person.  Meanwhile, how long, pray tell, have YOU been
>>in the profession of developing software .  Just what, pray tell, do
>>you think gives you the right to lie about what I said, draw
>>irrelevent conclusions, accuse me of bias and prejudice, and then
>>impugn MY professionalism?

>I did not say (in that last post) that YOU were biased.  I merely stated
>the general fact that basing one's conclusions on bias or prejudice was
>lacking in professionalism.  If I present a garment for anyone, and you
>say that it's cut only to your size, that's your perogitive.  :)

Let me get this straight.  You just showed me where you claim I was
biased (from the last post) specifically, and now you make this claim?
Cute, but don't expect it to stand up in court.

>>
>>In other words, to keep it simple, just who in the fuck do you think
>>you are?
>>

>See above.

See above.

>>>>YOU CAN'T WRITE TO A FRIGGING CD-ROM!  Why is it that folks at
>>>>Microsoft don't seem to be able to understand that?  WHY WOULD I WANT
>>>>TO BUY A MASS STORAGE DEVICE THAT I CAN'T WRITE TO?
>>>>

>Oh, if (certain people) aren't biased or have pre-conceptions, why is it
>that they mention one "offender" by name.  "Next time I'm out your way,
>I'll explain the libel and slander laws to you"  :)

Feel free.  See above.

>>
>>One more time, for the reading impaired.  Nobody said there weren't
>>good applications for CD-ROM.  Now, please pull your head out into the
>>real world briefly and remember the thread.  Recall that everyone has
>>been 'defending' CD-ROM because it stores so much and is so cheap
>>COMPARED TO WRITABLE MEDIA and that they've been defending it based on
>>advancing technology from ONE WRITABLE MEDIA TO ANOTHER. 
>>
>>Now the, let's try this one more time.  As a software developer, I
>>have little to no need for a mass storage medium that is READ ONLY.  I
>>don't do census data, desktop publishing, computer artwork, run a BBS,
>>or do any of those other things that CD-ROM makes sense for.  What I
>>do is develop software.  I DO NOT NEED A CD-ROM, EXCEPT THAT MICROSOFT
>>SEEMS TO THINK THAT ANYONE WHO THINKS IT MIGHT BE WORTH THEIR WHILE TO
>>TAKE A LOOK AT THE PRE-ALPHA OF WINDOWS/NT HAS TO HAVE ONE. 

>Oh, I see.  My apologies.  I didn't think that when you thought "Microsoft"
>you mean "Microsoft and Sun"  or "Microsoft and Professional Systems" or
>"Microsoft and Walnut Creek"...  

Well, I haven't had a bunch of Sun employees get in my face about
this, either.  They say what they're doing, I tell them I think it
sucks, and we go on.  Only at Microsoft do the people seem to have
this need (from Gordo Letwin on down) to treat any criticism as an
attack that must be shouted down and silenced.

>You are absolutely right.  You don't NEED a CD-ROm drive.  You don't
>NEED an computer at all.  But Microsoft is in the enviable position to
>say "But if you don't have a CD-ROM or Computer... you won't be able to
>load NT from our distribution."

And I won't.  And they can't do a damned thing to stop me from saying
what I think of that policy and their attitude from their 'enviable
position'. 

>>
>>I can't make it any simpler than that, and I can't make the letters
>>any bigger without sending you a graphics file.  Is it plain yet?
>>
>>>I am quite certain that Microsoft understands the read-only nature of
>>>CD-ROM.  Perhaps, you should give them a little credit: the way I see it
>>>software is getting bigger and bigger--and we NEED some sort of
>>>mass-producable media to distribute the applications of tomorrow.  Whether
>>>it's CD or not, we'll discover in about ten years.  Microsoft is banking
>>>that it's CD-ROM.  I think they're right--given the strengths that the
>>>CD media has.
>>
>>Yes, and exactly my point.  Perhaps 10 years from now it might make
>>sense to deliver only on CD-ROM.  PERHAPS.  Right now, it is sheer
>>arrogance on the part of Microsoft.  What percentage of the machines
>>sold to software developers have CD-ROMs on them?  I'm sitting in a
>>building full of people right now, and there isn't a single one in
>>sight. 

>Arrogance on "some developers" you mean.  :)  Mentioning a company by
>name, and claiming they are the only people at fault can be misconstrued as
>preconception or bias... or just the fact you're like the Fox and the Grapes.

Who claimed they were the only one at fault.  *I* brought up Sun
first, remember?  Geez, what planet did YOU learn to read on?

>>
>>>>
>>>>This isn't an upgrade to a newer technology, and it is NOT cheaper for
>>>>me.  It might be much more convenient for YOU, but that's Microsoft's
>>>>problem, not mine.  I CANNOT WRITE TO A CD-ROM.  THEREFORE, THERE IS
>>>>NO REAL REASON TO BUY ONE EXCEPT FOR ARROGANT VENDORS WHO SEEM TO
>>>>THINK THEY CAN FORCE THEM ON PEOPLE.

>But there are other reasons to buy a CD-Rom drive, no?  

Yes, but I don't need one for any of those purposes because I don't do
any of those things.  However, everyone seems to feel the need to
inform me about how Microsoft is really doing all this for my own good
so I should just shut up and like it.  Well, they aren't, I don't, and
I won't. 

>Just because YOU
>don't have a need or desire to own a drive doesn't mean nobody has the
>need or desire.  Again, Microsoft isn't forcing CD-ROM technology on 
>you.  You can always get the CD, and borrow/rent a player to copy it to
>your favorite media.

>>
>>>Why is it you keep lambasting Microsoft?  Are you mad at Corel for
>>>distributing their software on CD?  
>>
>>No, but if that were the only way the distributed it and there wasn't
>>clipart involved, I would have a few words to say to them about it (if
>>their software was something that was useful in my professional
>>field).  I *AM* somewhat hacked off at Sun for doing away with tape
>>distribution as an option.
>>
>>>Are you upset at Morningstar for
>>>distributing stock data and fund data on CD?  
>>
>>Nope.  I don't need it, and this is another one of those applications
>>involving large quantities of data that are READ FROM THE CD-ROM (not
>>installed on the hard drive).
>>
>>>Heck, are you mad at
>>>Phillips for DEVELOPING the technology in the first place?  
>>
>>Nope.  Why should I care?  Like I said, they're handy for some things.
>>You quite clearly still don't even understand the issue.
>>
>>>If you don't
>>>like the fact that some vendors choose to distribute their software in 
>>>the cheapest way possible (for them), then don't buy it.  Nobody's 
>>>forcing you to.
>>
>>Quite right.  I shan't.  And I will make it plain why I don't.


>Go about 100 lines up.  "ARROGANT VENDORS WHO SEEM TO THINK THEY CAN FORCE
>THEM ON PEOPLE"--your words, neh?  but glad you're beginning to see the point.

Exactly right, and too bad you aren't.

>>
>>Obviously you don't, since you don't even understand the basis for the
>>complaint, apparently.
>>
>>What I get is that you can't read, based on your 'response' to issues
>>that have nothing to do with what I was complaining about.
>>

>Enough of this.  You have your views, I have mine.  It's plain that
>Microsoft, Sun, Walnut Creek, PS4, and others have theirs.  Personal
>attacks are not proper on the net.

That didn't seem to stop you when YOU felt like doing it.  So, who
died and appointed you net.ghod?



-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy