From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:22:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Aug14.181226.18213@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Aug13.213845.3007@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>Yeah, but seriously, how many computers come with disk drives?  Now
>>count how many have CD-ROM as a 'standard' part of the setup.
>>Frankly, I was just a bit hacked off at Sun when they came out with
>>this policy of shipping everything on CD-ROM only, and that's for
>>workstations that are just a bit higher dollar value than the typical
>>Intel machine.  MS doing it is RIDICULOUS.
>>
>>[quoted text deleted]
>>
>>It's not a matter of 'not needing money'.  It's a matter of needing a
>>CD-ROM. 

>     I think you'll be seeing more and more software shipped on
>CD-ROM in the future - it offers many benefits, with very few
>drawbacks, the most serious at the moment being the fact that,
>as you say, not very many people have these devices right now.

And the only reason a lot of people will get 'these devices' is if
they find themselves forced to because software manufacturers
arrogantly assume that they should be able to set the user's hardware
priorities.  Rather than spend the money for a CD-ROM, I would buy any
of a number of other things first: a tape drive, a faster video card,
another hard disk, etc.  All those things are quite useful to me.  The
only use I would have for a CD-ROM is to be able to load Windows/NT
SDK.  I really don't want it that bad.  In fact, that requirement
leaves me wanting it even less.  I'll stick to vendors who are trying
to serve their user community rather than force their priorities on
hardware purchases, thanks.

>If you look back not too many years, you'll see people with
>similar complaints to yours - they were complaining about
>floppies.

Gee, I just don't recall that many machines that didn't ship with
FLOPPY DRIVES.  I must've taken a REAL long nap in there somewhere. 

>     If you look at the amount of stuff in the Windows NT SDK,
>and compute the number of floppies you would have needed to ship
>that stuff, you'll see that it would hardly be economical.

There are quite a number of full-blown UNIX systems that ship on
floppies.  In fact, I recall seeing preliminary versions of the SCO
Open Desktop SDK that shipped on something over 100 floppies.  'Number
of floppies' just doesn't strike me as a good reason to not ship it
that way.  After all, I can get it on 100 floppies (which I can
actually get installed) or on a single CD-ROM (which, while quite
pretty, does me no good whatsoever).  After all, what are people doing
their BACKUPS (remember backups?) to?  If they're doing them to
floppies, then they don't consider floppies that big a problem.  If
they're doing them to tape, why not ship on tape?  If they're not
doing them, I have to question what kind of developers they are
anyway.  Note that NONE of those methods require a CD-ROM drive.


-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1973 comp.os.os2.advocacy:4316