From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 06:39:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct08.222025.7063@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.234403.5629@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu wrote:
>> In article <1992Oct06.213627.3688@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>> [...]
>> >I'm a bit curious about why people don't want networks bundled.  This is
>> >regardless as to whether the network is more integrated or not.
>> >
>> >The only two reasons I came up with as to why people wouldn't want 
>> >bundled network software are the following:
>> >
>> >1) You think the final product would be cheaper if these things were not
>> >   included.
>> >
>> [...]
>> >
>> >2) You're worried about using up extra space on your hard drive.
>> >
>> [...]
>> 
>> 3) You just don't need it.
>
>You don't need anything but air, food, water.

And clothes and shelter.  Some people need computers.  These
people need computers for their jobs so they can pay for the shelter,
clothes, food, and water.  That makes them breathe air easier.
If they pay more money for an OS with features they don't need, they
must buy less shelter, clothes, food, and water.  This makes them
breathe air not so easily.

>What I was hoping you'd do was to give me a real answer as to why
>you don't want to have it around.  Does it take up space?  Does
>it cost to much.  Does it give you hives.  Does it make your os of
>choice look bad. 

Umm, I did give an answer:  it may not be one you like...
Like I said, it costs too much when you don't need networking.
One could buy OS/2 2.0 for $195 or NT for "under $500".  Tell me
what advantages NT has when one does not need networking/multi-user/
security.

[Not to confuse anyone, OS/2 2.0 is on sale for as low as $79 list
price -- see my last post for details]

>> 
>>    Why pay "under $500" next year for NT when you can get
>>    OS/2 2.x this year for "under $195" (at the most).  For
>>    those that don't need/want certain features in NT (such
>>    as security/multi-user or networking), I cannot see any
>>    clear advantages that NT has over OS/2.
>
>Oh, you caught me.  I didnt discuss NT or OS/2 in my post, and you
>so cleverly reminded me by turning my discussion about packaging
>network software in an os into a flame against NT.  You are just
>far to smart for me....

Did you look at the subject line:  ``Bundling Networks, OS/2 vs NT''?
The key words here are ``OS/2 vs NT''.  Plus this newsgroup is
called comp.os.os2.advocacy, not comp.networking or whatever,
               ^^^
meaning *pure* networking discussion should be moved out of here.

How did I flame NT?  Is there a way I can mention a valid criticism
of a product without you considering it to be a flame?  I wish
GM would offer a lower priced version of the Grand Am... oh no,
I'm flaming GM!  GM is an American company, that means I'm
blaming America first!  I'm flaming America!  Aaarrrggghhh!!!

Okay, I'm far too smart for you...

>> I already have OS/2 2.0 .  But if I didn't, all I have to do
>> is to call 1-(800)-3IBMOS2 and pay $149 (or $99 as an upgrade
>> from DOS, or $79 as an upgrade from Windows), but I would have
>> to do it before October 31 when this OS/2 sales promotion ends.
>> Or I can wait until next year to buy NT for "under $500" to
>> get features I don't need.  (blatant OS/2 advertising intended :)
>
>I'd put the same for another OS, but since there is a definite predjudice
>against people with microsoft in their email address, I'll refrain.  No
>use generating even more flame traffic.

I have noticed that some people strongly criticize Microsoft (the
company), but I have not seen ``a definite prejudice against people
with Microsoft in their e-mail address''.  I have seen some OS/2 fans
criticize people who happen to have MS in their e-mail address, but
this does not prove your assertion.  Try changing your header to
petesk@not_microsoft.com and see what happens.

But you are wise not to promote NT prices on an OS/2 newsgroup.
You can, of course, issue an RFD, wait a month, issue a CFV,
wait for 3-4 weeks, issue a tally, and have your NT advocacy n/g.
That way you and Brian can give out all the NT tidbits and prices.
PS (from MS) and BS (with an MS in CS) advocating NT (an OS from MS)

Then again, go ahead, promote NT prices here.  I'll do it for you:
   Attention everyone:  Why buy OS/2 now for less than $195 when
   you can buy NT next year for "under $500".  Don't hurry, don't
   act now.

>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...

mlevis@not_microsoft.com
My Scorpions...

P.S.  Seriously, I would be willing to take a look at a special
      version of NT for my machine if MS would unbundle stuff
      like networking/security etc and reduce the normal price
      of this special version to "under $200".  Otherwise, by not
      using these bundled features, NT will roughly be like an
      overpriced OS/2.
      Don't tell me to buy the pre-beta for $69 which would get
      me NT 1.0 whenever it comes out.  That does not guarantee
      me the *next* (stable) version of NT (like 1.01 or 1.1);  my
      understanding is the $69 ride ends with the NT 1.0 .  With
      OS/2, one can still upgrade from 1.0 (or 1.1, 1.2, 1.3) to
      2.0 for *free*.  And 2.01 is free for 2.0 users, too.

-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151)    ::  .--.
::   for OS/2 software & information.  Get    :: (OS/2)
:::: the OS/2 FAQL in dir /pub/os2/all/faq :::::  ~--~