From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:25:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.184508.28227@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <7300@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep10.211055.11590@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>Also if you want to read something really sick, check out Zachman's NT bashing
>>>article.... I think he's finally come completely unhinged.
>>
>>Oh, yeah? What, exactly, did he say that's not truthful, and that hasn't been
>>said here in this very newsgroup?
>>(Yes, I've read the article.)
>
>Some quote from Zachmann's article with annotations by me.
>(Zachmann's is the indented part.)
>
>	...
>
>	Why does Microsoft repeatedly insist that the
>	version of Windows NT distributed in July,
>	which nearly everyone assumes to be a beta, is
>Why would anybody think this is a beta?  Microsoft has NEVER said

Because almost everyone's definition of 'beta' is something like:
"The beta testing process involves delivering a system to a number
of customers or potential customers who agree to use the system and
to report problems to the system developers."  The definition quoted
is from Sommerville, but most any other Sotware Engineering text
will give an equivilent definition.  To me, that's exactly where the
NT development process is currently located, Microsoft's disclaimer
not withstanding.


>this... and goes out of its way to make sure people know this.
>Don't believe me?  Call (800) 227-4679 and try to order an NT beta.
>They'll tell you immediately that it's not one.
>	really a "prerelease version for developers"
>	and not a beta at all? What does this "beta
>	that is not really a beta" mean?
>
>
>	It means three things, First, Windows NT is way
>	behind schedule. Second, the July version is
>	pretty much a mess, so much so that Microsoft
>The July release is a "mess" only in terms of 16-bit support
>everything else is reasonably stable. Which if he had bothered
>to try it, he would know... OS/2 supporters... remember when people
>kept reviewing OS/2, having never looked at the product?
>	does not want anyone to use it as an indicator
>	of the function or performance of the final
>	version. Third, Microsoft is so worried about
>	the growing momement for OS/2 that it chose to
>	put out a half-baked, incomplete version of
>	Windows NT rather than admit how badly the NT
>	schedule has slipped.

Zachman's comments would appear reasonable inferences for someone who
has not seen/used NT (like me).  I agree that a reaonably well known
journalist should not be in that position and should try it out before
commenting. 

>I'm sure they released the developer pre-release in part due
>to pressure from OS/2, and also because they wanted to have
>an app base from day one.  It really bugs me to see people in

But the reason they want an app base is for competitive reasons.  They
didn't do this for win 3.0.  How long was 3.0 out before we had decent
apps and drivers?  IMO the only reason NT is available to the general
public via now is to pursuade the common user (not the developers)
that they can hold off from buying OS/2 because NT will be here "real
soon now."

>the press criticizing this move... in truth... everybody
>ought to do this.  It's much more convenient for the developers
>and the customers when this is done.  The only reason most
>places have strict controls on their beta is that they're afraid
>their competitors will do comparisons on the not yet finished
>product.  Microsoft should be applauded for being brave enough
>to do this! (And of course IBM should be too for it's earlier
>generally available beta.)
>
>	...
>
>	The current "prerelease" version requires a
>	minimum of 12M bytes of memory, according to
>	Microsoft; 16M bytes is recommended.  Word has
>	it that the upcoming "beta" may be a bit
>	slimmer but nowhere close to the promised 8M
>	bytes. Windows NT obviously makes OS/2 2.0 look
>	lean and mean by comparision.
>Anybody that tried to run an OS/2 2.0 beta in 6 megs,
>knows that it was quite painful... but it works ok now.
>People already have tried NT in 8 megs... it's painful,
>but there's not reason to believe that 8 megs in not
>unreachable.  As to the 16 meg recommended.  This
>is for developers.  Most developers use more than
>8 megs for OS/2... I'd say most use 16 megs.
>(I use 20, I know several people that use 32).
>
>
>	The most amazing thing about all this is the
>	number of developers who are following
>	Microsoft down the garden path with NT. In
>	fact, aside from Microsoft, few software
>	venodrs are really making any money selling
>	Windows applications.  Windows NT will
>	certainly have a far more limited market than
>	does Windows 3.1 for a long time. These
>	wanna-be Windows NT developers must have a
>	masochistic death wish. Maybe they are all
>	independently wealthy and don't need to make
>	any money selling their applications.
>Gee all those developers wrong... and Zachmann desparately
>trying to save them!!!! :-)
>Sounds like "everybody's wrong, but Johnny" to me!
>
>	...
>
>He sounds pretty unhinged to me.
>
>Brian
>-- 
>C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
>University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
>Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)

Actually he sounds about as biased toward OS/2 as you are towards NT.
Now don't get me wrong, you have obviously spent a lot of time with
both systems and have made your choice.  Bias is not necessarily bad.
His viewpoint is different from yours and both your views are strongly
held.  If you say you don't think he has checked out NT in enough
depth, OK.  If you think his conclusions are wrong, OK.  However
comments like 'unhinged' are considered personal attacks and are not
up to the standards of your work in the NT vs OS2 comparison list.

   -- Bruce
--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
bdubbs@sadis01.sa.aflc.af.mil |  Scrupulous Lawyer