NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/11300

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 5.1 KB | 136 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!rsrodger
From: [e-mail] (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:10:58 GMT
Lines: 123

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:
>>    Let me ask:  Is it everyones opinion that OS/2 is sucha bad
>>    product that it cannot stand on it's merits alone and that we
>>    have to buffer these merits with blatant lies?
>
>No, but then you seem to have some pretty selective rules for
>determining what are 'blatant lies'.


    Nope.  Is "all" a lie or isn't it?  I can *prove* it is a lie.
    Try running a VCPI program under OS/2.


>>    1) OS/2 does NOT run more DOS programs than DOS5.  If it does,
>>    I must be doing something wrong.  For instance, Autocad doesn't
>>    seem to run so well. Neither does Comanche:Maximum Overkill.
>
>Ok.  You're doing something wrong.  We can put that in the ad, if you
>like.


    Wanna tell me what I'm doing wrong, or are you talking through your
    hat?


>>    2) OS/2 might run more Windows programs than 3.1 if you include
>>    ancient programs and cheezy shareware, but I don't and neither
>>    do most customers.  I think it's a little dishonest to
>>    pretend that the ability to run ancient 2.x programs outweighs
>>    the ability to run currently released applications.  In fact,
>>    incompatibility with unupdated programs is almost *assumed*,
>>    while compatibility with all present releases -- at the
>>    very least -- is implied by the word "more".
>
>Funny thing, though.  That 'assumed' compatibility with unupdated
>programs?  *WINDOWS* doesn't meet it.


    Try it again.  I used to wonder if it was reading ability or
    deliberate misinterpretation.

    Reread the last sentence or two, and get back to me.


>>    3) Some older 16 bit OS/2 programs broke under OS/2 2.0, or
>>    so I've heard.  I do not stand by this last statement, but I
>>    am almost certain it is true.
>
>I gathered this as well.


    Well, we finally agree on something.


>>    *Why* is it necessary to lie?  If you're going to put a qualifier
>>    in there, put an HONEST one, like "most".  I prefer not confusing
>>    people and just omitting the qualifier altogether.
>
>Nobody lied, except that last one

    Gimme a break.  It is quite EASY to show that OS/2 does not
    run "all" DOS or "all" Windows programs.  Try some Windows
    OCR programs under OS/2.  Oops, can't do it.  Why is that?
    Oh, because they're 386e programs.  Well,we didn't mean *ALL* programs,
    just "all" programs.

    It's a *lie* Fred.  An untruth.  A falsehood.  The only way
    it isn't a lie is if the original poster and you are both quite
    ignorant of OS/2 and what it can and cannot run.


>(that I assume was the product of
>not thinking it out -- like you said, backward compatibility tends to
>be *assumed*).


    I also pointed out that backward compatibility is also assumed
    to be *limited* but current compatibility is assumed to be
    *complete*.  I don't assume that my 1992 386 PC will run these
    CGA games that I had back in '85, say, like the original version
    of Star Flight (which, BTW, doesn't run).


>If you really want to see lies, take a look at the
>various MS promises prior to each upgrade of Windows and in the course
>of advertising the old ones prior to upgrade.


    I agree completely.  On the bulletin board above mydesk I
    have a copy of the MS 5 page ad that they sent out (they called
    it a "newsletter", but I only ever got one copy, and it was
    basically an oversized ad for 3.1) that says, in big letters,
    100% compatible with Windows 3.0.  I have this circled in red.
    It's right under my Better Dos Than Dos, Better Windows Than Windows
    ad for OS/2, and some ads for SuperPrint (I think they've gone
    out of business--I haven't seen it outside of the "budget" shelf
    for a long time).


>For example, Windows
>3.1 is supposed to run ALL Windows 3.0 programs -- but it doesn't;
>they left this little caveat out about those 'rules' that MS itself
>breaks that programs would have to follow to run on Windows 3.1.


    Exactly.  And you and I both criticize them for it.  If MS was
    really stupid, they'd pull the same thing for NT because it
    alienated a *lot* of people.

    Does this mean that IBM should be doing what you and I both
    consider to be misleading, abhorrent and stupid??


    How clear can I make this?  Just because MS does something
    DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.  IBM should show a little more class than
    MS, because that's one of IBM's biggest selling points.

--
    Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
             ---  Boycott == censorship == cowardice  ---
    Do I even need to point out that my views do not represent
    those of my employer, institution or relations?