NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/11350

Text File | 1993-01-01 | 3.7 KB | 86 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!wingnut!philipla
From: [e-mail] (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 01 Jan 93 19:04:47 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 72

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:
>>>
>>>>    So we're agreed that using the word "all" is a lie, right?  So
>>>>    *pull the word*.
>>>
>>>Yes, it's a 'lie' in the same sense that any usage of the words 'all',
>>>'every', and 'always' is a 'lie'.  Shall we delete them from the
>>>language, or shall we instead assume that people are going to
>>>understand the language as it is typically used?
>
>>     "All", "Every", and "Always" have perfectly legitimate uses.
>>Advertising software is rarely one of them.
>
>The only time you can 'correctly' use those words is if you formulate
>a tautology, as in "all black dogs are black".

    Is that really the "only" time, Fred?  :-)
    I think you're largely correct.  My comment was more tongue-in-
cheek than anything else.  (But those words are useful when
discussing logic, so they shouldn't be removed from the language.)


>>>Hell, MS-DOS won't run all does programs. MS-Windows certainly won't
>>>run all Windows programs (OSWin runs more of them than MS-Windows
>>>does).  Let's force them to change the name of the products, since
>>>using those names implies that they will run those programs AND THEY
>>>DON'T.
>
>>     Fred, if you can show me an MS-DOS ad that says that it
>>runs "all DOS programs", or a Windows ad that says it "runs all
>>Windows programs", then I'll lobby to have the company change
>>it.  I have never seen such an ad - I don't honestly believe
>>that one exists.
>
>Who said anything about them being advertised that way?

     Go back a few posts and check on the context you were
posting in.  This whole thread started when someone suggested
(note suggested, as I haven't seen IBM make this claim) some
OS/2 ad copy that said that OS/2 ran all DOS apps.  It was
an explicit statement, and someone objected to it.  You followed
this up by saying that because the name MS-DOS "implies" that
it runs all MS-DOS programs, that it should be renamed.  The
analogy doesn't even get close to following.


>  The very name
>IMPLIES that MS-DOS will run MS-DOS programs.  It SOUNDS tautological,
>but it turns out that all MS-DOS programs won't run on the current
>version of MS-DOS.  Ditto for Windows, only moreso.

    Right.  Neither will _all_ MS-DOS programs run under OS/2.
Why are you supporting an ad that contains a blatant falsehood?


>  If you don't
>think the implication is there, Phil, you haven't read very many
>Windows ads.

    We're not talking about implications.  Ads are _full_ of
implications - it's a basic advertising technique to let the
reader project their own desires onto the product.  It's when
you make a definite statement (like "OS/2 runs all DOS programs")
that isn't true that you can get sued for false advertising.

                    -Phil
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara                         1 Microsoft Way
[e-mail]                Redmond, WA 98052-6399
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.