NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/11724

Text File | 1993-01-06 | 5.0 KB | 132 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!wingnut!philipla
From: [e-mail] (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 05 Jan 93 21:30:26 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 118

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>     I still contend that this line of "logic" is terminally flawed.
>>Can you explain how you get from "Windows doesn't work with DR-DOS"
>>to "Microsoft intentionally put code into Windows to make it
>>not work with DR-DOS"?
>
>Because MS has quite a bit to gain and very little to lose by doing so.

     Motive != Action.


>Besides, If it weren't intentional, MS would have helped to fix the problem,
>and in fact would have at least let DR test 3.1 with DR-DOS 6 on the same
>basis as any other developer.

    But DR is not the same as any other developer.  As I've said,
DR-DOS doesn't help sell Windows - Windows applications do.


> After all, not doing so runs the risk of having
>the folks who use and love DR-DOS not go out and buy Windows.

    True.  Or else DR would fix their product for the users that
wanted to run Windows.


>>>Windows helps to sell MS-DOS. DR-DOS does not. Seems pretty obvious to me.
>>     How does Windows help sell MS-DOS?
>
>1) Because Windows requires a copy of DOS...

     Show me a person who buys Windows without already having DOS.


>2) If Windows only works with MS-DOS, then at least some folks who want to use
>Windows will go out and buy MS-DOS.

     Or DR fixes their product.


>>    Last time I checked, the burden of proof was on the accuser.
>>It's not my responsibility to prove Microsoft's innocence - it's
>>your responsibility to prove their guilt.  So far you haven't
>>shown any evidence rooted in anything but your own mind.
>
>Let me into MS' files, and I will. Until then, I can only go on the external
>evidence of MS' actions. That evidence leads me to this conclusion. You choose
>not to accept that evidence. That's your right, but don't accuse me of not
>providing any.

    Jay, you haven't provided any - you admitted that in your last
post.  You can go on and on about how Microsoft has motive for this,
and Microsoft has motive for that - you still can't show any
evidence that Microsoft has _done_ the things you are attributing
to them.  No foundation.


>>>Still, you haven't explained the OS/2 abandonment,
>>     Which "abandoment" do you mean?  It would be incredibly
>>poor business practice to stick with a sinking ship.
>
>You know damned well what abandonment I mean: MS has completely abandoned its
>customers who believed it when it said that OS/2 was its strategic direction.

    People make mistakes.  So do companies.


>It's incredibly sleazy business practice to load everyone on a ship, then
>declare it to be sinking, and turn around from your custom-made lifeboat and
>put torpedoes into the side.

    It would be worse practice to stay with the ship.  Microsoft has
a responsibility to its stockholders to be as profitable as possible.


>>>convince me otherwise unless and until MS restores OS/2 support in its
>>>software products
>>    Can you show me a sound business reason why Microsoft should
>>continue to support OS/2 in any of its products?
>
>You mean like keeping faith with its customers? Like trying to compete
>legitimately in the OS/2 software market, and getting at least some business
>from those who have chosen to stick with what MS said was its strategic
>direction?

    And selling, well, dozens of copies of those applications, when
the company could put that manpower into producing Windows applications
that would sell millions?


>>> and competes with it and DR-DOS technically instead of by
>>>sleazeball tactics.
>>     There it is again - those "sleazeball tactics" that you have
>>yet to substantiate.  It's time to put up or shut up, Jay.  Show
>>me some evidence or admit that your accusations have no foundation
>>whatsoever.
>
>Oh, good grief. I have put up, here, repeatedly.

    You haven't.  I asked you to provide evidence, and you said
"I can't."  You speak as if you have facts - what you really have
is your own opinion, and nothing more.


> You have chosen to ignore
>that. ARE YOU TOO GODDAMNED STOOPID (tm) to recognize when someone posts
>something you don't like, that you shoud respond instead of acting like it
>never was posted in the first place?

    Wait - are you saying that you _have_ posted evidence for your
accusations, even though you said in a previous post that you can't
do so?  Which is it?

                -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.