NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/11827

Text File | 1993-01-07 | 5.8 KB | 127 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news!manta!discar
From: [e-mail] (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Bill Gates:  What a weenie...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:07:29 GMT
Lines: 116

In article <[e-mail]> Mark Kovarski <[e-mail]> writes:
>I have received some very interesting mail from you and I am 99% sure of
>that. You might not know it, I have used Windows/Windows NT and currently
>using OS/2 v2. You might believe I am biased, that's your opinion and you
>can stick to it. If I would have "Angst," like Mr. Hamilton pointed out
>to me in a private message (BTW, Angst is capital. For a Assistant Prof.
>you should know it Mr. Hamilton), I would not have purchased any
>Microsoft related products. Not to mention the numerous "Microsoft Press"
>books. Moreover, I can switch to NT very easily by formatting the HD and
>installing it. This won't happen, at least not soon since OS/2 in my
>opinion offers much superiority in many areas. And please, I have the
>hardware to run NT but I choose not to. What about the people who can
>not afford the hardware requirements and would like a stable, reliable,
>multi-operating system environment?

Yes, I use Windows 3.1... for the very reason.  OS/2 2.0 DOESN'T WORK... sure
you can put in CSD's etc. to try to make it work (by "Work" I mean work
reliably to run the Windows, DOS, and hardware that I normally run now).

I can understand why someone wouldn't want to run NT.  IT's the same reason
I don't run NT.  It doesn't work either.

When OS/2 2.1 comes out... if it comes out before NT "works" (is released
and fixed)... then Microsoft would have dropped the ball big time.  Why?
Because OS/2 2.0 came *close* to convincing me to switch... and OS/2 2.1
supposedly works.

>
>I have watched how Microsofties like to re-define terms. They call Windows
>an operating system.

WAIT A MINUTE!  Windows *is* an operating system (we can start that debate
again?)  There was no redefinition on "Microsofties" part... there seemed
to be a redefinition on "modern OS believer's" part... the same kind of
people who would say "...a Stanley Steamer is not a car... now, the Ferrari
Testarossa--THAT'S a car..."


>They try to define Windows as some new standard in
>GUIs.

I didn't hear this thread.  But Windows *is* a standard in GUI's.  I
de facto standard... but a standard that is followed in more commercial
software than X-windows and OS/2 combined...


>I have used the same interface as Windows since 1985 on an old ST.

I doubt it.  The ST didn't have Windows.  It had a window GUI... but not
Windows.  If a guy used only MS Windows, it would be unethical for him
to say "I have experience with X Windows"--because although both systems
offer a Window interface, they do not follow the same "standards."

>Moreover, there is something called Neodesk which loads on top of TOS and
>gives it a more sophisticated look to TOS. This is a utility and was never
>called a OS even though it does EXACTLY the same thing Windows does.

NeoDesk only provided a GUI.  Windows+DOS provides memory management,
multitasking and peripheral management to a system that didn't "quite" have
it before.

>The
>fact of the matter is, while some of the Wingagas think that NT and Windows
>is something new in terms of look, on other platforms, this has been
>available for many years. It might impress people who are newcomers to
>computers but certainly not users who have used the same type of interface
>for many years.

And you IBMobsters can't get it through your head that it isn't the
"look" of Windows--but the fact that we can accomplish WORK using the
GUI that has convinced us to stick by Windows.  There are APPLICATIONS
that WORK under Windows...


>OS/2 and its WP offer something new which allows me to
>be much more productive. This is one of the reasons I have switched but not
>the only one.

This is a good reason.  I didn't find it so for myself.  (Try getting a
lantastic network to run on OS/2 and you'll see what I mean).

>
>I can show you even instances where Microsoft folks have produced messages
>where my only interpretation is that they are scared silly. A few months
>ago I have asked a person, Darek Mihocka, who is a programmer at Microsoft
>to tell me if his own independant product will work with OS/2. Mind you,
>this product has been created by him and his other company. It is called
>a GEMulator and is a hardware/software combination that will allow to
>emulate the ST on a PC. It is a DOS product. A few hours later his
>repl arrived in my mailbox and it was THE message where it showed me that
>at Microsoft, people are afraid of IBM taking over the market. He raged
>for several pages that OS/2 was not tested, IBM released it with last-
>minute hacks and it went on and on and on. Talk about fear of loosing
>the market.

You're right.  But they are probably acting as businesspeople try to act
when competition gets close.  Call it paranoia, but it's a business
survival instinct if not a very moral one.

>
>Again, you might not like what I say but you have the option not to read
>it. It has gotten to the point where, after voicing my opinion on another
>network, I received threatening phone calls. Due to the miracle of
>technology, this call has been traced and I will take approapriate
>action, like I pointed out in a public message on the network. As it
>turns out, the user behind it was a Windows user who has been reading my
>messages.

And you think Microsoft is paranoid?  (Just because your paranoid doesn't
mean they aren't out to get you).

>
>I wish you all the best,
>Mark K.