NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/12948

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 3.8 KB | 75 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!ukma!gatech!news.byu.edu!ux1!fcom.cc.utah.edu!jaguar.cs.utah.edu!brian
From: [e-mail] (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Tidbits Brian missed
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Utah Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 22:33:12 GMT
Lines: 63

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Heeren Pathak) writes:
>
>
...
>Note I did leave some articles out that were favorable about NT.  This is
>why these 'tidbits' very deceptive.
>

Brian did not "miss" these, Brian is behind in his reading... remember
what I said at the top of my last tidbits.  In fact, the PC Week one is
one that I have circled to be put in.  (And it will be there, you can see
what parts I thought important soon.)

I would not have put in the ComputerWorld one as, 1) my access is
limited at the moment, though after reading your excerpts I got curious
and hunted down the issue.  2) Having read the article, it would not
have been put in because their main sources of information were a CIS
officer at a Bank and Forrester Research (which tends to be
pro-mainframe, thus pro-OS/2), not exactly the kind of place I'd go to
find out the status of Microsoft Windows NT development.  Basically
it's just a piece of speculation, and you left out the most important
piece.  They were claiming that MS was considering an NT version with
SMP and some networking cut out (MS denies this).  I've not heard
anything even remotely like this from my contacts at Microsoft
... further it's quite clear that they (my contacts at MS) expect NT to
meet the current target date.  My _guess_ is that MS (which seems now
to believe they might not make that 8 meg minimum in the realistic
manner they hoped) is exploring ways to meet it anyway -- a rumor
leaked and was misinterpreted.  NT was already functionally complete
(except NetDDE) in October, so the reasoning given in the article is
clearly wrong.
Note that if other trade rags start saying similar things, then I would
put in one of the articles.

The PC Week article will be included in tidbits as it contains comments
from beta testers about why they want NetWare 4.0 over NT... this to me
is clearly important information for the NT community to hear.  PC Week
interviewed several beta tester of NT that also were familiar with
Netware 4.0 and I found their comments quite interesting... similar to
the comments I hear from the NetWare folks here on the U of U campus.

Remember that I no longer am doing the Tidbits from the standpoint of
Windows and OS/2, but only from the standpoint of Windows.  C.o.o.a people
bitched too much and I decided that it wasn't worth my time.  Numerous
people in c.o.o.a asked that I continue to cross-post, so I do, and in
fact even keep somewhat more of an eye out for OS/2 info than I would
were I not cross-posting.

As to my "tidbits" being deceptive.  You can characterize it as you wish.
Basically what I put out are those things I find important.
It is a beefed up version of notes I would have taken for my own use.
If you find that I have "decieved" users in my posting of information
relative to the needs of Windows fans, then jump-in as you did -- though
I don't understand why you didn't post this in c.o.ms-win.a as well.
If you feel I've left out an article that is important to OS/2, then don't
bitch at me, bitch to the ones that drove me away, and type it in yourself.

Brian
--
C. Brian Sturgill                  Windows, WfW, Windows NT and some OS/2 2.0
University of Utah                 information available via anonymous ftp to
Center for Software Science        easy.cs.utah.edu. Also all my Tidbits posts.
[e-mail]; CIS: 70363,1373     Windows NT SDK: $69; [phone]