home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!njitgw.njit.edu!hertz.njit.edu!dic5340
- From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
- Subject: Re: News on 2.1 Release
- Message-ID: <1993Jan22.202608.24183@njitgw.njit.edu>
- Date: 22 Jan 93 20:26:08 GMT
- References: <hatton.727578160@cgl.ucsf.edu>
- Sender: news@njit.edu
- Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.
- Lines: 26
- Nntp-Posting-Host: hertz.njit.edu
-
- In article <hatton.727578160@cgl.ucsf.edu> hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
- >
- >Certainly compared to whatever I paid for DOS5 to be bundled with the
- >system, then the additional for Windows, estimated total $100, I think OS2
- >has been extremely good value. Complaining about an additional charge for
- >the final 2.1 release seems churlish, especially if it is going towards
- >the MS coffers.
-
- Exactly the opposite, my friend. Forgive me if I'm understanding
- "churlish" with a reversed meaning, but I wouldn't really care (much)
- if IBM needed funds to keep OS/2 going and decided to charge for the
- upgrade. But Microsoft, who has actively chosen to block OS/2
- whenever possible should not get a single penny off of it's sales.
- It's completely unethical, and should be illegal, for a company to
- make a profit off of a product they're trying to destroy. I object to
- "paying the enemy" more than the actual dollar amount.
-
- To put it another way, if IBM decided they couldn't afford free
- upgrades and wanted to charge $50, I'd grumble, but I'd understand and
- agree with them. But if Microsoft wants even $1 for it, I'd complain
- bitterly. And I am.
- --
- |) David Charlap | .signature confiscated by FBI due to
- /|_ dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | an ongoing investigation into the
- ((|,) | source of these .signature virusses
- ~|~
-