NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/4328

Text File | 1992-08-20 | 4.0 KB | 81 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!jaguar.cs.utah.edu!brian
From: [e-mail] (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:28:29 MDT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 70

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Sturgill) writes:
...
>> In all seriousness... with the exception of the fact their DDK seems
>> to have slipped, I've seen no indication they're not going to be on time.
>> Why are you convenienced that NT is trash?
>
>I don't think NT is trash. But, it uses the Win3.1 interface, which is nowhere
>even *close* to being as good as the WPS.
Sorry... I think I'm getting as bad as the worst of the Microsoft bashers...
I'm yelling and accusing people saying things they don't.

>
>Also.....Microsoft is starting to move into hardware.....having reached a
>dominant position in software, they are ready to move over - since very soon -
>unless OS/2 takes off in a huge way - there will be NO ALTERNATIVE to MS.
Agreed, though only partially... I believe that NextStep, Solaris, and
a USL based Unix (Univel perhaps) have shots.  Though I do agree in any
short term sense, OS/2 has the best shot at competing.
The reason I've been yelling so much is that I see this tendancy for
people to "praise" OS/2 as great, when in truth it's got a lot of problems.
What I'd rather see is advocacy of a set of features and fixes, that the
OS/2 users push IBM to do.  Dealing with IBM these past few months makes
be believe that the corporate entity itself is largely incapable of picking
what is and isn't important.  Especially with regards to something as
"insignificant" to IBM as OS/2.
I think I'll make a post later to night that lays out my view of what should
be done now/soon, and then stick to information only posts after that.

>
>I prefer to support a good product in order to maintain some competition. A
>lot of my corporate clients are saying:"We want to a totally Microsoft
>shop.......no other vendors products will be purchased - where there is an MS
>equivalent."
I understand why... for example at the computing center here (I'm in a
different department), Microsoft provides excellent support.  IBM (as
the CC here has no IBM mainframe) is largely uninterested.
The DP people here (which do have an IBM mainframe) think IBM is great.
Microsoft in general provides good products.  Thus it's the EASY way.

>
>Most of these people are technically illiterate. This is the '90's desktop
>version of "If you buy IBM, you can't go wrong."
>
>They are repeating the errors of the past. This is the same position IBM was
>in 15 years ago and the customers paid - and paid for alowing it to happen.
>
I'm not convinced that has to be the case.  When IBM "took over" the market
before, they were indeed delievering real value.  As time progressed it
was the customers that continued that way after the value stopped
that got burnt.  I also believe it less likely as there is a considerably
larger percentage of computer literate people running around now.

Microsoft may well "rule", and get rude (er?), but as quick as they
do a coallition will form against them and things will start all over again.

I do however think it is worthwhile to foster competition now, as a Microsoft
that starts out needing to be more open and responsive, will obviously
have more of a tendency to remain that way.

>Steve
>
>--
>Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on
>[e-mail]         |  September 19, 1992, then you
>[e-mail]            |  must like things the way they
>**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?


Brian