Very Computer

Here is my reasoning:

At Spring COMDEX (May 24-27) Microsoft will "officially"
release/introduce/announce/whatever Windows NT.

Microsoft will by hyping Windows NT as the second coming of Christ,
but the best Bill Gates will be able to tell all the e*d people
is "before August 1, and this time I mean it".

Windows NT will be talked about *everywhere* because it is being
"released">

IBM & OS/2, since they are the underdogs, must not only also hype up
OS/2 2.1 as the greatest OS in the world, but they *MUST* also have
a solid, bug-free OS/2 2.1 available for people to HAVE.  They must
have many IBM PC's and *clones* running OS/2 2.1.

It will greatly help OS/2's cause for people to be able to take it home
and actually have a copy in their hands at Comdex(not to mention magazines
and such will be able to review it sooner than they will the release of NT),
while no one will be able to get the GA copy of Windows NT v1.0 for a few
more months.

I don't know if IBM has the documentation done, but I figure that even if
OS/2 2.1 goes gold a week before COMDEX, IBM would be able to create
several thousand copies of the 2.1 package, on CD-ROM if nothing else,
and have it available at COMDEX.

Obviously, making OS/2 2.1 is *SOLID* product is the #1 concern, but this is
a best-case scenario.

Of course, I personally believe that Windows NT will be a big disappointment
to most.  I mean, when NT is released to the public, it will be the very
FIRST time it will be available!

What v1.0 programs, much less *operating systems* were useable at v1.0?

DOS took until v5.0 before it was "ready for everyone"(maybe 3.3, but you
have to skip v4), Windows took until v3.1, OS/2 is going to take until
v2.1.

Quote:>Here is my reasoning:
>At Spring COMDEX (May 24-27) Microsoft will "officially"
>release/introduce/announce/whatever Windows NT.

        [munch]

Quote:>IBM & OS/2, since they are the underdogs, must not only also hype up
>OS/2 2.1 as the greatest OS in the world,

        ---insert stupid adverti*t idea--------------------------

        Picture of a computer screen.  Bold sans serif text across
        the top.  "Is it DOS?"

        Contents of monitor, full screen dos session, no help bar:

        -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -

        C:\> mouse

            MOUSE:  Mouse Driver Version 6.25 is installed.

        C:\> mem

                   655360 bytes total memory
                   655360 bytes available for DOS
                   643968 largest executable program size

                  2490368 bytes total EMS memory
                  2097152 bytes free EMS memory
                  2031616 bytes total XMS memory
                  2031616 bytes available XMS memory
                        0 bytes available contiguous extended memory
                          DOS resident in High Memory Area
                          High Memory Area in use

        C:\>

        -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -

        (next facing page, OS/2 desktop with two or three dos windows
        open, one with the above, one with Wordperfect for DOS, one
        with a popular game--Xwing or Wing Commander)

        text, bold sans serif:  "OS/2."

        Likewise, you could show a full screen Windows session open
        with two open Write apps.  One with varying fonts saying
        "With TrueType scalable fonts" over and over, italic, different
        sizes.  The other Write window (overlapping the other only on the
        upper corner), same style, but the text is different: "Also
        includes Adobe Type Manager!"..

        (top text)      "Windows 3.1?"

        Next page, showing a seamless copy of Write and a recognizable
        DOS app or two (perhaps including the memory cli from above).

        (bottom text)   "OS/2."

        [I consider the version numbers and the name recognition
        (i.e., "3.1", "Truetype" etc.) very important.  Also note that
        I pulled "OS/2" from the mouse line.]

        --end stupid adverti*t idea-------------------------------

Quote:> but they *MUST* also have
>a solid, bug-free OS/2 2.1 available for people to HAVE.  They must
>have many IBM PC's and *clones* running OS/2 2.1.

        Incidentally, any adverti*t for Os/2 should _NOT_
        show it running on IBM hardware.  That's a big mistake.

        (As for a solid 2.1, if they release it in May, I don't
        expect we'll see one.  Instead, we'll see the solid version
        after the november CSD2.1)

        [munch]

Quote:>I don't know if IBM has the documentation done, but I figure that even if
>OS/2 2.1 goes gold a week before COMDEX, IBM would be able to create
>several thousand copies of the 2.1 package, on CD-ROM if nothing else,
>and have it available at COMDEX.

        If nothing else, IBM should make a _big_ show of OS/2 at
        comdex.  You can bet that the rest will.

Quote:>Obviously, making OS/2 2.1 is *SOLID* product is the #1 concern, but this is
>a best-case scenario.

        No kidding.

Quote:>Of course, I personally believe that Windows NT will be a big disappointment
>to most.  I mean, when NT is released to the public, it will be the very
>FIRST time it will be available!

        NT isn't going to cure cancer and suddenly make people smarter,
        no.  But I don't think it will be _that_ big a disappointment.
        In fact, I think a lot of people will be pleased.

Quote:>What v1.0 programs, much less *operating systems* were useable at v1.0?

        NT is already more solid and bug-free than the OS/2 2.0 GA was.
        I don't think hoping that NT will be bug ridden and a disappointment
        is realistic or smart.
--
There are stupid laws, and then there are stupider than normal laws.

Quote:>    (As for a solid 2.1, if they release it in May, I don't
>    expect we'll see one.  Instead, we'll see the solid version
>    after the november CSD2.1)

Simply your biased opinion.  The beta that you have seen is created
1.5 to 2 months ago.  Obviously you don't have much respect for the
guys in Boca, but that's you.

Quote:>>What v1.0 programs, much less *operating systems* were useable at v1.0?
>    NT is already more solid and bug-free than the OS/2 2.0 GA was.
>    I don't think hoping that NT will be bug ridden and a disappointment
>    is realistic or smart

I don't "hope" it sucks.  I just don't think Windows NT v1.0 will be a
very good operating system.  Simply my opinion.

All I have seen & worked with concerning NT is the March beta, which will
be very old by the time NT is released to the public.

Oh yeah, I'm interested in hearing from an MS-zealot why hoping NT is
bug ridden & a disappointment is not "smart".

Which NT beta are you talking about?  Their is no way that March NT beta
is more solid & bug-free than OS/2 2.0.  Of course, my viewpoint isn't
very biased either way.

Quote:>Here is my reasoning:

>At Spring COMDEX (May 24-27) Microsoft will "officially"
>release/introduce/announce/whatever Windows NT.

>Microsoft will by hyping Windows NT as the second coming of Christ,
>but the best Bill Gates will be able to tell all the e*d people
>is "before August 1, and this time I mean it".

>Windows NT will be talked about *everywhere* because it is being
>"released">

>IBM & OS/2, since they are the underdogs, must not only also hype up
>OS/2 2.1 as the greatest OS in the world, but they *MUST* also have
>a solid, bug-free OS/2 2.1 available for people to HAVE.  They must
>have many IBM PC's and *clones* running OS/2 2.1.

Spring Comdex is in less than a month.  Do you seriously think IBM is
stupid enough to release OS/2 2.1 less than a month from now, given the
condition of the March Beta?

Quote:>Obviously, making OS/2 2.1 is *SOLID* product is the #1 concern, but this is
>a best-case scenario.

How could OS/2 2.1 possibly become a solid product in that timeframe?
Lots of people were criticizing MS right and left because they aren't
planning on another beta of NT before release and, in my opinion, the
March NT is more stable than the March OS/2.  I think MS should have
another beta as well, but I don't think it would even be possible for
OS/2 to be released without another.  And there just isn't enough time
before Comdex to do that.

     - Mike

Quote:>>        (As for a solid 2.1, if they release it in May, I don't
>>        expect we'll see one.  Instead, we'll see the solid version
>>        after the november CSD2.1)

>Simply your biased opinion.  The beta that you have seen is created
>1.5 to 2 months ago.  Obviously you don't have much respect for the
>guys in Boca, but that's you.

        Let's see.  OS/2 went from "pretty close to release" (December
        beta stability, bugs) to a nightmare.  Bugs _appeared_ in the
        March beta, and the whole thing was downright miserable.

        Respect?  Well, it's dwindling.  If March was supposed to bolser
        it, I'm afraid it failed badly.

Quote:>>>What v1.0 programs, much less *operating systems* were useable at v1.0?
>>        NT is already more solid and bug-free than the OS/2 2.0 GA was.
>>        I don't think hoping that NT will be bug ridden and a disappointment
>>        is realistic or smart

>I don't "hope" it sucks.  I just don't think Windows NT v1.0 will be a
>very good operating system.  Simply my opinion.

>All I have seen & worked with concerning NT is the March beta, which will
>be very old by the time NT is released to the public.

>Oh yeah, I'm interested in hearing from an MS-zealot why hoping NT is
>bug ridden & a disappointment is not "smart".

        Because it's stupid.  NT March is already at _least_ on the
        par with what the 2.0 GA offered.  There are bugs, but they
        are not _nearly_ as devestating as those you found in 2.0.  In
        particular, NT's install is almost always flawless, while OS/2
        _still_ needs to be babied through install.

Quote:>Which NT beta are you talking about?  Their is no way that March NT beta
>is more solid & bug-free than OS/2 2.0.  Of course, my viewpoint isn't
>very biased either way.

        Yeah, right.

        This from some twit who just called me an NT zealot.  I love you
        OS/2 types.
--
There are stupid laws, and then there are stupider than normal laws.

Quote:>>Oh yeah, I'm interested in hearing from an MS-zealot why hoping NT is
>    Yeah, right.

Believe what you will. (and you do)

Quote:>    This from some twit who just called me an NT zealot.  I love you
>    OS/2 types.

Actually, I called you a MS-zealot.  Big difference.

Hey!  Keep on reading, 'cause here it comes again...you're a MS-zealot.

From one twit to another...God bless you.

Oh well, to get this back on track, nahhh...I'll just stop here.

My quick (3 posts) foray into c.o.o.a has ended.  I'm confident others
here will be more than happy to clear up the FUD in your posts.

bye.

I just spoke to an OS/2 rep from Boca who said that OS/2 2.1 will *definitely*
be shipping on June 1.  He said not to tell anyone he told me though, so
I won't mention any names...

-- Brian
--

o------------------------The Ohio Supercomputer Center------------------------o

o------------------------"My other computer is a CRAY"------------------------o

I guess "August 1993" really means "December 1992" or perhaps
"March 1993" or maybe "first quarter of 1993" in MS land.  Or
perhaps we'll find out that it means "January 1994"--'hard to tell.
Expect NT when you see it.

Quote:> >Windows NT will be talked about *everywhere* because it is being
> >"released">

> >IBM & OS/2, since they are the underdogs, must not only also hype up
> >OS/2 2.1 as the greatest OS in the world, but they *MUST* also have
> >a solid, bug-free OS/2 2.1 available for people to HAVE.  They must
> >have many IBM PC's and *clones* running OS/2 2.1.

> Spring Comdex is in less than a month.  Do you seriously think IBM is
> stupid enough to release OS/2 2.1 less than a month from now, given the
> condition of the March Beta?

Do you really think that the beta program is either MS' or IBM's
exclusive thrash-out of their OS code?  

Quote:> >Obviously, making OS/2 2.1 is *SOLID* product is the #1 concern, but this is
> >a best-case scenario.

> How could OS/2 2.1 possibly become a solid product in that timeframe?
> Lots of people were criticizing MS right and left because they aren't
> planning on another beta of NT before release and, in my opinion, the
> March NT is more stable than the March OS/2.

This is the first time I have read this opinion!!  
Is there time for another NT beta before Comdex?  If NT is
released in "2 or 3 months" as Clarinet says now (this appeared to be deep
background reporting), then MS better get moving on that
next beta of NT--especially if the March beta is MS' only beta
testing program.  

Quote:> I think MS should have
> another beta as well, but I don't think it would even be possible for
> OS/2 to be released without another.  And there just isn't enough time
> before Comdex to do that.

>      - Mike

I'm running the March beta.  It is not a production OS but its
problems don't seem deep at all to me.  M21SHP.ZIP has sure fixed
a lot of them.

 ---------------------------------------------

 ---------------------------------------------

[...]

Quote:>> >IBM & OS/2, since they are the underdogs, must not only also hype up
>> >OS/2 2.1 as the greatest OS in the world, but they *MUST* also have
>> >a solid, bug-free OS/2 2.1 available for people to HAVE.  They must
>> >have many IBM PC's and *clones* running OS/2 2.1.

>> Spring Comdex is in less than a month.  Do you seriously think IBM is
>> stupid enough to release OS/2 2.1 less than a month from now, given the
>> condition of the March Beta?

>Do you really think that the beta program is either MS' or IBM's
>exclusive thrash-out of their OS code?  

No, I know for a fact that it isn't.  However, a beta program is a very
good idea for something as general purpose as an operating system.  Making
major changes in the code, then releasing it without a beta is not, IMO,
a good idea.  (Anyone know if IBM has a *real* beta program, in addition
to the open beta they've been doing?)

Quote:>> >Obviously, making OS/2 2.1 is *SOLID* product is the #1 concern, but this is
>> >a best-case scenario.

>> How could OS/2 2.1 possibly become a solid product in that timeframe?
>> Lots of people were criticizing MS right and left because they aren't
>> planning on another beta of NT before release and, in my opinion, the
>> March NT is more stable than the March OS/2.

>This is the first time I have read this opinion!!  

Read much?  (Not a comment on your reading skills, BTW, but I've read that
same opinion quite a bit).

Quote:>Is there time for another NT beta before Comdex?

No.  Then again, NT isn't going to ship by Comdex.

Quote:>If NT is
>released in "2 or 3 months" as Clarinet says now (this appeared to be deep
>background reporting), then MS better get moving on that
>next beta of NT--especially if the March beta is MS' only beta
>testing program.  

The March beta is *NOT* MS's only beta testing program.  However, it seems
prudent for them to have another beta drop before release.

I'm glad it works for you.  It is, however, widely regarded as less stable
than the December release.  I imagine the patch fixed most of the problems,
otherwise I doubt you'd be running it much.

     - Mike

        [...]

Quote:> IBM & OS/2, since they are the underdogs, must not only also hype up
> OS/2 2.1 as the greatest OS in the world, but they *MUST* also have
> a solid, bug-free OS/2 2.1 available for people to HAVE.  They must
> have many IBM PC's and *clones* running OS/2 2.1.

It might help IBM marginally to have 2.1 available for the COMDEX, but
I don't think the impact would be all that spectacular.  I do not, however,
want to see IBM hype OS/2 as the greatest OS in the world, because it
isn't.  Hype it for its merits, and let it go at that.  Oh yes, and
buy some full or multipage ads in various computer rags, just so the
reviewers will give OS/2 its due.

Quote:

> It will greatly help OS/2's cause for people to be able to take it home
> and actually have a copy in their hands at Comdex(not to mention magazines
> and such will be able to review it sooner than they will the release of NT),
> while no one will be able to get the GA copy of Windows NT v1.0 for a few
> more months.

        [...]

Quote:> Obviously, making OS/2 2.1 is *SOLID* product is the #1 concern, but this is
> a best-case scenario.

Obviously.

        [...]

Quote:> IBM & OS/2, since they are the underdogs, must not only also hype up
> OS/2 2.1 as the greatest OS in the world, but they *MUST* also have
> a solid, bug-free OS/2 2.1 available for people to HAVE.  [...]
> I don't know if IBM has the documentation done, [...]

Well, based on 2.0, writing all the "documentation" that comes with OS/2
should take all of two days.  Then again, maybe enough people have complained
often enough and loudly enough that they'll actually write something useful
for OS/2 2.1.

--

[       "stick your index fingers into both corners of your mouth.  now pull ]
[          up.  that's how the corrado makes you feel."  -- car, january '93 ]

The same way OS/2 2.0 became such a success. Through hard work and good
programmers. Just because Microsoft can't get NT out due to its problems,
doesn't mean that IBM can't. Afterall, many things that Microsoft claimed
were impossible, IBM somehow managed to make them possible.

And you know it as well as I know it. When it comes to good quality
operating systems, we all know what kind of 'good' reputation Microsoft
has. Let's not kid ourselves...

Quote:

>I'm glad it works for you.  It is, however, widely regarded as less stable
>than the December release.  I imagine the patch fixed most of the problems,
>otherwise I doubt you'd be running it much.

>     - Mike

It was widely regarded that OS/2 2.0 was a *BAD* version. Somehow, I ran it
with none of the rumoured problems that were flying around. My administrators
are still running 2.0 and are very happy with it.

In other words, are YOU running it? No. So please don't make it sound as if
you were THE spokesman for all OS/2 users.

Best Regards,
Mark K.

Well, I wish them the best of luck, then.  Comdex (the timeframe I was
referring to) is this month, isn't it?  Hopefully OS/2 2.1 will be much
more of a success than OS/2 2.0 was.

[The rest of this is simply anti-MS stuff which we've all seen before...]

Quote:>>I'm glad it works for you.  It is, however, widely regarded as less stable
>>than the December release.  I imagine the patch fixed most of the problems,
>>otherwise I doubt you'd be running it much.

>It was widely regarded that OS/2 2.0 was a *BAD* version. Somehow, I ran it
>with none of the rumoured problems that were flying around. My administrators
>are still running 2.0 and are very happy with it.

Even if you didn't intend to, your statement supports my point.  You run
OS/2 2.0 with no problems, although it is widely regarded as a bad version.

Quote:>In other words, are YOU running it? No.

You're right.  Care to guess why?  (Hint: I mentioned the reason above)

Quote:>So please don't make it sound as if
>you were THE spokesman for all OS/2 users.

Did I say "All OS/2 users think the March OS/2 Beta is unstable?"  No.
I said "It is...widely regarded as less stable than the December release."
Check out PC WEEK, or InfoWorld, or various OS/2 newsgroups.  (Don't worry
Mark, I wouldn't ever want to be a spokesman for you.)

Quote:>Best Regards,
>Mark K.

     - Mike