Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!
athena.mit.edu!reynaldo
From: reyna...@athena.mit.edu (Rey Villarreal)
Subject: Idiots at the Magazines
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.064855.14541@athena.mit.edu>
Sender: n...@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: e40-008-9.mit.edu
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 06:48:55 GMT
Lines: 39
I have lost all respect for John Dvorak, John Dickinson, and Jim
Seymour. If you want to know why just read the April 92 issure of Pc
Computing. How can these guys sleep at night. They basicly all
complain about how messy windows is and how neat it would be to have a
clean alternative. They then basicly say Pink or Windows NT is the
answer and that OS/2 has no chance for success. They do this desipite.
1) To a man they admit ignorance of what OS/2 actually is, "I have no
hope OS/2 will be less of a mess than Windows; in fact, I think it's
going to be even worse" --Seymour. Thank you Jim for that well
informed and thouthfull analysis, how about getting off your lazy, fat
butt and actually looking a beta copies. I don't care if you end up
liking windows but at least know what you are talking about man.
2) They all point to Windows NT as the ultimate solution for all DOS users.
An example of theirs flawless logic--"NT is slated to be the basis
for the Next Generation of Windows, networks, and everything else that
matters in PC operating systems. - John Dickinson. Hello John it costs
~$1000 dollars. You are going to have to pay for those "things that
matter" like POSIX support and multi processor support and Government
level security. NO Home user could live without those. And hell it
only costs 1/3 the price of the 486 with 8 megs you are going to need
to run it. Course you wouldn't know since you probably were to lazy to
research and just quoted from a Microsoft press release.
Sorry to flame to hard but am I alone noticing that these so called
experts are no more than glorified computer salesman. Do they have
clue as to how a computer actually works, or do they subscribed to the
FM theory. I have not seen betas of Windoze 3.1 and only played with
LA OS/2(Disk aceess is SLOWWW). I don't care about Microsoft or IBM.
All I want is the best OS available for my poor cripled 486 running in
8808 mode.
Well at least I got something out of this issure, Penn Jillette's
awesome column in the back which was great--as usual.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Q: "Whats the difference between a used car salesman and computer salesman."
A: " The used car salesman knows when he is lying to you"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!
cheme.tn.cornell.edu!SANJEEV
From: sanj...@cheme.tn.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Idiots at the Magazines
Message-ID: <1992Apr3.181048.13119@tc.cornell.edu>
Sender: n...@tc.cornell.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: hermes.cheme.cornell.edu
Reply-To: sanj...@cheme.tn.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell University School of Chemical Engineering
References: <1992Mar24.064855.14541@athena.mit.edu>
<1992Apr1.164624.24433@njitgw.njit.edu>,<1992Apr3.103823.10869@hemlock.cray.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 18:10:48 GMT
>In article <1992Apr1.164624.24...@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5...@hertz.njit.edu
(David Charlap) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar24.064855.14...@athena.mit.edu> reyna...@athena.mit.edu
(Rey Villarreal) writes:
>>>I have lost all respect for John Dvorak, John Dickinson, and Jim
>>>Seymour.
>>
>>How about this one: In the May issue of PC Mag, John Dvorak writes a
>>list of reasons why "OS/2 has failed". Past tense. Amazing how he
>>considers a program to have failed before the release date.
>>Especially when you consider that articles for the May issue were
>>probably written sometime in February. And then he does nothing more
>>than re-hash the same thing he wrote two years ago about OS/2 1.2...
>>--
>>David Charlap Q:"Where do these stairs go?"
>>dic5...@hertz.njit.edu A:"They go up"
>>----------------------------
>
Here is something I have wondered about. How many of these "Windows
Rah Rah " guys have purchased microsoft stock and have vested interest
in promoting microsoft products? Does this constitute conflict of
interest ?
sanjeev
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!umd5!cygnus.umd.edu!adhir
From: ad...@cygnus.umd.edu (Alok Dhir)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Idiots at the Magazines
Message-ID: <12750@umd5.umd.edu>
Date: 21 Apr 92 18:33:21 GMT
References: <1992Apr3.181048.13119@tc.cornell.edu>
<1992Apr4.212909.16008@cs.mcgill.ca> <1992Apr16.010422.10309@microsoft.com>
Sender: n...@umd5.umd.edu
Organization: /etc/organization
Lines: 39
In article <1992Apr16.010422.10...@microsoft.com> gord...@microsoft.com
(Gordon Letwin) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr3.181048.13...@tc.cornell.edu> sanj...@cheme.tn.cornell.edu
writes:
>>>
>>>Here is something I have wondered about. How many of these "Windows
>>>Rah Rah " guys have purchased microsoft stock and have vested interest
>>>in promoting microsoft products? Does this constitute conflict of
>>>interest ?
>
>I'm glad that Sanjeev brought this up, since I've been giving the matter
>some thought. It's just *hypothetical* that the magazine writers own
>Microsoft stock and will profit by their position.
>
>But from press releases we know that IBM employees are being offered
>cash and equipment as "prizes" for promoting OS/2. Now, it's assumed
>that an employee of a company has an indirect stake in a product's
>success; that's why even though it's in my mail header I always sign
>my postings in a way that makes clear my Microsoft affiliation.
>
>But IBM employees, as of now, are not just participating in OS/2 indirectly,
>they will receive direct cash and other material awards in return for
>their promoting OS/2. Clearly, IBM employees who continue to post
>pro-OS/2 articles are in the same category as those folks who post
>advertisements for their Amway stuff, "get straight As in college" and
>other such directly commercial ventures.
>
True, with one important difference. When a Microsoft employee is
touting Windows and downplaying OS/2, he is being intentionally
dishonest. When an IBM employee touts OS/2s superiority to Windows,
he is merely stating the truth... Does it really make a difference
that he is being paid for it?
--
============================================================================
Al Dhir Technical Consulting Staff
Internet: ad...@cygnus.umd.edu University of Maryland, College Park
Bitnet: adhir%cygnus.umd.edu@Interbit (301) 405-1500 * (301) 405-3014
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!gordonl
From: gord...@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin)
Subject: Re: Idiots at the Magazines
Message-ID: <1992Apr26.211819.2386@microsoft.com>
Date: 26 Apr 92 21:18:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
References: <1992Apr4.212909.16008@cs.mcgill.ca>
<1992Apr16.010422.10309@microsoft.com> <12750@umd5.umd.edu>
Lines: 42
In article <12...@umd5.umd.edu> ad...@cygnus.umd.edu (Alok Dhir) writes:
>> Clearly, IBM employees who continue to post
>>pro-OS/2 articles are in the same category as those folks who post
>>advertisements for their Amway stuff...
>
>True, with one important difference. When a Microsoft employee is
>touting Windows and downplaying OS/2, he is being intentionally
>dishonest.
An interesting assertion, Mr. Dhir. Please quote some examples of intentional
dishonesty in any of my postings. Failing that, I'll settle for some
examples from any Microsoft employee on this forum.
OK, I'll make it easier for you. How about "unintentional dishonesty"?
Yes, please show any example of any posting of mine which was even
*inaccurate*. It would be easy enough for me to show dozens of "factual"
postings by some of this group's favorite folks are completely nonsense.
You know, the crazies on this group have whipped themselves into a froth
at my uncountably many postings which lambaste OS/2 and which contain
lies and inaccuracies. This is particularly amusing because anyone
who has an archive - such as I - can easily see that I've never critized
OS/2 and I've never posted any technical information which has been in the
least bit inaccurate.
As I've said before, I must be a terrible thorn in the side of the
ranters and ravers on this net, since I'm just posting rudimentary logic
and elementary facts, and the only reponse they've been able to muster
is "liar, liar, pants on fire". A sophisticated response, to be sure, but
a futile one. The strategy has been for the crazies to
"stipulate" a record of statements on my behalf that they can then attack.
Too bad this is a computer forum and the archives are accurate and complete,
and accuracy is the bane of the bozos.
Myself, the data that I post are true; if I don't say otherwise you
can always assume that the info that I post is based upon my personal
and expert knowledge.
gordon letwin
not a microsoft spokesperson
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!ellis!sip1
From: s...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Idiots at the Magazines
Message-ID: <1992Apr26.224900.25263@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: n...@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
Reply-To: s...@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
References: <1992Apr16.010422.10309@microsoft.com> <12750@umd5.umd.edu>
<1992Apr26.211819.2386@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 22:49:00 GMT
Lines: 46
In article <1992Apr26.211819.2...@microsoft.com> gord...@microsoft.com
(Gordon Letwin) writes:
>[...seeking examples...]
I suppose I could pick up "Inside OS/2" and start reading. It
wouldn't take me long.
>You know, the crazies on this group have whipped themselves into a froth
>at my uncountably many postings which lambaste OS/2 and which contain
>lies and inaccuracies. This is particularly amusing because anyone
>who has an archive - such as I - can easily see that I've never critized
>OS/2 and I've never posted any technical information which has been in the
>least bit inaccurate.
Frankly your message continues a rather tiresome series of posts which
contain absolutely zero technical information which could even be
inaccurate.
>As I've said before, I must be a terrible thorn in the side of the
>ranters and ravers on this net, since I'm just posting rudimentary logic
>and elementary facts, and the only reponse they've been able to muster
>is "liar, liar, pants on fire". A sophisticated response, to be sure, but
>a futile one. The strategy has been for the crazies to
>"stipulate" a record of statements on my behalf that they can then attack.
>Too bad this is a computer forum and the archives are accurate and complete,
>and accuracy is the bane of the bozos.
And I wonder whether you have heard of the adjective "unprofessional."
>Myself, the data that I post are true; if I don't say otherwise you
>can always assume that the info that I post is based upon my personal
>and expert knowledge.
> gordon letwin
> not a microsoft spokesperson
I would be pleased if you shared your "personal and expert knowledge"
in a more professional and adult manner befitting your proud company.
On a more substantive note, IBM's Tips and Techniques for OS/2 file,
Version 1.1, will be posted shortly. This file contains a few tips
that are not yet in the Frequently Asked Questions List and makes for
good reading. I will also send it to hobbes.nmsu.edu.
--
Timothy F. Sipples Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
s...@ellis.uchicago.edu List, available via anonymous ftp from
Dept. of Economics 128.123.35.151, directory pub/os2/faq, or via
Univ. of Chicago 60637 netmail from LISTS...@BLEKUL11.BITNET.