Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.fan.bill-gates:783 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:7628 comp.os.ms-windows.misc:10606
Newsgroups: alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!jenk
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: re: Challenge to Microsoft supporters.
Message-ID: <1993May12.002432.16335@microsoft.com>
Date: 12 May 93 00:24:32 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
References: <C6rq6B.F3v@uceng.uc.edu> <1993May10.053122.13593@microsoft.com> <1slalp$ls2@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Lines: 103

In article <1slalp$ls2@tamsun.tamu.edu> jeffw@cs.tamu.edu (Jeffrey A Waller) writes:
>In article <1993May10.053122.13593@microsoft.com>, jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>|> In article <C6rq6B.F3v@uceng.uc.edu> bferrell@ant.occ.uc.edu (Brett Ferrell) writes:
>|> >In article <1993May07.201242.1449@microsoft.com> cliffga@microsoft.com (Clifford Garrett) writes:
>|> >>/I guess thats why there are so many new DOS and OS/2 applications
>|> >>/coming and hardly any Windows apps coming out? (irony)
>|> >>
>|> >>Yep,  the os/2 apps are comming, the os/2 apps are comming. 
>|> >
>|> >Yet another Micro-minion hoping that if he says something long enough, 
>|> >
>|> Hey, I remember the good old days running OS/2 2.0 alpha with Brief,
>|> Excel, Word, and a couple internal apps (product support database 
>|> client, OS/2-based email front-end). Life was good. But it was also
>|> impractical 'cause the masses were using Windows and my job was to help
>|> the masses.
>
>Apparently you prefer OS/2 to Windows or at least did; 

To windows 3.0, yes.

>by you last comment
>do you mean that your knowledge of OS/2 is dated (it must be) or argue

It's definitely dated - I used OS/2 1.21, & alpha 2.0 (when msft was
developing it...)

>I suspect that the masses were using Windows because they couldn't afford
>to use OS/2, can you say as much for NT?

I preferred Windows 3.1 because it was more stable & faster than 3.0,
but could still run more apps than OS/2 (again I made this choice
before 2.0 was released).

>But getting back to the original question, do you have any data on the
>relative avaliablity or Windows applications versus OS/2 applications
>or any evidence that stated support will be dropped by any of the above?

No, I've seen no such data.

>|> >Grow up.  Other companies are supporting OS/2.  Make points please.  
>|> 
>|> If you see life in terms of debating points, I think you need
>|> to grow up.
>
>Ah yes I remember the days when we kids would engage in orderly debate,
>but our parents would usually find out and force us to act in the more
>mature manner of heaping invective and casting rocks and dirt clods.

hee hee.  good one  ;>  ;>

>|> >It doesn't help Microsoft
>|> >to have employees (I assume you are, due to the ORG, may be wrong) saying
>|> >such trivial things on the net.  
>|> 
>|> So?
>|> Microsoft employs over 10,000 employees. Walking into this place is 
>|> not like walking into the "1984" commercial. There are individuals
>|> here. You think they'll all talk the same way, say the same thing, 
>|> and "help Microsoft" all the time?   If so, WHY?
>
>It appears to me that he is voicing his frustration to an attitude
>he has encountered before.  

...and one that I've encountered as well...

>I on the other hand have had no such
>experience other than from reading this thread.  You at Microsoft
>are in a unique position to present facts, 

Hmm. Are you sure?  I'm speaking from my own experience as an
OS/2 _user_. Certainly people in, say, the NT marketing group 
would be in a unique position to present the results of, say,
research on upcoming NT and OS/2 apps (vs Windows and MS-DOS apps).
Part of my point was that just cause one works at microsoft does 
not mean one has access to such data (if it exists).

>but prefer to make baseless claims or attack to poster.  I must 
>make the same conclusion as he. 

I will confess to, at times, attacking the poster.  

>|> USENET accounts are not restricted to the marketroids. They're
>|> open to any fulltimer, and are primarily for recreational purposes.
>|> Yeah, some of us are likely to answer a question or hop into a 
>|> debate.  Or make stupid comments. You know, like human beings?
>
>I'm sorry this newsgroup is only for opressed hackers and stranded
>extraterrestrials, not humans.  How about alt.microsoft.humans?  You
>seem to discount others anyway.

Again, my point was that not all microsofties are here to "sell" 
readers on our products (which would conflict with the "no-ads" 
philosophy of usenet).  Nor do we necessarily have access to info
that others have.

I also get tired of people assuming that microsofties are, like,
members of the BORG.

-jen

-- 

#include <stdisclaimer>  //  jenk@microsoft.com  // msdos testing
