Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.fan.bill-gates:820 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:7673 comp.os.ms-windows.misc:10661
Newsgroups: alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!caen!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!jenk
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Challenge to Microsoft supporters.
Message-ID: <1993May13.013000.23417@microsoft.com>
Date: 13 May 93 01:30:00 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
References: <1slalp$ls2@tamsun.tamu.edu> <1993May12.002432.16335@microsoft.com> <sundaram.737186206@msuinfo>
Distribution: usa
Lines: 68

In article <sundaram.737186206@msuinfo> sundaram@egr.msu.edu (Divya Sundaram) writes:
>jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>
>[much BS deleted for brevity]
>
>>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.
>
>It certainly smacks of that! Remember the "POLL" that you quoted 
>saying that you had seen a 95% of users being satisfied with DOS 6.0? 

It was 93%-94%, and actually another msdos team member posted it.
Note that people not on the msdos team would not necessarily know
about that, or...

>Care to recall how unbiased the sample set was? 

When I heard those numbers I wondered how they got them (having
worked in product support and knowing that the typical support caller
has very little positive to say about the product, I figured it wasn't
from there...) so I wandered over to the marketing folks and asked.
And I was told it was from a survey of registered users.  And I 
posted that on the net when people asked where the 93% figure came 
from.

>That post sure looked like FUD....and coming from a microsoftie 
>.... well, it sure seemed like something was not on level.

Hmm. I figured, if Chuck posted the numbers, why not include where
they came from? (I also find it interesting that postitive info is 
"fear, uncertainty & doubt".)

>Advocacy is GOOD - but spreading FUD to advocate your favorite OS is very 
>unethical - especially when you have a vested interest in the success 
>of that OS.

????  I think you've got me confused with someone else. I don't 
pretend that MSDOS provides what all people need, or that other
OSes (including unix & OS/2) don't provide useful and/or necessary
features.  I also don't push people to use MSDOS; I even posted in
comp.os.msdos.misc that I suggest _waiting_ before installing a 
new os, esp if you have trouble (support is always overloaded 
during release, unless the sales are a total bomb).

>>I also get tired of people assuming that microsofties are, like,
>>members of the BORG.
>
>That is because their actions seem to invite this opinion - never seen more 
>defensive people in my life. 

I ain't saying some of us don't get defensive sometimes. Do you *really*
think msdos gets any more respect within microsoft than outside it?

I just mean we all aren't cut out of the same dough with the same cookie
cutter. We don't all think alike.  Yeah, ChuckSt and I have some "inside"
info on MSDOS - doesn't mean that everyone else does :)  

>Seriously speaking, it is a shame that MS techie employees get the heat for
>MS's actions - most of which are perpetrated by the Management and marketing.
>I am sure that they ARE very talented etc ... I have not doubts about their 
>abilities, just about the ethics of their marketing practices.

-jen

-- 

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