🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <33310a0a.0@news.rz.uni-passau.de>, hermann@calvin.fmi.uni-passau.de (Michael Hermann) wrote:
>In article <33305cf6.0@usamrid.isd.net>, chucks@isd.net (Erik Funkenbusch)
> writes:
>|> In article <333008b1.0@news.essex1.com>, bgqhr!drrdw0.bnl (Chris J.
> Alumbaugh) wrote:
>|> >What a lame, ignorant post, from someone who defends a certain other
>|> >software company whose dismal record on ship dates is overshadowed only by
>|> >horror stories of ~43 yr old "lost" letters from the postal service.  IBM
>|> >has "delievered" quite a bit of the technologies that are the computer you
>|> >are running, and let's see,, Microsoft made a mouse and BOB and a some
>|> >other stuff that  I have even a lower opinion of.  Yeah, I guess Microsoft
>|> >delievered on Windows 95 and active X and IE,, but I got to say, I'll take
>|> >"dead" IBM technology ANY day over what MS dellievered. Can you say
>|> >CAIRO=1994??  Wouldn't happen to have a harddrive with PMRL technology
>|> >would you?
>|> 
>|> Excuse me?  NT 3.1 didn't even come out until 1993, Cairo wasn't even
> planned 
>|> until 1994.  How the hell could it have been late before it was even 
>|> announced?
>|> 
>|> Fact is, the vast majority of MS products are delivered ON TIME or *EARLY*.
>
>MS rarely ever delivers on time, and if they do it is too buggy to
>be of any use.

That's strange.  I use MS products every day, lots of them.  All of them are 
extremely useful or I wouldn't be using them.  I also don't not any bugs of 
any consequence in daily usage either.

>I don't recall exactly when Cairo was announced and what the scheduled shipping
>date was, but it has past for a while now and cairo has been moved from an
>OS version to a technology collection (to not show how late it really is).

depends on what you call "much".  As of SP3 more than half of what Cairo was 
will be in current versions of NT.  Yes, there are still some nice missing 
pieces like PNP support, but to be honest, I'd rather they concentrate on 
other areas.

>Parts of Cairo are available now, much is still missing, well over a year
>after it should have been available.

Hmm.. Well, we know that Apple and IBM always make their deadlines for every 
OS they've ever produced, right?

>Win95 should have been out at the end of 93.

Hmm.. I'd like to see some evidence about this ship date.

>Win97 should have been out by now.

Says who?  It's barely 97 right now.. MS has *NEVER* given a date when Memphis 
would ship.

>NT 5.0 should be out RSN but is delayed unitl 98.

Now why would NT 5 ship just a few months after NT 4?  This is completely 
silly.

>Office was almost on track and is infested with bugs so that even the mags
>advise to sit it out.

Almost on track?  Office 97 shipped in 96.  how is that late?  I have yet to 
find even *ONE* office bug.  Not one, and I use it every day.  Not to say 
there aren't any, but damn if any of these bugs interfere with me getting work 
done.

>I really cannot think of a single MS product which was on time or early,
>please name some

I'll name a few.  Frontpage 97, Publisher 97, Office 95 standard (Access95 was 
not done in time for the Win95 ship) (btw, that's 4 applications) Project 4, 
Money 97, Visual C++ 5 (it was supposed to ship in july, it shipped in march), 
Team Manager 97, Windows CE... I could go on, but i'm waiting for Chris to 
provide me with 10 apps that were more than 3 months late...