🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3333bbb8.0@usamrid.isd.net>, chucks@isd.net (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
|> 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.

the strange thing is that you believe they all shipped on time...

|> >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.

SP3 is not out yet, half of Cairo is missing, Cairo should have been here in 
1994, 1995 at the latest. This *is* late and whether you would like them to
concentrate on something else or not does not change this.

|> >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?

I never said they do, YOU were the one saying that most MS products are on
time or early. I just came up with ones which aren't...

|> >Win95 should have been out at the end of 93.
|> 
|> Hmm.. I'd like to see some evidence about this ship date.

I'll try to find some, it was in tha mags all over the place and was >2 years
late.

|> >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.

Says the mags (and thus the MS marketing department)

|> >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.

NT 4.0 was late, MS said that 5.0 would ship a few months after it. I know this
sounds silly and thus dismissed it right away. Nonetheless that was the schedule
and as always they missed it.

|> >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.

Because you call something Office 97 doesn't mean it wasn't scheduled for 96.
Win95 was scheduled for 93, under another name at that time..)

If you don't have bugs that is fine by me. If you look at the current mags,
the title story is : Office 97 bugs and how to work around them

All reports I have read so far (3 or 4 from the major mags) advised not to
use it yet but to wait for a mid97 bugfix

|> >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...

Office 95 was late simply because Win95 was late. They might have had it on
the shipdate of Win95, but with Win95 being 2 years late I wouldn't call that
on time.

C++ 5.0 might be early (don't know its intended shipdate)

Is Windows CE out by now, or just as some kind of advertisement demo (I really
don't care about CE and have not heard much from it lately)

Now on to things which were late :

NT 3.1, NT 4.0 (the 3.5 and 3.51 releases probably were too, I just am
not 100% sure here)

Win95, Win97, IE 4.0, Wolfpack

If I would dig through the press releases of the last few years I could probably
come up with > 75% of all MS products.

 -Mike