🚀 go-pugleaf

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 22 Mar 1997 14:55:18 -0500, Brooks Adair <badair@magg.net>
> wrote:
> 
> >Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> 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...
> >
> >
> >I'll start the list, but I only keep up with the OS's so I won't be able
> >to finish the list.
> >
> >List of late products:
> >
> >Windows 95, this is the most obvous, it was suposed to ship in early 94.
> >Cairo,      MS Press book Inside NT,  mentiones this in 93,. It should
> >be finished
> >            now.
> 
> Yes, both of these were late products (though actually, parts of Cairo
> were available long before it was ever supposed to ship, in other
> words, NT got new technology earlier than MS had said it would come,
> such as DCOM, Fibers, New Shell, etc..)

DCOM, sounds like somthing that should have been in Cairo, so I'm not
sure that its release with NT 4.0 would be considered early.

> 
> >DOS 5.0,    I just recently read a document discussing the anti
> >competitave practices
> >            of MS and it mentioned that they announced they were
> >releasing this a year
> >            before they actually did, just to hurt DR DOS.
> 
> There's a big difference between pre-announcing a product and it being
> late.  Did this document state that MS missed a ship date on Dos 5?

The document stated that MS said that it would be out with in months
after the announcement, it was released a year later.

> 
> >I don't use or keep up with MS apps, so this is all I could do. So
> >someone finish the list. (Does anyone know when VB 5 was suposed to be
> >released? I have heard complaints about this one.)
> 
> VB5 and VC5 were both early, though many people had expected VB5
> technologies in VB4 (to my knowledge, this was speculation and never
> anything MS had stated would be in VB4).
> 
> >OH, I just thought of somthing, Win95 was originaly a 94 product, but it
> >got the 95 name. Does anyone know if MS actualy intened Office 97 to be
> >Office 96?
> 
> Office97 shipped in 96.  Just like Publisher 97, Money97, etc... I can
> go back to 95 and find references to Office97 shortly after Office95
> was released, so yes.  Office97 was early (though it wasn't on store
> shelves until nearly 2 months after it was gold so that stores could
> get rid of stock.  You could technically call Office97 late, but it
> *WAS* shipping in MSDN and other circles in November of 96, just
> wasn't in retail outlets).
> 
> >Anyway, we were originaly discussing IBM and Microsoft delivering new
> >TECHNOLOGY late.
> >
> >You said that IBM never delivered any new technology on time. You then
> >went on to say how Microsoft always delivered on time. Then when asked
> >to prove it you listed off MS APPLICATIONS that were suposedly on time.
> >I wouldn't consider a new version of Office "new and innovative
> >technology."
> 
> I didn't say that MS alwas delivers on time.  I said the vast majority
> of their products (including games, and home software,etc) is on time
> or early.  Certain key products are often late, but this represents a
> very small portion.

I suppose always was the wrong word to use. However, my main point in
that 
paragraph was that you started this "discussion" with this statement:

:>Isn't anyone concerned that IBM never actually seems to *DELIVER* any
new 
:>technologies?  

After that you proceeded to explain how IBM was always late. Then when
some one
complained that you defend MS who is often late you responded by listing
of MS APPLICATIONS that were on time. I am sure that if we started
looking 
at IBM APPLICATIONS we would find that many of them are on time as well.

I would agree that both companies have been late with new TECHNOLOGIES.
MS is 
always late with new OS's, IBM was late with OpenDoc.

However, I would say that more often IBM delivers new technology earlier
then 
MS. I personally was using OS/2 2.1 in 93 to run 30 processes\100
threads on a 
386\25. The only 32 bit OS Microsoft had available at that time was NT
3.1 
and it took up way too many resources to be useful (then).

SOM and DSOM were also available long before DCOM was.