🚀 go-pugleaf

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

It is stupifying to see a new cadre of MS advocates use denial and
ignorance as the basis for a debate of the merits of MS Windows.  It has
gotten absurd.  These posts are apologies to the Windows userbase,
written on behalf of MS.  

"Windows 98? Microsoft Slips Delivery Date Again"
http://techweb4.web.cerf.net/wire/news/mar/0321windows.html

> 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)
>> >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 apologize for MS."

> >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.

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

"I apologize for MS."
 
> >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.

"I apologize for MS"

> >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.

"I apologize for MS"

> >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 apologize for MS."
 
> >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...

"I apologize for MS and I also would like to ignore the apology I made
several lines above when I apologized for the several late windows
apps.  I now choose to ignore myself and challenege Chris to waste his
time telling me what apps were three or more months late.  I also choose
to not name one of the dozens of apps I cliamed MS ships on time or
early."

-- 
Joseph Coughlan
Replies are welcome at joseph_coughlan@otter.montery.edu