🚀 go-pugleaf

On 22 Mar 97 20:52:37 GMT, bgqhr!drrdw0.bnl (Chris J. Alumbaugh)
wrote:

>In message <3333b6a9.0@usamrid.isd.net> - chucks@isd.net (Erik
>Funkenbusch)Sat, 22 Mar 1997 10:42:04 GMT writes:
>:>
>:>In article <33339402.0@news.essex1.com>, bgqhr!drrdw0.bnl (Chris J. Alumbaugh) wrote:
>:>>In message <3333844e.0@usamrid.isd.net> - chucks@isd.net (Erik
>:>>Funkenbusch)Sat, 22 Mar 1997 07:07:15 GMT writes:
>:>>:>
>:>>:>In article <3332cf92.0@news.essex1.com>, bgqhr!drrdw0.bnl (Chris J.
>:>> Alumbaugh) wrote:
>:>>:>>In message <3332c3de.0@usamrid.isd.net> - chucks@isd.net (Erik
>:>>:>>  
>:>>:>>:>I can name dozens that were on time or early.
>:>>:>>:>
>:>>:>>
>:>>:>>You lie,  Dozens = a minimum of 48 products even at a conservative
>:>>:>>interpretation. You cannot name 48 microsoft products that were on time or
>:>>:>>early.
>:>>:>
>:>>:>How stupid are you chris?  Dozens means a minimum of 24.
>:>>
>:>>To answer your question directly, Less so than you. To address the
>:>>immediate situation, big deal, my point was made, I personally interpret
>:>>"dozens" to be more than 2 dozens, since that would be addressed as a
>:>>"couple dozen".  So 36 would have been the correct amount for me to have
>:>>said, instead of 48 (although 48 indeed applies, since it is a plural of
>:>>12).
>:>>However, strictly speaking, 24 is correct, I just don't hear "dozens"
>:>>being applied to a "couple dozen' very often.
>:>>
>:>>:>
>:>>:>But your right, I meant at least a dozen.. but come to think of it, i could 
>:>>:>probably name 24 or more... 
>:>>
>:>> Lets get with the listing... If you think you got enjoymnet out of my
>:>>above mistake, you ain't seen nothing compared to the enjoyment most of
>:>>this group will get out of your "list".  I can't wait.  C'mon, I corrected
>:>>my math mistake, lets see you produce on your claims.
>:>
>:>As soon as you list 10 products (not different versions of the same product) 
>:>that were at least 3 months late I will.  I provided the challenge, and I will 
>:>provide my end if you think you can provide yours.
>
>Oh you must have gotten worried, "(not different versions of the same
>product)",, what kind of backpeddalling cover your ass shit is that?? 
>EVERY upgrade to the WINDOWS platform shipped PAST the due date, but THAT
>DON't COUNT???  Bullshit.

I made that stipulation because certain product types are prone to
being late.  OS's are one of them, and it doesn't matter if you look
at Apple, IBM, or MS, more often than not their OS's are likely to be
late, especially if they're major upgrades such as System 8, or OS/2
for the PPC or OS/2 SMP.

By limiting to product rather than multiple versions of a product it
illustrates that non-key products are quite often on time or early.
It also keeps either of us from using products that have faster
upgrade rates than others as ammunition.  If i could use multiple
versions of products i could come up with 2-3 times as many products
that were on time or early, but I don't consider that fair.

OS's *SHOULD* be late.  I would much rather an OS be delayed than ship
with a bug to meet a deadline.  IBM did this with at least 2 versions
of OS/2.  One of them had to be recalled because of it.  OS/2 2.0 was
finished *MINUTES* before midnight on their deadline date, and If
memory serves right there was a fixpack available within a week to
solve some of the last minute problems.

And don't give me any BS about Win95 shipping with bugs, since all
software has bugs.  Some bugs are even purposely left in products
because fixing them breaks legacy software the relies on the side
effects of that bug.

Other products are inherantly late because their technology keeps
changing with the industry, such as IE4 (the latest delay is security
related but the previous delays were technology related).