🚀 go-pugleaf

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> 
> 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...


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.
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.

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.)

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?

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."