🚀 go-pugleaf

dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) writes:
>
>>   (...in response to my assertion that NT has no end-users and no
>>   shipping applications, therefore it's vapor...)
>
>    NT isn't vapor, it's silly to argue that it is.  It isn't going to be
>    much better then 3.1 though from the users standpoint.
>

Hello?  Anybody in there?  I didn't say it didn't exist at all, I
said that it was, from a market standpoint, vapor --- nobody's
running their day-to-day business with it, the thing isn't even
shipping yet (the developer's version doesn't count, again, it's
just a step on the road from concept to *product*.)

I don't think that argument is refutable --- it's merely one
definition.  If you think product == something that's announced,
or exists in a limited form, or exists but is unreleased, or
is prototyped, try sending a PO for a volume order for NT to
Microsoft, and ask for a guaranteed ship date.

If anybody thinks this isn't a *very* important point, consider:
the press made similar hoo-ha about OS/2 a couple of years back,
and it failed spectacularly to make any significant impact in the
market whatsoever.  Dose of reality time --- can it be that the
PC industry is so starved for something real in the OS area, yet
so UNIXphobic, that they're willing to believe anything at this
point?


Headlines:  "Microsoft *creates* market reality.  Film at 11."


Std. disclaimers.


jb




--
-- Jeff Bone ------------------------------------------------------------
        NT...  Just say N0T.   Skate UN*X!   Standard disclaimer. 
------------------------------------------------------- jbone@dell.com --
                                                                       --