NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/apps/10499

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 4.3 KB | 80 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall
From: [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: News on 2.1 Release
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:22:58 GMT
Lines: 69

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Lumos) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (MOHIT K GOYAL) writes:
>>>>Well, the main reason why might be perhaps that os/2 1.3 users got free upgrade
>>>>to 2.0. No reason why 2.0 users can't get 2.1 free.
>>>>
>>>Well, their are more than 2-times as many OS/2 v2 users as their were
>>>OS/2 1.0-1.3 users *combined*.
>>>
>>>It'll probably be $50.
>>>
>>Remember that the upgrade will be to a whole new package.
>>
>>Complete set of disks, new manual, new registration, new box, etc, etc...
>
>And also don't forget that it will include MMPM/2. I think that right
>about now, IBM *needs* to charge for that upgrade. I feel like I have
>definately gotten my $130 worth (for 1.3 August 1991). So far They've
>given me OS/2 2.0, Service Pak Beta, Service Pak, OS/2 2.1 Beta (with
>NON-Beta MMPM/2 and the Programmer's tookit even!) I think that
>anybody who paid $49 for OS/2 and is now bitching about paying for an
>upgrade should be hanging their heads in shame right about now. And
>through it all, IBM is still *trying* to make it a free upgrade.

There's been entirely too much of this "you should expect to pay for
it, you greedy pigs -- hang your heads in shame" crap.  If you're
using OS/2 in order to benefit *IBM*, then fine, hang your head in
shame.  A lot of people who got 2.0 were under the impression that it
would include no-cost updates to make it all 32-bit and add Win31
functionality.  Of course, there are people who will say, "Yes, but
you don't have anything OFFICIAL".  There's been entirely too much of
that tripe, too.  Sure, there's a legal out and no binding commitment.
However, that won't alleviate a lot of new users' feelings of having
been stabbed if they wind up paying another batch of green for what
they were under the impression they were buying in the first place.
If you want to be 'fair' about it, all the OS/2 1.X users should get
to pay and the new 2.X users should get it free.  You know, on the
theory that minor upgrades are free but major upgrades (the ones where
you roll the Major Version number) are essentially new products and
should be charged for.  Remember how pissed off so many of the 1.X
users were simply because they got their upgrades LATER than new
purchasers?  And now we start seeing people with the gall to talk
about how people should just happily send in money -- just as if IBM
was Microsoft or something and EXPECTED users to put up with such
silly policies (there, that ought to piss EVERYONE off).

In case some of you folks haven't figured it out yet, OS/2 and NT are
in a *WAR*.  We are *NOT* the troops, expected to support one or the
other (except for folks who work for one of the participants or folks
like Brian).  We are the *TERRITORY*.  IBM is not going to 'win the
war' by invoking legalisms or by acting like Microsoft and charging
for upgrades that 1,000,000 people expected to get for their original
payment.  They *MAY* win the war if they can PROVE that the costs they
have to charge are because of Microsoft -- I wouldn't expect IBM to
enrich 'the enemy' for my benefit -- but that frankly isn't something
I would expect IBM to do (if the situation were reversed, it is
EXACTLY what I would expect Microsoft to try and do, though).

And finally, EVERY time there's an update we see people talking about
how we're going to have to pay for it this time.  Remember all the
traffic about how the SP was going to cost money?  How about people
waiting and seeing what happens for a change?

[Well, I don't know about you, but *I* feel better.  ;-)]

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.