Chicago, Chicago, ....
pwpa...@news.delphi.com
>Maybe some of of you Windy City beta testers can answer a nagging
>question for me. I've got a good friend that works for a, shall we
>say, well known PC corporation here in town. Anyway, many
>people at his site are beta testing Chicago. The word from them is
>that the Chicago beta is a mess, even for a beta. That seems to be
>contrary to the reviews I've seen in print and elsewhere. What's the
>scoop? Is MS going to deliver (albeit somewhat late) a good product
>in Windows 4.0 or not? Is the functionality going to include all
>that has been promised (i.e. networking, multimedia, stability,
>etc...)? These are important questions that IS folks need answers
>to.
Maybe you can answer a nagging question in return: why would someone
want to be cut off from receiving any more Betas from Microsoft by
talking about it? Not only is the offending party cut off, but so too
is the employer/company. I know a lot of people (usually those not on
the Beta) have problems with this "silence thang" [sic] but them's the
rules...
Bill Collins
>
>I've read reviews that cover both extremes -- some saying that Chicago is
>a huge improvement over 3.1 and bound to be a big success, and some saying
>it's full of holes and just a big ugly disappointing mess. I don't know
>how this can be, since in every review the author claimed to have based the
>article on firsthand experience with a beta. Of course there are two
>basic kinds of criticisms: that Chicago isn't delivering all the features
There is also the 3rd type of criticism: media egos with axes to grind against
MicroSoft;-).
With all the anticipation of this product by the user community,
news of poor beta performance would be everywhere on this and other MS-DOS
oriented lists. The biggest problem is separating rumor from fact
and getting people educated as to what Win 4.0 is actually supposed to do and
how it is supposed to do it. I see a lot of basic confusion as to what
Win 4.0 will and can do when I read some of these messages.
Bill
Kelly Harrison
question for me. I've got a good friend that works for a, shall we
say, well known PC corporation here in town. Anyway, many
people at his site are beta testing Chicago. The word from them is
that the Chicago beta is a mess, even for a beta. That seems to be
contrary to the reviews I've seen in print and elsewhere. What's the
scoop? Is MS going to deliver (albeit somewhat late) a good product
in Windows 4.0 or not? Is the functionality going to include all
that has been promised (i.e. networking, multimedia, stability,
etc...)? These are important questions that IS folks need answers
to.
Thanks!
Kelly Harrison
University of Kentucky
Clinical Research Program
ke...@delos.kcr.uky.edu
Paul Cook
and cant tell you either way!
Paul.
---
o o o o o o . . . ________________________ _________________________
o _____ ||Paul Cook | ||p...@kid01pml.icl.co.uk|
.][__n_n_|DD[ ====___ ||ProcessWise | ||+44 (0)782 771000 |
>(________|__|_[_______]_||ICL__________________|_||______________________|_
_/oo OOOOO oo` oo oo 'o^o o^o` 'o^o o^o`
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
David Wagle
>question for me. I've got a good friend that works for a, shall we
>say, well known PC corporation here in town. Anyway, many
>people at his site are beta testing Chicago. The word from them is
>that the Chicago beta is a mess, even for a beta. That seems to be
>contrary to the reviews I've seen in print and elsewhere.
Well, I am not a beta tester for Chicago, but I was for NT, and NT beta was
hideous! I could bring it grinding to a halt doing even the most trivial of
tasks. The released version was put on hold several times becuase the beta
testers kept crashing the system. I imagine that Chicago's release will be
much the same story -- If we see it on the shelves before next July or
August, it will be becuase they scrapped features yet again, not because
they worked out all the problems.
Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
David Wagle (210) 567-4528 "Yes, but no one would buy
wa...@thorin.uthscsa.edu them if they were called
da...@polaris.uthscsa.edu sad meals."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Troy Stephens
> that the Chicago beta is a mess, even for a beta. That seems to be
I've read reviews that cover both extremes -- some saying that Chicago is
a huge improvement over 3.1 and bound to be a big success, and some saying
it's full of holes and just a big ugly disappointing mess. I don't know
how this can be, since in every review the author claimed to have based the
article on firsthand experience with a beta. Of course there are two
basic kinds of criticisms: that Chicago isn't delivering all the features
that MS originally promised (a revolutionary new OLE 2.0-based structure,
multithreading, etc., etc.), and that Chicago doesn't even successfully
deliver what it's trying to deliver now (stability, etc.) Sometimes it's
difficult to tell which one is what's really bugging the reviewer. The
positive reviews I've read have mainly praised Chicago for vastly improved
user-interfacing (better file management, task switching, integrated mail,
etc.), while the negative reviews (that I've read) have picked on its
autoconfiguration/installer program not being compatible with all systems,
and on its failure to deliver all the fancy gizmos that MS has us convinced
we really need.
Sorry, I wish I had firsthand beta experience to pass on. I'm curious too!
Troy
Troy Stephens | Internet: tste...@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Dept. of Physics | gund...@delphi.com
Wesleyan University |
Paul Cohen
>question for me. I've got a good friend that works for a, shall we
>say, well known PC corporation here in town. Anyway, many
>that the Chicago beta is a mess, even for a beta. That seems to be
>contrary to the reviews I've seen in print and elsewhere. What's the
>in Windows 4.0 or not? Is the functionality going to include all
>that has been promised (i.e. networking, multimedia, stability,
>etc...)? These are important questions that IS folks need answers
>to.
I'm not a beta tester (a beta tester would've signed an NDA and been able to
tell you about it anyway) but the important thing to remember is that only
the FIRST Chicago beta has been released so far. The full feature set won't
appear until beta 2, sometime in September. You really can't make a quality
judgement at this point.
________Paul Cohen____________...@netaxs.com__________________
Philadelphia, PA __________________
Kelly Harrison
> want to be cut off from receiving any more Betas from Microsoft by
> talking about it?
answers that I've received. Both on the list and off.
> Not only is the offending party cut off, but so too
> is the employer/company.
However, as far as I can tell, nobody violated the NDA. I didn't
find out (nor was I looking for) anything substantive about the
implementation of feature sets, etc.... I can look in any magazine
and find out that stuff. I needed (and got) opinions about the
overall quality of the product, and nearly all comments were
positive.
> I know a lot of people (usually those not on
> the Beta) have problems with this "silence thang" [sic] but them's the
> rules...
While I might have liked to see the beta, I really have neither the
time nor the inclination to test it, play with it, or otherwise take
it around the block. There's work to be done around here, machines
and users to take care of. Not to mention the fact that we're right
in the middle of an NIH audit. However, decisions have to be made
about the allocation of funds for upgrades, new software, etc... and
any information that I can get my hands on about new products is
useful. You may not like it, but them's the facts... ;-) Thanks for
your opinion.
pwpa...@news.delphi.com
>>Posted on 5 Aug 1994 at 12:40:32 by Troy Stephens
>There is also the 3rd type of criticism: media egos with axes to grind against
>MicroSoft;-).
There are a lot of sites who make software-purchasing decisions in the
same fashion -- instead of going into the process with an open mind and
letting the chips fall where they may or looking at a company's future
(integration), the choice is made simply to be "anti-x" (fill in the "x").
>With all the anticipation of this product by the user community,
>news of poor beta performance would be everywhere on this and other MS-DOS
>oriented lists. The biggest problem is separating rumor from fact
>and getting people educated as to what Win 4.0 is actually supposed to do and
>how it is supposed to do it. I see a lot of basic confusion as to what
>Win 4.0 will and can do when I read some of these messages.
I have yet to see an early beta from any of the majour manufacturers have
a true bearing on the final performance. There's a lot of extra code
loaded in most betas which won't be there near the end. Talking about
performance during a beta just provides filler material for the magazines.