From: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: Re: Is NT vs OS/2 really the subject?
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:19:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.175602.840@debet.nhh.no> si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no writes:
>Regarding the OS/2 vs NT or vice versa discussion...
>
>Is really Microsoft trying to go head to head with OS/2 with NT, or is
>OS/2 not the main competitor?
>
>The following thing makes me ask...
>
>NT is clearly a server operating system, with a lot of things bundeled
>which the traditional computer user with his PERSONAL computer will not
>need. This is mainly in the network section.
>
>NT is very hardware demanding in its base package.
>
>NT does NOT run Windows 3.X and DOS programs well enough, and therefore
>is not a competitor in the YET ANOTHER DOS MULTITASKER arena.
>
>Is really Microsoft aiming at UNIX with NT. Is it actually UNIX they are
>trying to get at?
>
>Just wondered...

	Various comments from various persons have lead me to believe that
NT is after *everything*.  Here's the way I see it:

	The low-end PC is growing in capabilities, so much so that
in three years every computer will be plenty powerful enough to run
NT.  MS has been courting developers in a big way, to get all the
needed applications onto NT, so that they may kill off DOS, and
therefore reliance on PC hardware.

	Unix is the OS that you find on every machine that's not a PC,
because it's portable; USL sells hardware vedors the sources and a
license to resell binaries derived from them, after which USL doesn't
care what happens with them.  Unfortunately, hardware vendors'
attempts to "distinguish" themselves, coupled with their complete
freedom to do so, have resulted in a proliferation of different
"flavors" or Unix.  Porting from platform to platform remains
difficult.  Application developers prefer the "mass market" of PCs,
and as a result, only those vertical applications which have a dire
need for greater capabilities are created for workstations, minis, and
mainframes.

	So there's NT, which may be ported to new platforms easily.
Microsoft retains control of the sources, and tightly controls the
API, so that there may be no distinction between hardware vendors'
offerings.  (MS can do this because they don't sell hardware.)  Now
developers can rely upon NT's consistency across platforms, and
porting becomes painless, and in fact a binary for one architecture
runs on all machines of the same architecture.  (Such is not true of
Unix.)  So therefore developers create the wealth of applications that
DOS enjoys, for NT.

	Next, users see how this turns *all* hardware of *any* size (micro
to supercomputer) into a commodity, and so they buy NT and NT
applications.  Voila, Microsoft has become the world's sole OS
provider.  Hardware prices plummet, because now the only distinction
is raw performance; they all run the same OS and applications.  A 40
MIPS workstation, or 40 MIPS departmental server, drops to the same
price as a 486DX2/66 PC, or else it disappears entirely (who needs
it?).

	Intel goes out of business; the x86 line can't compete with the
current RISC offerings in performance, and Intel can't seem to get a
successful RISC CPU out the door.

	With the OS advantage, Microsoft applications outperform all
competing application vendors, and soon they sell every single piece
of software purchased in the world.

	And then, Microsoft develops it's own sattelite-launched
thermonuclear arsenal with the obscene profits of it's complete world
software monopoly, and they declare Bill Gates to be the Supreme
Leader of the Universe.  After turning a few rebellious countries into
atomic dust, the remaining governments crumble.  The population of
world is enslaved, to dig in the dirt, to provide the Microsoft upper
class with luxuries befitting their status and foresight.
-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...