From: gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:15:20 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep17.233946.1@vax1.umkc.edu> ghdai@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
>>villa_t@cs.uwa.oz.au (Vim Tilla) writes:
>
>>I've been reading this group for a few months and have made the occasional
>>(biased) comment here and there. However, some recent experiences have
>>lead me into a belief that Microsoft is going to be in some rather big
>>trouble within the next 5-10 years.
>
>Much worse than that, as can be seen from your last two paragraphes, the
>Windoze garbage on top of DOS is simply a historic mistake that made by MS
>and that has been hindering healthy development and distribution of a real
>powerful, pre-emptive multitasking OS for a current PC user, like OS/2 2.0.
>Yeah, MS involved in the development of OS/2, which is good.  

>[MS is] trying to force people like little lambs to go their way, no matter
>whether it is the best.

Very few of the readers here - and nearly none of the posters - have much
understanding of reality.  Let me clarify three important points:

1) Although current versions of Windows do run on top of DOS, and their
	performance and robustness are somewhat hindered by that, Windows
	and windows apps don't HAVE to run on top of DOS.  And in the future
	they won't.  

	So when people say that Windows doesn't multitask as smoothly as OS/2,
	*right now*, they're right.  But when they suggest that this is
	a permanent feature which will cripple Windows in the future, they're
	wrong.  Expect to see some real product demonstrating this "pretty
	soon now".  (Intentional vagueness cannot be clarified, sorry)

2) The technology.  People laud OS/2's multitasking and relative robustness
	brought about by strong protection mechanisms.  But what they
	don't realize is that these are not IBM features, they're Microsoft
	features.  Microsoft employees decided that these were key features
	for future desk top operating systems.  I was the lead designer and
	I was the one who selected these
	principles and fought for them.  (Other Microsoft folks fully 
	supported these ideas - they are pretty obvious - so it wasn't me
	alone).

	Something that very few are aware of is that IBM's original proposal
	for the "successor to DOS" operating system had no protection
	at all.  They liked the flexibility of hooking DOS's int
	vectors, so their initial proposal was for an operating system which
	used a giant call-out table, a table to be hooked by any and all
	applications.  "You want to run at a higher priority?  No problem,
	just hook the scheduler!"  This idea was incredibly flexible, but
	it was also incredibly disasterous.  Microsoft folks (led by me
	on the technical side) made presentations to IBM management and
	got this stupid idea squashed.  This gives you some kind of idea
	what the future holds for those who run IBM-designed operating
	systems!

3) The people who originally designed every key feature of OS/2 2.0 (except
	for the WPS, thank god) are all still here and are working on
	superior successor products.  You'll see them over the next year
	or so.  IBM likes to take credit for our work on OS/2 (I've an
	IBM promotional video tape in which some IBM suit takes credit
	for designing HPFS, something that I did single-handedly.)
	It will be interesting to see the schedule and content of future
	OS/2 releases; the first which really *are* written by IBM.
	I'll be the first to give them credit for *those* find products.
	Their track record for both design and implimentation is terrible,
	so don't make any bets....

gordon letwin
	not a Microsoft spokesbeing

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy