From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:37:24 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep30.201520.16617@microsoft.com>, gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon
 Letwin) writes:
>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.
Well, until there are some pretty dramatic changes, DOS is the only platform
it will run on.  (OS/2 runs it, but DOS is still at its heart)
>
>       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)
>
That doesn't make it any more excusable.  Your statement is FUD until
demostrated otherwise.  On such statements if you cannot be clear, then don't
say anything, all you are doing is increasing the S/N ratio.

>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!
>
Yes I'm sure it was all due to MicroSoft.  You present a story that cannot be
verified, and expect everyone to accept it as gospel?  Come on.  IBM has made
their share of blunders, but they are no where near as incompetant as you make
them out to be.  They may very well have had that idea and what you say may be
true, but it is still FUD nonetheless.

>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....

You haven't taken a real close look at OS/2 have you?  First, the WPS is a
much more powerfu shell than that sorry excuse for a shell MS has stapled on
Windows.  Second, the 1.x versions that BOTH companies worked on, had such
wonderful features as their awe inspiring DOS support, the inability to run on
even a significant percentage of the day's systems, etc.. etc.. etc..
MicroSoft screwed this one up every bit as badly as IBM.  The difference is
that MicroSoft (this means you Gordon) don't want to own up to it.  Instead
you are distancing yourselves as far away from it as possible.  OS/2 2.0 was
written by IBM.  With the exception of the features they kept from 1.x it is a
fairly thorough re-write.  You of all people should know this.
>
>gordon letwin
>       not a Microsoft spokesbeing
>

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------