From: blakeco@microsoft.com (Blake Coverett)
Subject: Re: The Next Version of Windows for DOS
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:42:33 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Canada Inc.

In article <Pine.3.05.9211151132.B23267-c100000@antelope.wcc.edu> Mike Lieberman <cwmliebe@ANTELOPE.WCC.EDU> writes:
>Don, Microsoft says a lot of things to keep people from jumping ship to
>things like OS/2.  They have not been known for complete candor when it
>comes to product positioning and capabilities in the past, nor are they
>being frank now.  Say what you will about this 'happy family', what we're
>about to witness is children running away from home and a broken marriage.
>32-bit multi-threading is either going to blow the 16 bit stuff out of the
>water or die on the vine.  It has no way to co-exist.  To buy MS's
>argument you would have to believe that the only stuff that was going to
>be written for the 32-bit code would be server software and even they
>aren't cute enough to suggest that.

The above arguement is analagous to stating a few of years ago that Windows
was either going to blow the DOS stuff out of the water or die on the vine.
Consider it in that context.  Yes I have no doubt that 32-bit systems will
eventually supplant 16-bit ones, but it isn't going to happen overnight and
since both will coexist for some time we will continue to have Windows 3.1
and WFW along side Win NT.  Microsoft has already learnt the lesson that 
you can't leave the old systems behind.  (That is what happened when OS/2
was first released.)

The last argument above by way of comparison is like saying it is unbelievable
that companys would continue to write software for DOS once they've started
writing for Windows.  I hardly think so.

>> Now about "Win 32 for DOS."  Recently, Microsoft has been indicating that
>> it would not provide complete 32 bit support for the next version of
>> Windows for DOS (Win 3.x).  This is further evidenced by their decision
>> not to support 32 bit processing in DOS 6.0.  Mike Maples, I believe,
>> argues that it would be unproductive to provide complete 32 bit support in
>> Win 3.x because of the hardware requirements, that's why Microsoft has NT.

The wording is tricky here.  There will be a future version of Windows on DOS
that supports the full 32-bit API.  (What version number that product will
be given is not decided.)  Whether that will be the next version of Windows
on DOS is also not decided.  I can see for example where it would be
possible to have a 3.11 (or some such number) that brings the non-networking
portions of Windows in sync with WFW.  [Insert BIG disclaimer here, I have
no knowledge of such a product I am strictly speculating.]

>Yes and that's why there will be two flavors of NT, one for servers and
>one for workstations, i.e. the rest of us.  And that's because Win 3.1
>can't run this code.

This doesn't make sense, which code?

Yes, Windows NT will be bundled two ways (at least) Windows NT and 
Lan Manager NT.  Windows NT (being a functional superset of WFW)
has built-in networking both client and server.  Lan Manager NT adds
the appropriate pieces to create an enterprise server.  Things like
Domain wide administration, RAID 5 disk drivers, Mac and RAS services, etc.

The reason for having these two bundles is not "because Win 3.1 can't run
this code."

>> Although this thread on 32 bit processing is interesting, it misses my
>> original inquiry, which was -- how much will Microsoft change the
>> interface in Win 3.x given that NT is now scheduled for delivery shortly
>> before Win 3.x (i.e. late next year).  If Microsoft stays with its stated
>> position to keep all three operating environments uniform in appearance,
>> can we expect Program Manager and File Manager to remain about the same?
>> How about a button bar in the Win 3.x File Manager (seems likely given the
>> File Manager in WFW)?

Hmm.. I think this assumes too much about a release of a 3.x version of Windows
on DOS.  If you mean something like what I speculated about above, I would
expect it to have the same interface as WFW and Win NT.  There will be a new
interface some time in the future as well but it will appear across the
Windows family simultaneously.

>> As a textbook author, these concerns are more of interest to me than what
>> lies under the hood.
>>
>> Don

Feel free to email directly if you have more specific questions.

>Just as the FM in 3.0 was so bad that MS shipped out a early
>version of the 3.1 FM that showed up on BBS'es a year before Win 3.1

Grr... actually an illegally distributed beta version of the 3.1 FileManager
showed up on BBS's without MS's approval and the reputable sights removed
it when MS discovered the problem and notified them.

Aside:
  This will be my last public response to this thread.  I had to count
  to ten a couple of times before answering this one.  It gets a little
  frustrating being told I am either lying or don't know what Microsoft
  is doing.

-Blake
-- 
#include <std/disclaimer.h>                       blakeco@microsoft.com
Mail Flames, Post Apologies.                      ...!uunet!microsoft!blakeco
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU