From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: MS-FUD (was Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 20 Nov 92 08:55:34 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <92323.190558RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> FLATSCHER wrote:
> 
> Now, it is Microsoft itself which started to tout Windows as an operating
> system with the release of Windows 3.1. Until that release it was undisputed
> that Windows is nothing else than a DOS-enhancer, like e.g. GEM was one.
Was it undisputed?  Did people even care? 


> Seeing all these discussions in this area filling the bandwidth and MS-people
> participating it one must wonder, whether Microsoft just wants to test the
> arguments which speak for Windows being an operating system or not.
So, when do I get my extra pay for participating in these arguments?
In truth, as I have stated before, these are my own opinions.  I do not
speak for MS, MS does not speak for me.  I am not part of some grand
conspiracy to proove that windows is an OS, I am doing this on my own time.

> 
> This makes sense in the case that the FTC-probe splits Microsoft into an
> operating-system-company and in an application-company (likely, unlikely,
> who knows ?).
> 
> In that worst-case scenario the worst case would be, if the splitting of
> Microsoft would be such that Windows would be moved to the application
> company (where it belongs).
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ IYHO, of course.
Memory management, device driver management, etc are in apps?


> In that case, every ISV and user would see
> that Microsoft is controlling an application market for Windows simply
> because Microsoft owns that application itself; hence end-users would be
> "officially" presented with such a view. ISV know, because inherently end-
> users prefer to buy MS-apps, *because* Windows is from MS, *not* necessarily
> because of better MS-apps (if MS succeeds in its strategy, five years from
> today there would be MS-apps only on all platforms Windows is installed, no
> ISV-apps anymore...). Now, ISV probably would cease to develop apps, if it
> was official that Windows belongs to the MS-app-company which produces
> additionally apps for it (presently, they seem to know it, but not under-
> standing it).

ISV's will stop developing apps when they can no longer make money developing
apps.


>
> By the way, some indicators, whether Windows is an app or an operating system:
> 
> - DDE was implemented first in MS-Excel; this development was introduced into
>   Windows at a later time,

UNIX was developed by American Telephone and Telegraph, therefore it is not
an OS, but embedded software for telephone equipment.

> 
> - OLE was implemented by MS-products first and was introduced into Windows at
>   a later time,

Isn't this the same as with most operating systems?

> 
> - X-Windows on Unix is not an operating system, it is an application,
It may be if it had device driver handling, memory management, scheduling,
etc.  as does windows.

> 
> - Presentation Manager of OS/2 is not an operating system, it is an add-on-
>   app (remember OS/2 1.0 had no presentation manager or the like ?),
see above
> 
> - Windows NT 3.1 is an operating system with a graphical user-interface-app
>   add-on called Win 32, actually MS just dumped presentation manager in favor
>   for Windows in a 32bit-form.

Win 32 is the name of the API that ISV's will hopefully use to write 32 bit
apps for Windows NT,etc.  It is equivalent to the "Windows API" not Windows.
and the "PM API" not PM.  The "App" you mention is the Shell.  I would, for
the most part, consider that part of the OS.  Windows NT did NOT grab
the scheduler from windows (it is preemptive) or other parts that make up
an operating system.

> - Gem and other graphical apps for DOS were no operating systems either but
>   plain apps, allowing other apps to run under its control ...

Windows does more than Gem at the system level, as most people have conceeded.
Such as scheduling, memory management, etc.

> 
> Just because an app allows another app to run under its control cooperatively
> does not make that app an operating system.
Just because an OS uses an external piece of software for it's file system
does not make it an app.

(These are all the same arguments that have been flying back and forth
for a long time now.  Please don't bother to reply unless you have new,
improved, interesting arguments)


petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc