From: bleys@infopls.chi.il.us (Kevin Boyd)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Offical Windows NT information from Microsoft!!!
Message-Id: <1992Apr7.340637.1dG0F@infopls.chi.il.us>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 23:02:26 CDT
Organization: INFOPLUS support, Wheeling, IL

mo@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mohit Goyal) writes:

> Everyone / Anyone:
> 
> This note is from the Altanta IBM BBS.  You might want to use this
> information when people and the press bring up Windows/NT.
> 
> - MS is saying existing hardware is not enough.  Yet, that was why OS/2
> is/was unacceptable.  So why is Windows/NT an acceptable future but
> OS/2 is not?
> 
> - Notice IBM never gave "marching orders" with OS/2 2.0!
> 
> - People should ask (demand) magazine reviewers to use the Windows NT
> hardware requirements Microsoft gave to the PC industry for OS/2
> reviews!!  (32MB RAM, 586 (or 486-33+), 19" monitor, 300MB drive,
> 1,280x1024 resolution).
> 
> IF WINDOWS/NT IS A SERVER SYSTEM THEN WHY THE GOOD MONITOR AND DISPLAY
> for something in the closet???!!!  MS doesn't plan on Windows/NT to be
> a server system!
> 
>  Message :      10865 (OS/2 General Usage Q&A)  Date... :       3/19/92
>  From... :      Dave Both                       Refer.. :       None
>  To..... :      All                             Sec'ty. :       Public
>  Subject :      Win* NT requirements            Rec'vd. :       No
> 
> Electronic News 3/9/92 Page 11
> 
> MICROSOFT ("MARCHING ORDERS"):  According to this item, Microsoft
> "issued the PC industry its marching orders, releasing a list of
> specifications for hardware designed to run WINDOWS NT and pressing
> vendors to comply by this fall."
> 
> - Microsoft wants the PC vendors to offer systems with more memory and
> DASD with "such features as WINDOWS NT compatibility, graphics and
> multimedia replacing price or brute performance as the central selling
> point for PCs."
> 
> - Microsoft indicated they plan to include a number of hardware
> features into their WINDOWS NT operating system via a Hardware
> Abstraction Layer (HAL) that includes ROM BIOS, I/O bus controller,
> etc.
> 
> - Microsoft indicates that the "ideal" WINDOWS NT system will be based
> on an Intel 586 (or 486 running 33-50 Mhz) or a MIPS computer R4000 RISC
> chip; 8MB of memory minimum (Microsoft recommends 32MB up); CD-ROM
> drive and a standard 300MB hard drive and a 19" monitor with 1,280x
> 1,024 resolution.  Microsoft also wants to include MPC audio,
> multimedia and network capabilities and a graphics accelerator chip
> 
> - Microsoft indicates that the minimum requirement for the first
> version of the WINDOWS NT-based system will be a 32-bit system with 8MB
> of memory and a 1,024x768 resolution monitor.
> 
> <>Reading this convinced me to buy and try OS/2 v2.0<>

Well, perhaps that is an "ideal" platform for NT, but it also sounds
very much like the "Ultimate PC" that PC Computing built a while back.
It certainly is not what is required for NT.  I have spent quite a bit
of time over the last to days at COMDEX in Chicago working with Windows
NT and talking to the Microsoft folks about it.  

It's true that 8 Meg RAM is the minimum and the current alpha version
takes between 30-40 meg or hard disk space.  It is difficult to tell
how much disk space the release version will be as it is both a ways
off, and the alpha versions include quite a bit of debug code and 
symbol libraries.

It certainly does not sound like NT is going to "just" be for network
servers, but it certainly is going to be the "high end" of the windows
line.  In fact, Bill Gates said rather emphatically Monday morning that
Windows NT is not going to be for everyone, but it is being positioned
to fill the a market niche that calls for a high performance system 
that really takes advantage of the hardware design. (Something Windows
3.0 and 3.1 can't do due to the need for backward compatibility and
users who want to run them on 286's and 386's with a minimum of 
memory and hard disk space.)

I worked with NT on an NEC machine with 8 (I think) fast CPU's and
on a 386 machine with 8 meg of RAM.  I must admit that I was impressed
by what I was able to make it do on a 386 with minimal hardware.  It
giving performance levels that would have required far more hardware
with Windows 3.1.  

At the same time, I won't be surprised if Windows NT ends up having
trouble with many current and older applications.  I'm sure the 
Microsoft folks will disagree with this statement, but when the
objective is optimizing system resource usage and backward compatibility 
is secondary, I suspect that applications that took shortcuts when they
were developed are going to be exposed in a more optimized environment.

For what it's worth...
My company already has a large installed Windows 3.0 user base.  I
anticipate that we will upgrade most everyone to Windows 3.1.  From
what I have seen from working with the product and attendance at
2 technical seminars, I don't think that will be a difficult decision.
I have yet to see any compelling reason to switch to OS/2 2.0 although
I plan to do a thourough evaluation of the product.  Hopefully we
will be a beta site for Windows NT this summer and be able to get
a jump on how and if we will want to use it in the company.

Kevin Boyd
Disclaimer:  The comments and opinions expressed herein are in no way
indicative or reflective of the corporate policy of my employer.


Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms