From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Date: 10 Jan 1993 18:19:56 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan10.060851.13819@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
|In article <1993Jan8.153214.887@aspentec.com> tto@aspentec.com writes:
|> [...sins of IBM deleted...]
|>
|>Similarly, I think the same sin is now committed by MicroSoft.  Specifically,
|>they are leading the public into thinking that a GUI is what an operating
|>system is all about; and that GUI is more important than a large (> 1M) 
|>addressing space, more important virtual memory, more important than protection
|>against errant user programs, more important than pre-emptive multi-tasking,
|>etc. 
|
|I disagree.  First, Microsoft windows DOES allow > 1M addressing space (one
|of the reasons that 32 bit Windows programs won't run on OS/2 2.0).  Second,
|pre-emptive multitasking is available under Windows as well (this is how
|DOS windows share timeslices... and if you don't think that NT provides
|pre-emptive multitasking, you are sadly mistaken).  Third, a GUI is important
|to modern operating system environments--and when one takes into account
|the HOW and WHY of how PC operating systems developed, one sees that
|all of MS's actions are really business decisions:

Joe, I think you have a misunderstanding here.  Time slicing !=
pre-emptive.  Windows has cooperative multitasking, but not pre-emptive.
If a program does not want to give up control, it can disable
interrupts and thats that.

Of course NT will have pre-emptive multitasking.

|My opinion on why so much has been focused on GUIs is that multitasking is
|not as important without a GUI.  Case in point, Unix has had multitasking
|abilities for years--but unless one was a programmer, programs were more
|or less run "serially"; and multitasking was basically used by a novice
|user (if one could say Unix _had_ any novice users) for drudgery such as
|pipes or servers... PEOPLE didn't multitask with computers, PROGRAMS did.

I tend to agree with you here, but people did multi-task implicitly
under unix.  If a program did A|B|C  A, B, and C were run
concurrently.  This type of behavior gets output to the user a lot
sooner than the DOS method of creating intermediate scratch files and
running the programs sequentially.  You didn't need to be a programmer
to do this, but I agree that the skill level of the operators was
quite a bit higher than the average GUI user.

|With the advent of multiple windows, suddenly multitasking became something
|that people could USE.  A User could start up a word processor in one 
|window, and check his email in another window... and the rapid growth in
|multitasking can probably be directly related to the acceptance of
|window environments.
|
|No wonder that the new PC operating systems have concentrated on the
|GUI; since the MAJORITY of PC users are non-programmers.   Concentrating
|on the GUI (and therefore the useability of both the OS and the application)
|leads to another benefit: more users.

[Stuff deleted to keep article at a reasonable length]

Actually, research has shown that people tend to think and respond at
several levels.  The reaction time and thus level of mental effort to
accomplish a task is a function of the inherent complexity of the task
as well as the presentation method.  The GUI method is easier to
understand and thus provides a lower effort level for most people.
The exceptions are those who have developed different habits through
experience.  For example, I tend to do a lot of work from the command
line because I am experienced and comfortable with it.  There is more
effort required to transition to a all GUI interface than to do what I
am used to.  Others without a high comfort level at the command line
prefer a GUI.

This is one of the reasons some people will prefer the Windows
interface to the WPS interface.  They are more familiar with Windows.
Is this wrong?  I think not.  Its really quite natural.  MS and IBM
are trying to expand the computer market to those not already familiar
with a GUI. (As you stated above.)  To those already familar with
Windows, the WPS is different and the behavior already learned
interferes with the proper use of the WPS.  To those not familiar with
the Windows paradigm, the WPS seems a bit more natural.

The issue of PC operating systems concentrating on windowing systems
is really quite natural.  The first public demonstration of a
windowing system that I know of was at the 1968 National Computer
Conference.  PC hardware has now progressed to a point where the
overhead necessary can be supported.

One of the big differences between OS/2 and Windows is the GUI
interface.  This will continue to be a major issue when NT is
eventually released.  At that time, the issues of multi-tasking will
become a non-issue.  I think NT and OS/2+LAN Extentions will have
essentially equivalent features and price.  The real difference will
be the GUI.  Of course there will be other issues such as DOS
compatability but that will tend to be a transitional issue.  The
overall decision will be whether or not people want to expend the
effort to learn a new GUI. (And this too will be alleviated by the
fact that OS/2 can emulate the Windows interface quite nicely.)

In summary, I see OS/2 as being the more flexible OS, but it does have
to overcome prior bad publicity and the inertia of Windows.  There are
also a lot of issues of course, such as the integrity of the
companies, customer support, etc.
--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy