From: thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark Thomsen)
Subject: Re: New idea ... (long)
Organization: TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 02:58:51 GMT

Excuse the lengthy response, but there are several points in here that
have been discussed to death in our little shop and ... I just couldn't
resist getting them out there/here/in InterCyberNetSpace.

Jeff Bone writes
> Two small points.  First, the #apps under DOS argument doesn't cut it in
> my book, because 99% of those apps are pure crap.  IMHO, there are already
> scads more truly killer apps running on NeXTStep than DOS anyway.

This, and most technical defenses, are perhaps true. My point was that there
are more DOS apps and that there is a huge community out there loyal to them.
And though most are probably useless, weak, and insubstantial software;
 it is also true that there is a lot of useless, weak, and insubstantial
software running under the dozen variants of Unix and the multiple variants
of GUIs. Yes, even a few clunkers on NeXTSTEP!

And I offer one domain to point out that the defense may not be true.

Lots of Unix people (Unix in their classroom, Unix on their desk, ...) still
believe that they have the best development environment. They are, as many can
attest, way behind the power curve. Even with InterfaceBuilder and the many
reuseable components on NeXTSTEP, the best overall development environments are
on Symbolics and PCs. The rapid prototyping and construction of UI-intensive
apps on the NeXT is a huge leap over most Unix development stuff, but not all
that far ahead of the PC world.

Don't belittle the PC world so easily. I did for years around this shop and
PC users (some of who are also NeXT developers) have pounded me with fact and
demo until I now see my blindness for what it was. Yes, the GUI API for
Windows 3.x is messy and yes group programming without the TCP/IP/NFS seemless
underpinnings is messy, but there are a lot of good-to-great interoperable
tools for your favorite choice of language and *full-scale integrated
environments*.

I summarize: The number of apps and number of people on DOS today is nothing
to sneeze at. The bulk of people in the U.S. (at least) who will ever use a
desktop computer currently have DOS-PC systems. This never-before-seen
phenomena (better than 50% saturation of the potential market by one flavor of  
computer system) cannot be ignored. And the technical finesse and quality
of PC software products peak perhaps as high or higher than Unix equivalents.

> Second, most serious implementations of UNIX these days offer some
> degree of DOS compatibility, either in the vendor distribution or via
> a third-party product.

My understanding is that most DOS emulators are not righteous (excluding the
Intel-based systems you mention). SoftPC is an attempt that falls short of
the DOS compatability that most DOS-intensive users need. Also, people who
depend upon DOS to run critical apps are well-advised to invest in a less
expensive DOS platform that is more certain to run it righteous. To date I
have yet to hear of a software vendor of DOS products testing their software
under a DOS emulator.

> Now, last I heard, the reverse isn't true:  I don't believe I can take
> UNIXy apps and run them under DOS, even with the benefit of some third
> party software.  ;)  Correct me if I'm wrong. ;) ;)

I've never seen it, but then if you are paying $300 for the app under DOS
I doubt you will pay for Unix emulation and $1000 for the equivalent app
(even from the original vendor). We ask ourselves: Why do people other than
us propeller heads run Unix? There is the 32-bit address arguement (that
is vanishing for all intents and purposes). There is the more powerful
computer arguement (one that few real-world apps seem to require). There
is the custom software is easier arguement (one that is dubious - see above
on PC development - at least relative to non-NeXT platforms). There is the
pre-integrated networking, pre-integrated multi-tasking, and the large
collection of Unix utilities (perl, awk, yacc, grep, ...) - most can be
overcome at reasonable expense under DOS.

> Bottom line:  SVR4, SunOS, possibly other UNIXes, NeXTStep, and even
> the poor old Mac, Amiga, and Atari ST(!) can run DOS apps via SoftPC
> or something similar.  The converse is just simply never true.  That
> should tell you something about the flexibility and inherit limitations
> which you get with DOS... :P :)

Without a doubt Unix has more flexibility as an OS than DOS. This has
not supported, to date, a righteous DOS emulator. But I don't think the absense  
indicates it cannot be done. I frankly don't see where a market for Unix-on-
top-of-DOS would exist. If you run DOS you are fairly focused on specific
apps and have tailored your machine configuration to run those apps. To
run Unix you probably would have to increase the configuration ($) to run
an app that certainly already exists on DOS. If you must have Unix to go
beyond DOS limits then you probably will opt to just run Unix (already there
for the machines you name). The other situation - DOS on non-Intel machines
- is pretty well a vendor and Microsoft issue. With NT MS will have something
that directly (I guess - we shall see) execute DOS programs on non-Intel CPUs.

It will be "amusing" from the NeXT perspective to see how well NeXTSTEP does
in volume on Intel platforms versus how widely NT goes on non-Intel platforms.
Despite the probable superior technology in NeXTSTEP (and certainly more
mature), the shear volume of DOS apps will make a market for NT from day
one.

OBTW, I side with NeXTSTEP but not because I think it will succeed due to
superior technology. If I (well, we, Gemstone Systems) wrote another DOS
app we would be lost in the shuffle or swamped by a Goliath company. On
NeXTSTEP we can make a difference and will not be swamped. But my fear and
strategic risk is that NT will limit the NeXTSTEP volume market to something
short of it's technical merits. I pray that your version of the future is
close to correct, but we must deal with the competition that is real and not
wave our arms to make it vanish.

Enough of this long winded cure for insomnia,

Mark R. Thomsen
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy