From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 4 Oct 92 12:49:25 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Sep30.201520.16617@microsoft.com> gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:

>...
>Very few of the readers here - and nearly none of the posters - have much
>understanding of reality.  Let me clarify three important points:
:-)

>1) Although current versions of Windows do run on top of DOS, and their
>	performance and robustness are somewhat hindered by that, Windows
>	and windows apps don't HAVE to run on top of DOS.  And in the future
>	they won't.  

>	So when people say that Windows doesn't multitask as smoothly as OS/2,
>	*right now*, they're right.  But when they suggest that this is
>	a permanent feature which will cripple Windows in the future, they're
>	wrong.  Expect to see some real product demonstrating this "pretty
>	soon now".  (Intentional vagueness cannot be clarified, sorry)

Very true. OS/2 2.0 proves the possibility of running Windows 3.1 software
smoothly already. It shouldn't be too hard for Microsoft to achieve this
as well. Maybe MS-DOS 6.0 will have the needed power for this which
MS promised us for MS-DOS 5.0. 

>2) The technology.  People laud OS/2's multitasking and relative robustness
>	brought about by strong protection mechanisms.  But what they
>	don't realize is that these are not IBM features, they're Microsoft
>	features.  Microsoft employees decided that these were key features
>	for future desk top operating systems.  I was the lead designer and
>	I was the one who selected these

Which means they are MS IDEAS, but they remain IBM FEATURES. There are
probably some idiots at IBM who wanted to change DOS less than you did.
Maybe they where right on that given that OS/2 1.0 was too different
from DOS to be accepted by the users. On the other hand for the future
protection is a good idea. You have seen this right, maybe for DOS machines
a bit too soon. The 286 wasn't ready for this, the 386 clearly is.

>	Something that very few are aware of is that IBM's original proposal
>	for the "successor to DOS" operating system had no protection
>	at all.  They liked the flexibility of hooking DOS's int
>	vectors, so their initial proposal was for an operating system which
>	used a giant call-out table, a table to be hooked by any and all
>	applications.  "You want to run at a higher priority?  No problem,
>	just hook the scheduler!"  This idea was incredibly flexible, but
>	it was also incredibly disasterous.  Microsoft folks (led by me
>	on the technical side) made presentations to IBM management and
>	got this stupid idea squashed.  This gives you some kind of idea
>	what the future holds for those who run IBM-designed operating
>	systems!

As I stated before the problems OS/2 1.0 found in the market proved
your aproach to be wrong. The 286 just wasn't powerfull enough for
this. The 386 is and now the time is right.

>3) The people who originally designed every key feature of OS/2 2.0 (except
>	for the WPS, thank god) are all still here and are working on
>	superior successor products.  You'll see them over the next year

You seem to think IBM only has idiots left. IBM did already know
about designing and creating operating systems before Microsoft
was born.

>	or so.  IBM likes to take credit for our work on OS/2 (I've an
>	IBM promotional video tape in which some IBM suit takes credit
>	for designing HPFS, something that I did single-handedly.)

Thats not completely honest of IBM. 

>	It will be interesting to see the schedule and content of future
>	OS/2 releases; the first which really *are* written by IBM.
>	I'll be the first to give them credit for *those* find products.

I'll remember you said this.

>	Their track record for both design and implimentation is terrible,
>	so don't make any bets....

Noncense. They sure made some big mistakes in the past (something
Microsoft did as well, we are all human after all) but this claim
can not be made. And don't waste my time on naming some of their
big mistakes, everyone knows enough about IBM's successes to see 
the relativeness of this kind of claims.

>gordon letwin
>	not a Microsoft spokesbeing


Nico E. de Vries
 _ _
 O O  USENET nevries@cc.ruu.nl This text reflects MY opinions, nothing else.
  o   This text is supplied 'AS IS', no waranties of any kind apply.
 \_/  Don't waste your time on complaining about my hopeless typostyle.