Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 11:28:32 -0700
From:         Mike Lieberman <cwmliebe@ANTELOPE.WCC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The Next Version of Windows for DOS

On Sun, 15 Nov 1992 BARKER%GONZAGA.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU wrote:

> Mike, WFW is an extension of Windows for DOS 3.1, however, Blake is
> correct in his assertion that Microsoft's stated position is that all
> three products (i.e. WFW, Windows for DOS, and Windows NT) represent a
> "family" of operating environments meant to give the user an unified
> interface.  They are intended co-exist easily.  Windows for DOS is
> intended for those that do most of their work independently, while WFW is
> meant for those in workgroup situations and NT for those "power users."

Don, Microsoft says a lot of things to keep people from jumping ship to
things like OS/2.  They have not been known for complete candor when it
comes to product positioning and capabilities in the past, nor are they
being frank now.  Say what you will about this 'happy family', what we're
about to witness is children running away from home and a broken marriage.
32-bit multi-threading is either going to blow the 16 bit stuff out of the
water or die on the vine.  It has no way to co-exist.  To buy MS's
argument you would have to believe that the only stuff that was going to
be written for the 32-bit code would be server software and even they
aren't cute enough to suggest that.

> Now about "Win 32 for DOS."  Recently, Microsoft has been indicating that
> it would not provide complete 32 bit support for the next version of
> Windows for DOS (Win 3.x).  This is further evidenced by their decision
> not to support 32 bit processing in DOS 6.0.  Mike Maples, I believe,
> argues that it would be unproductive to provide complete 32 bit support in
> Win 3.x because of the hardware requirements, that's why Microsoft has NT.

Yes and that's why there will be two flavors of NT, one for servers and
one for workstations, i.e. the rest of us.  And that's because Win 3.1
can't run this code.

> Although this thread on 32 bit processing is interesting, it misses my
> original inquiry, which was -- how much will Microsoft change the
> interface in Win 3.x given that NT is now scheduled for delivery shortly
> before Win 3.x (i.e. late next year).  If Microsoft stays with its stated
> position to keep all three operating environments uniform in appearance,
> can we expect Program Manager and File Manager to remain about the same?
> How about a button bar in the Win 3.x File Manager (seems likely given the
> File Manager in WFW)?
>
> As a textbook author, these concerns are more of interest to me than what
> lies under the hood.
>
> Don

Based on early indications I just about bet you'll see the Win 3.1
interface migrate to look like the WFW interface. There's no reason not to
do so and every reason to keep it standard.  Porting between code sets is
easier.  Just as the FM in 3.0 was so bad that MS shipped out a early
version of the 3.1 FM that showed up on BBS'es a year before Win 3.1
shipped, the 3.1 FM still needs work.  The WFW version makes sense in
resolving some of that.  The PrintManager will be modified so that printer
installation, porting, network connection, and options will be in the same
code as the spooling functions.

The Program Manager will likely look much the same as it does now.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU