From: adamba@microsoft.com (Adam Barr)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:55:52 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Sep29.012024.3870@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.171757.10965@microsoft.com>,
>adamba@microsoft.com (Adam Barr) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep26.012811.6658@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>>Now, where is OS/2 headed?
>>>
>>>In 1993 ("OS/2 2.x"):
>>>** Win32/Win32s API compatibility.
>>>** Security.  B2 level features will be incorporated; C2 certifiable.
>>>** Pen/PM.
>>>** "Generic Client" support.
>>>
>>>In 1993 to 1994 ("OS/2 3.x"):
>>>** DCE/RPC.
>>>** POSIX compliance.
>>>** C2 certification granted.
>>>** Symmetric multiprocessing (SMP).
>>>** Portability.
>>
>>Call me a cynic, but it sounds like IBM has taken the current NT
>>feature list and stated that everything on it will eventually be
>>supported in OS/2. So, how is this not FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, AND
>>DOUBT in its basest, vilest, lowest, most venal form?
>>
>     Yes, many of the features on this list are the same features
>which are on the NT feature list (most of which I don't need...),
>but keep in mind that these things have been promised for quite a
>while (most of them, anyway).  They probably thought that they would
>be taken care of in the next incarnation of OS/2 (3.0), which MS was
>supposed to be working on.  Since MS and IBM have split, the
>features are still promised, only IBM is going to have to work on
>them on their own.

This is true for some, but not all. For example Win32 support is
obviously a new thing, the "generic client" support sounds exactly
like something Microsoft is planning for NT. POSIX compliance and
security are also things IBM started talking about after they
were talked about for NT.

>     Some may say it's FUD, others might say it's a clear path for
>the future of the OS.  It appears to me that IBM heard people's
>concerns about future compatability, etc. and mapped out a future
>plan to show people that the OS will not be abandoned.

If you want to call it a clear path for the future that is fine,
but then don't turn around and accuse Microsoft of FUD for releasing
the pre-release of NT, or for talking about Cairo in public, or
for comparing the features in a released IBM product to those in
a future Microsoft product (I'm not accusing you personally of
doing this).

You are right that IBM is hearing people's concerns. It sounds like
what people are saying is "we want NT".


>
>>sense). Every other item is stuff that is working *now* on NT, not
>>at some miraculous future time.
>>
>     Hmmmm...  This is a very debatable point.  If it's working
>*now* on NT, where's the OS?  Why don't I see it on sale anywhere?
>Can I evaluate any of the copies which are on sale *now* (without
>being told 'it's not for evaluation purposes!').

You will have to trust me on this. When the beta ships, you'll
ne able to see for yourself if you want. Besides, most of this
stuff is in the current pre-release! Zachmann had a comment about
how he couldn't verify Microsoft's claims for NT because the
current release was not a beta...this is a bogus argument,
he is saying "although SMP support is in the pre-release and
works fine, I can't confirm that SMP support will be in the
final product, because the pre-release is not a beta." You
have to agree that Microsoft's claims of SMP support have much
more weight right now than IBM's.


>     BTW, I've never thought of IBM as the *master*  of FUD.
>Perhaps you should look at some of the things MS says in their adds
>and statements! :-)

Ahem, I guess we're just really good at communicating a clear
path to the future.... (that was a joke by the way)


- adam
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware