From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 04:04:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep16.020900.13303@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Neither Lee Reiswig nor John Soyring made any statements even remotely
>encouraging "June CSD" rumors, and let's put this to rest now.  If
>anyone can supply information on the contrary, even quoting an unnamed
>IBM source who is speaking in an official capacity for the company,
>then go right ahead.  If you can't supply proof, well, let's end this
>thread, OK?
>
...
[Stuff about Reiswig deleted-- Reiswig did that on video and
don't have a transcript.]
...
>John Soyring was interviewed by Joel Siragher on the same day.  The
>interview appeared in Issue 3 of OS/2 Monthly Magazine.  Here's the
>relevant excerpt:
>
>"Joel: I understand that sometime in June, you're coming out with a
>32-bit graphic engine upgrade."
>
>"John Soyring: ...Our top priority remains quality.  What we want to
>do is get the full 32-bit graphics engine out among the beta testers
>and get the feedback from them.  They'll tell us if it's right, and
>when it's right we'll ship it.  We'll update OS/2 2.0 at that time, or
>allow users to update as well as update our own manufactured line."
>
>In short, Soyring ACTIVELY DISCOURAGED speculation on a June delivery
>date.  Again, that was on April 7, 1992, at Comdex/Spring in Chicago.

This is ACTIVELY DISCOURAGING?  Here's the whole text from that question...
let's let people decide for themselves.

JOEL: I understand that sometime in June, you're coming out with a 32-bit
graphic engine upgrade.

JOHN SOYRING:  First of all, the version of OS/2 that's in the shrink-wrapped
package has a hybrid 16/32-bit engine.  It's not a 16-bit. What happened
is, we had two parallel development teams creating the graphics engine.
First of all, we had this team that was working on the 16-bit
engine oversion 1, and this team continued to work.  In parallel
with that, we set up another team that was working with
Micrographics, who was doing this work under contract with us, so
it's entirely IBM code, and giving us great tips because they
understand the Windows world so well.  They've been working with
Windows applications a long time and they understand graphics
extremely well.  Their products have been exceedingly successful
in the industry. What happened is this development team who
started with a 16-bit engine all of a sudden had this idea that
"we're not constrained any longer by having it assumed that we
have to run on both 286s and 386s." So they went and took a look
at their code and said, "We can rip out some of this code and
modify some of this code because we know that it's always going
to be on a 32-bit Intel processor." So they went through and
ripped out code and modified code, and a lot of it's 16-bit but a
lot of it's 32-bit. That's why it's a hybrid, 16-bit/32-bit. They
were able to meet or exceed the performance specification we had
set for the 32-bit graphics engine. This level of graphics engine
also received extensive beta testing at more than thirty thousand
sites.

So we got to the point in March where the 32-bit graphics engine
was done. They finished the coding, we finished the internal
testing, and it was meeting its specifications. We also had the
16-bit which had been tested for many months.  So we had a
decision. Both were operating very well. One had extensive
external testing as well. Which one did we ship initially? Which
one would you ship if quality was your top objective?  The good
news is, we designed the system very modularly.  That allows us
to easily update various elements of the system. The graphics
engine happens to be one area of the system that's easy to
update, along with device drivers.  Our top priority remains
quality. What we want to do is get the full 32-bit graphics
engine out among the beta testers and get the feedback from
them. They'll tell us if it's right, and when it's right we'll
ship it.  We'll update OS/2 2.0 at that time, or allow users to
update as well as update our own manufactured line.

The nice thing, this new code is not only 32-bit code, but it's
written in C and it's desinged to be highly portable. So that
leads to something else in the future which we've publically
stated we're going to do, and that's create a 32-bit version of
OS/2 which is portable, and we're going to do it at least as well
as the Windows NT product, and I suspect we're going to do even a
better product.
------End of the response to that question---------

To a point blank question about the 32-bit graphics engine
coming out in June, he answers that the 32-bit engine
was almost ready (actually I tone it down a bit... I think
you could read what he says as it IS ready... but I'll settle
for almost.)

Considering it's still not out in September 15, do you think it
was almost ready?

Doesn't the comment saying they want to get it out to the beta
testers encourage the idea it will be out in the immediate
future?

Did he in any way discourage the idea that it was coming out in
June?

If quality was their top objective, why did they rush it out
the door March 31?

Do you believe his explanation of "what happened"?

Besides... I never said that Reiswig and Soyring were the primary
people spreading the June CSD rumor, I've only said they actively
encouraged it. Do you honestly believe that all the trade rags
simultaneously got this rumor from a source other than IBM?


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy