From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:22:24 GMT

In article <1ippcdINNadq@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.060851.13819@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>|In article <1993Jan8.153214.887@aspentec.com> tto@aspentec.com writes:
>|> [...sins of IBM deleted...]
>|>
>|>Similarly, I think the same sin is now committed by MicroSoft.  Specifically,
>|>they are leading the public into thinking that a GUI is what an operating
>|>system is all about; and that GUI is more important than a large (> 1M) 
>|>addressing space, more important virtual memory, more important than protection
>|>against errant user programs, more important than pre-emptive multi-tasking,
>|>etc. 
>|
>|I disagree.  First, Microsoft windows DOES allow > 1M addressing space (one
>|of the reasons that 32 bit Windows programs won't run on OS/2 2.0).  Second,
>|pre-emptive multitasking is available under Windows as well (this is how
>|DOS windows share timeslices... and if you don't think that NT provides
>|pre-emptive multitasking, you are sadly mistaken).  Third, a GUI is important
>|to modern operating system environments--and when one takes into account
>|the HOW and WHY of how PC operating systems developed, one sees that
>|all of MS's actions are really business decisions:
>
>Joe, I think you have a misunderstanding here.  Time slicing !=
>pre-emptive.  Windows has cooperative multitasking, but not pre-emptive.
>If a program does not want to give up control, it can disable
>interrupts and thats that.

Wrong choice of words, but what I meant to say was this: DOS Windows under
Windows pre-emptively multitask.  Or do you think that Microsoft somehow
made a magic utility that allows every DOS application (DBASE III, command.com,
etc.) to call GETMSG and PEEKMSG?

>
>Of course NT will have pre-emptive multitasking.
>
>|My opinion on why so much has been focused on GUIs is that multitasking is
>|not as important without a GUI.  Case in point, Unix has had multitasking
>|abilities for years--but unless one was a programmer, programs were more
>|or less run "serially"; and multitasking was basically used by a novice
>|user (if one could say Unix _had_ any novice users) for drudgery such as
>|pipes or servers... PEOPLE didn't multitask with computers, PROGRAMS did.
>
>I tend to agree with you here, but people did multi-task implicitly
>under unix.  If a program did A|B|C  A, B, and C were run
>concurrently.  This type of behavior gets output to the user a lot
>sooner than the DOS method of creating intermediate scratch files and
>running the programs sequentially.  You didn't need to be a programmer
>to do this, but I agree that the skill level of the operators was
>quite a bit higher than the average GUI user.

I did mention pipes in my post.  But the fact that A, B, and C were
running concurrently was an implementation issue and the user need not
be aware of "multitasking" in order to use it.  Case in point: DOS allows
you to type "A|B|C"--and it executes the programs serially... and, in many
cases, with the same effect as if you entered "A|B|C" under Unix.

>
>|With the advent of multiple windows, suddenly multitasking became something
>|that people could USE.  A User could start up a word processor in one 
>|window, and check his email in another window... and the rapid growth in
>|multitasking can probably be directly related to the acceptance of
>|window environments.
>|
>|No wonder that the new PC operating systems have concentrated on the
>|GUI; since the MAJORITY of PC users are non-programmers.   Concentrating
>|on the GUI (and therefore the useability of both the OS and the application)
>|leads to another benefit: more users.
>
>[Stuff deleted to keep article at a reasonable length]
>
>Actually, research has shown that people tend to think and respond at
>several levels.  The reaction time and thus level of mental effort to
>accomplish a task is a function of the inherent complexity of the task
>as well as the presentation method.  The GUI method is easier to
>understand and thus provides a lower effort level for most people.
>The exceptions are those who have developed different habits through
>experience.  For example, I tend to do a lot of work from the command
>line because I am experienced and comfortable with it.  There is more
>effort required to transition to a all GUI interface than to do what I
>am used to.  Others without a high comfort level at the command line
>prefer a GUI.

No argument there.  Remember that I was highlighting that MOST PC users
aren't technically oriented--and the GUI made a complex operation (Such as
multitasking) easier to comprehend.  In other words, the GUI created an 
environment in which multitasking "made sense" to the majority of PC
users.  I, too, rarely use a GUI--except in the light that I usually 
open more than one window for my CLIs ("Windows" being part of the GUI
environment--although implementations of multiple windows have been done
under text [desqview comes mind]).
...[bunch of stuff deleted--but which I agree with]
>
>In summary, I see OS/2 as being the more flexible OS, but it does have
>to overcome prior bad publicity and the inertia of Windows.  There are
>also a lot of issues of course, such as the integrity of the
>companies, customer support, etc.

Which is why those topics are drawing so many flames on this newsgroup...

>--
>Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
>bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
>                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer

Joe
My opinions

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy