From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:08:51 GMT

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:

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.

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.

I am sure that somebody somewhere, deep in the heart of Microsoft (and IBM)
drew a list of priorities--and found that the order to approach designing
an OS put the MMI on top.


>They are also in effect saying that you should not buy software from
>elsewhere because it is not guaranteed to work in the next release of the
>operating system.  (Need I say why this is bad?)

They have said no such thing...  There are more commercial developers 
for the MS-DOS and Window operating systems than on ANY other platform.
If companies like Wordperfect, Borland, and Lotus thought that it was
likely that their software would break in the next release, do you think
they would put so much effort in the MSDOS and Wordperfect market?  What
these company tries to do is make their software comply with documented
calls to the operating system--which, supposedly, assures them that the
software will work in the future OS revisions.

I understand what you are implying: Microsoft has more "documented" calls--
since there apps divisions are "in" with the systems division.  But I
am quite certain that the applications in Microsoft are just as wont to
break in new versions of an OS as other companies' applications.


>
>History has a tendency to repeat itself.  I sometimes wondered what the
>world of computing world would be like had Multics been developed for the 360.
>Twenty years from now people would be wondering what it would be like if
>there had been a decent operating system for the PC.

There will be: this is what OS/2 and NT are supposed to be.  Also, remember,
that Unix has been available for the PC for years.  The problem is that
until recently, the typical PC user did not NEED multitasking (some can
quite rightly argue that few PC users today need multitasking!).


>
>Just my $.02.

And my nickle's worth (Nicklaus Wirth)... hehe.


>
>Tak.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tak To                                                    (617) 577-0310 x377
>Box 45, MIT Branch PO, Cambridge, Ma 02139.                  tto@aspentec.com
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


My opinions
Joe