From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:20:24 GMT

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:
>>Today IBM Chicago held its monthly OS/2 User's Group meeting.  This
>>month's meeting was devoted, in large part, to a presentation by two
>>OS/2 experts from Austin (mainly delivered by Don Crabtree).
>>
>> [stuff deleted]
>>
>>Now, where is OS/2 headed?
>>
>>In 1993 ("OS/2 2.x"):
>>
>>** Win32/Win32s API compatibility.  This was a surprise, frankly.  But
>>it was there on the overhead transparency.
>>** Security.  B2 level features will be incorporated; C2 certifiable.
>>Read on.
>>** Pen/PM, i.e. support for pen input devices and paradigms.
>>** "Generic Client" support, meaning that network requesters from
>>multiple vendors will ship in one package, and you just select which
>>one(s) you want on installation.  This package will be open to all
>>network suppliers.
>>
>>In 1993 to 1994 ("OS/2 3.x"):
>>
>>** DCE/RPC.  This offering will solidify and expand across all IBM
>>platforms in this time frame.
>>** POSIX compliance.
>>** C2 certification granted.  (It takes approximately 12 months, and
>>software is certified in combination with hardware.)
>>** Symmetric multiprocessing (SMP).
>>** Portability, based on the OSF/Mach 3.0 kernel.
>
>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.
     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.

>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!').

>Of course, desipte the fact that it has every modern OS feature
>that IBM claims will eventually be in OS/2, NT is still reckoned
>to be "baaaad" for mysterious reasons...like the following
>choice piece of nonsense:
>
>>[The presenter noted that the OSF/Mach 3.0 kernel has advantages over
>>the NT kernel, specifically, as an example, in I/O handling.]
>
>This is more FUD, straight from the master. What the heck does it
>mean? "specifically in I/O handling"...don't get too specific there
>Don, wouldn't want to get tied down!! How most of the people in this
>group can look at what IBM is doing and claim they have "changed" is
>beyond me.
>
>- adam

     I won't deny it, this sounds like FUD to me.  Of course, I
wasn't there.  I also don't know enough about the various kernels to
evaluate them.  We'll just have to see when the various systems come
out.
     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! :-)
     One last thing for all of the MS'ers.  It seems that even
though MS doesn't necessarily hold your opinions, most of the
employees who post here hold MS's opinions.  Why is this?  (no
flames please, I'm just stating my observations!)