c60b-ia@buddy.Berkeley.EDU (Sugih Jamin) (09/19/87)
In article <498@parcvax.Xerox.COM> burton@parcvax.xerox.com.UUCP (Philip M. Burton) writes: >In article <961@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >> The big advantage Unix has is that Unix for the 80386 is available now. >> OS/2 for the 386 is predicted by Microsoft to be over a year away. If >> the delivery is anything like that for MS Windows, well.... >> >In 1981, the only software for IBM PC's was CP/M based, and people actually >went out and bought CP/M co-processor boards for the PC's. The early public >domain club software disks were all CP/M reworks. But by 1983, interest in >CP/M was gone from the mass market. In 1984, I worked briefly for a company >that needed a CP/M co-processor card, and by then, the CP/M co-processor >card was moribund. > >> In the interim people writing 386 software will have only one OS to >> run it under. Thus all new 386 applications will be developed for Unix >> (and other, non-OS/2 systems that come on-line) > >See my comments above about CP/M. > The difference is: MS-DOS can do *much* more than can CP/M. While OS/2 won't be that much more powerful than UNIX, if at all. (wasted space for *my* stupid poster) sugih jamin (c60b-ia.berkeley.edu)
iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (09/19/87)
In article <3834@zen.berkeley.edu> c60b-ia@buddy.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Sugih Jamin) writes: [in response to an article comparing UNIX vs. OS/2 to MSDOS vs. CP/M] >The difference is: MS-DOS can do *much* more than can CP/M. Not true. When it was first released, MSDOS couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag (it still can't, but then it doesn't have to). > While OS/2 >won't be that much more powerful than UNIX, if at all. You seem to have it wrong here (as well as not having listened to the recent articles). UNIX, now, is much a more capable and complex OS than OS/2 will be when it is released. It has taken UNIX more than 10 years to get to where it is today. It will undoubtably take OS/2 10 years to reach the point at which UNIX is today. Unfortunately, OS/2, when it finally reaches the distributor's shelves, will already have greater popularity among PC users than all of the flavors of UNIX combined. The big corporations will buy it because it has been baptized and blessed by big blue (how's that for alliteration!) and the little guys will eat it up because it allows them to keep abreast of current innovation while maintaining their current investment in software, which is considerable. This is the marketing point of view, and the one that will win out in the wide world of users. Developers are a whole different story; they don't need compatibility since they generally posses the expertise necessary to use a system that will provide maximum programmer throughput. Since OS/2 allows real-mode programs, it will be inherently unsuitable for this task - no protection means no post-mortem debugging. Industrial strength development demands an OS that is robust enough to maintain its poise in the face of a stranger set of bugs and wild pointers than MicroSoft can dream will ever happen (their concept of well-behaved programs is a joke, as if programs were puppies to be trained to use the paper!). For development, then, UNIX seems to be the OS of choice, mostly because of its current state of availability. Especially since 386-UNIX will be able to take advantage of the 386's virtual-86 capability to provide a protected version of OS/2's real-mode, allowing developers target their products for all levels of the PC-clone market - 8088 through 80386. OS/2 won't even run on the 386 (in the sense that it won't support any programs that use all 32bits of a register - might as well buy a 286). Then there's the philosophic side to the matter, which all of ya out there in netland have been arguing - you know, the one about whether the OS should hold the user's hand and whether it should hold the right hand or the left? Well, there were some awfully good arguments, and I agree with all of them - if the computer can figure it out for itself, then it should, and let the user get his work done. But, (y'all knew there'd be a but, didn't you?) that wasn't the point of the original article and that was that this whole big OS thing was decided on sales and marketing issues, not philosophy. And it has already been decided, while the masses gobble up OS/2, we can dine on UNIX, or in the immortal words of Marie Antoinette, "Let them eat cake." - Tim Iverson iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU ucbvax!cory!iverson
burton@parcvax.Xerox.COM (Philip M. Burton) (09/19/87)
In article <3835@zen.berkeley.edu> iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tim Iverson) writes: >In article <3834@zen.berkeley.edu> c60b-ia@buddy.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Sugih Jamin) writes: >[in response to an article comparing UNIX vs. OS/2 to MSDOS vs. CP/M] >>The difference is: MS-DOS can do *much* more than can CP/M. > >Not true. When it was first released, MSDOS couldn't fight its way out of >a wet paper bag (it still can't, but then it doesn't have to). > >> While OS/2 >>won't be that much more powerful than UNIX, if at all. > >You seem to have it wrong here (as well as not having listened to the >recent articles). UNIX, now, is much a more capable and complex OS than >OS/2 will be when it is released. Sigh .... UNIX will stills have lots of power that the average OS/2 user can't/won't use. After all, OS/2 is a single-user, multi-tasking system, and UNIX is a multi-user, multi-tasking system. There's a fundamental difference, or should be, between the two. As for the _single-user_ power of the two, I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't that far apart. (Remember that I'm one of "those marketing types" so I can't back up that claim.) But I do remember seeing articles in BYTE magazine about 1982 comparing the then-new DOS with CP/M 86. One of the key points was that DOS was designed to be an easier upgrade from CP/M 80 than was CP/M 86, ironically. Something to do with BDOS calls, I think. Anyway, given the business opportunity, either IBM or Microsoft will have a conversion kit. Perhaps not for assembler (as for the CP/M -> DOS), but probably for C, Business Basic (widely used in UNIX business applications), and perhaps even Fortran. This conversion kit will scan your *NIX code and either do conversions automatically, or flag areas. Kind of a lint. Maybe we should call it "Mint", 'cause someone is going to make money off this products. Guys, there's a business opportunity here. Don't try to be King Canute, commanding the waves to stop. And don't think of yourself as a Quisling if you do this product. Just go with the flow. >Unfortunately, OS/2, when it finally reaches the distributor's shelves, >will already have greater popularity among PC users than all of the >flavors of UNIX combined. The big corporations will buy it because it >has been baptized and blessed by big blue (how's that for alliteration!) >and the little guys will eat it up because it allows them to keep abreast >of current innovation while maintaining their current investment in software, >which is considerable. This is the marketing point of view, and the one >that will win out in the wide world of users. > Sigh again... OS/2 will be embraced by Lotus, Ashton-Tate, Microsoft (which will obviously push all its applications), and damn near everyone else except perhaps the game/educational developers. Then the users will embrace OS/2. But, since these developers want to do what they think customers want, they will feel pushed into OS/2. Kind of circular, but that's how things often happen. >Developers are a whole different story; they don't need compatibility > >For development, then, UNIX seems to be the OS of choice, mostly because Yup!!! Just don't confuse your needs with those of Joe User. Unfornately, most people don't make that distinction. You really have to force yourself to think that way. >words of Marie Antoinette, "Let them eat cake." Ur, Mme. Antoinette met a very untimely end. Rather, why not quote the founder of Mama Leone, a famous Italian restaurant in New York City. She supposedly said something like, "Cook good food and give people plenty. They'll come." >- Tim Iverson (mailer wasted space) -- Philip Burton burton@parcvax.COM ...!hplabs!parcvax!burton Xerox Corp. preferred path: burton.osbunorth@xerox.COM 408 737 4635 ... usual disclaimers apply ...
post@whuts.UUCP (09/24/87)
jgray@toad.pilchuck.Data-IO.COM (Jerry Late Nite Gray) suggests: > As far as which OS is better in the market place, let the subject rest for > a while. > > I personally would like to hear more technical comparisons between OS/2 and > Unix so that I can make an educated choice. By technical, I mean something that > a software/hardware developer could appriciate. For example could someone > explain what they mean by a Unix file system being more vulnerable than DOS? > Or is the Unix v.s. OS/2 comparison equally valid for 286 and 386 based > machine? And so on..... Here! Here!!! Doug Donahue ihnp4!hlwpf!drd
c60b-ia@buddy.Berkeley.EDU (Sugih Jamin) (09/30/87)
In article <3835@zen.berkeley.edu> iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tim Iverson) writes: >In article <3834@zen.berkeley.edu> c60b-ia@buddy.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Sugih Jamin) writes: > >> While OS/2 >>won't be that much more powerful than UNIX, if at all. > >You seem to have it wrong here (as well as not having listened to the >recent articles). UNIX, now, is much a more capable and complex OS than >OS/2 will be when it is released. It has taken UNIX more than 10 years >to get to where it is today. It will undoubtably take OS/2 10 years to >reach the point at which UNIX is today. That's what I said, OS/2 won't be as powerful as UNIX *is*. You are right about my not having listened to the recent articles though, I was, and am, still catching up will all the news. sugih jamin (c60b-ia.berkeley.edu)
madsen@vijit.UUCP (Dave Madsen) (10/12/87)
(I apologize for the long article, but when I get going...) In article <520@parcvax.Xerox.COM>, burton@parcvax.Xerox.COM (Philip M. Burton) writes: > In article <3835@zen.berkeley.edu> iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tim Iverson) writes: > >In article <3834@zen.berkeley.edu> c60b-ia@buddy.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Sugih Jamin) writes: > >[in response to an article comparing UNIX vs. OS/2 to MSDOS vs. CP/M] > >>The difference is: MS-DOS can do *much* more than can CP/M. > > > >Not true. When it was first released, MSDOS couldn't fight its way out of > >a wet paper bag (it still can't, but then it doesn't have to). > > > >> While OS/2 > >>won't be that much more powerful than UNIX, if at all. > > > >You seem to have it wrong here (as well as not having listened to the > >recent articles). UNIX, now, is much a more capable and complex OS than > >OS/2 will be when it is released. > > Sigh .... UNIX will stills have lots of power that the average OS/2 user > can't/won't use. Yep. And we all know that 640K is *TEN* times 64K, surely more than enough memory for "Joe User". Arguments like this have been said time and time again, and each time newer programs come out (by user demand) that stretch the hardware just a little bit more, we say "Boy! How could we EVER have been SO WRONG about the capacity we needed!". People will always need to stretch their computers "just a little bit more" as they attempt problems that are "just a little bit more complex". This goes for Joe User who now needs a '386 to recompute his spreadsheet in finite time and for those who eagerly await the next supercomputer. And the NEXT generation of more powerful hardware will be ready far ahead of the version of OS/2 to drive it. (Hmmm, was that a vote of confidence for the availability of the '486?) > After all, OS/2 is a single-user, multi-tasking system, > and UNIX is a multi-user, multi-tasking system. There's a fundamental > difference, or should be, between the two. Maybe I'm dense today, but once you've got multi-tasking, the difference between single user and multi user is marketing, NOT technical. I think that Microsoft has carefully said that OS/2 is single user because they want to have their OS/2 Mama Leone's dinner [see below] and eat their Xenix Marie Antoinette dessert cake, too. Now, let's talk to Joe User (a stock broker/analyst)... Well, I bought this package that helps me in my business. It's a program running all the time that's monitoring the market (looking for certain information) and displaying the results while I'm, say, working on a spreadsheet. There's a second monitor for the stock display as it's more convenient to glance at if I want while I do other work. I bought yet another monitor and tied it to the first stock monitor and put it in the other room so I can see what's happening from multiple places. I added a special stock market keyboard with a mouse so that I can easily interact with that stock program. Is my system single-user? Sure, I'm the only one that uses the system right now. [But let's ask the OS its opinion.] Login/logout? Well, I don't know exactly what you mean, but I DID buy this package that lets me secure the system so someone can't just walk up and mess up my work. How do I turn the system off? Well, I have to make sure that that stock program is told to finish because otherwise it'd really mess up my historical data. Then I can turn it off. Backup? You bet! I lost my data once before, and I don't want it to happen again! I used to use just MSDOS for my spreadsheets and have this separate box for my stock tracking, but that stock box wouldn't let me share the data with my spreadsheet on the computer. I had to type in all the figures from the stock box into the spreadsheet by hand. So I bought _this_ machine. The consultants I called wanted so much money to make the old PC and the stock machine compatible that I thought I might as well spend the money for something that's expandable. The consultants said something about a "local area network" but it was pretty expensive and it seemed to be awfully hard to work with for what I want. Anyway, it was more than what I need now; it was easier to have one machine do many things. ... Do you think this is far-fetched? Maybe too complex a scenario? The point is, you could plug in OS/2 OR Unix in the above, and as long as you hid the "heavy-duty" stuff from the user, you'd be ok. He's willing to accept that there's certain things you just have to do to keep humming along. OS/2 is being touted as the successor to MSDOS, and that it'll have much more capability. So it will attract users who are at the high end of MSDOS right now; these users will tend to be the more sophisticated ones who could just as easily learn to handle the system administration for a single-user Unix as for a single-user OS/2. Backup will not be foreign to them. They'll have had diskettes/disks/file systems that have died before. They know that even a car requires maintenance. Note that these are all topics that marketing should be aware of and should present to a prospect. As a salesperson selling the system, I would not feel adverse to selling them a "quick" training course, whether it be a video course or a workbook or even a program on the computer itself doing instruction. Even if the above mythical "stock program" were bought mail-order, it should point out these topics. WHEN COMPLEXITY INCREASES, THERE MUST BE MORE USER SOPHISTICATION, WHETHER IT'S UNIX OR OS/2. The users WILL pay, either in aggravation because they're "a bull in a china shop" or in money because they know that they need training. And make no mistake, the general complexity of users' applications WILL increase as I said above. (Experience talking here). > As for the _single-user_ power of the two, I wouldn't be surprised if they > weren't that far apart. (Remember that I'm one of "those marketing types" > so I can't back up that claim.) > > Guys, there's a business opportunity here. Don't try to be King Canute, > commanding the waves to stop. [Text deleted] Just go with the flow. You speak with prescient certainty. Just for interest's sake, what were your feelings when the CP/M - MSDOS wars were big news? As an aside to Philip Burton, *having read your many postings* on this issue, I get the feeling you're saying "Yes, I really truly like Unix and it's for sure my favorite operating system, but, fellas, I'm sorry to say that we're all doomed and there's not a lick of difference we can make." Please, this is NOT an attack on you; I just got that feeling from your writings and was puzzled by it. Perhaps that's why there were all these postings generated by your original article. > >Unfortunately, OS/2, when it finally reaches the distributor's shelves, > >will already have greater popularity among PC users than all of the > >flavors of UNIX combined. The big corporations will buy it because it > >has been baptized and blessed by big blue (how's that for alliteration!) > >and the little guys will eat it up because it allows them to keep abreast > >of current innovation while maintaining their current investment in software, > >which is considerable. This is the marketing point of view, and the one > >that will win out in the wide world of users. > > > Sigh again... OS/2 will be embraced by Lotus, Ashton-Tate, Microsoft (which > will obviously push all its applications), and damn near everyone else except > perhaps the game/educational developers. Then the users will embrace OS/2. > But, since these developers want to do what they think customers want, they > will feel pushed into OS/2. Kind of circular, but that's how things often > happen. It's a question of the market you're in, too. That's changing as well as many of the distinctions between markets melt away. It used to be that you didn't see Unix software vendors in the MSDOS arena and MSDOSers in the Unix arena. Yet just because some of the companies in the MSDOS world are more well-known doesn't mean that the equivalent software wasn't available for Unix. ...And this phenomenon merely confirms what was said above about software being blessed by big corporations. He's right on when he talks about companies protecting themselves. They'll go with the "Big Names" who have put their stuff on OS/2. It's circular because there's already been enough said about both Unix AND OS/2 that there's been ample time for impressions already to have been formed. On Unix: "Oh yeah, it started at Bell Labs. It's kinda complex. My engineers use it in the back room." On OS/2: "I hear that it's the successor to MSDOS. Whew! Just in time, too! It was getting so that I just couldn't have all those programs running at once that I wanted to. Sidekick and all the others. I'll be able to have all that memory, and the '386, too! I'm sure glad that Microsoft and IBM teamed up to do this." > >Developers are a whole different story; they don't need compatibility > > > >For development, then, UNIX seems to be the OS of choice, mostly because > > Yup!!! Just don't confuse your needs with those of Joe User. Unfornately, > most people don't make that distinction. You really have to force yourself > to think that way. I second that motion! > > > >words of Marie Antoinette, "Let them eat cake." > > Ur, Mme. Antoinette met a very untimely end. Rather, why not quote the > founder of Mama Leone, a famous Italian restaurant in New York City. She > supposedly said something like, "Cook good food and give people plenty. > They'll come." Hmmm.... Seems like we need to talk to McDonald's or Burger King about this! (Does Mama Leone have any restaurants in Chicago?) > > >- Tim Iverson > > Philip Burton burton@parcvax.COM ...!hplabs!parcvax!burton I work for Wang Labs as a support person, and I see many customers. We sell stuff from PCs to 250-user systems. There are customers who are, let's say uh... "novice" (translate to "barely know their name") to those who are sophisticated enough to dig out and use those "undocumented" system services in our operating systems. Let's face it, there is certainly a continuum of users out there, from "dumb" Joe User to "smart" Joseph User. Typically, as the users' sophistication grows, their computing requirements do too as they use the machine for more and more work that they either move from manual systems or design because they want to remain competitive in their business. Given these conditions, there are surely users that should stay with something like MSDOS because that's where they're at (now). There are users that should be running their applications on a larger machine because that's where THEY'RE at. Trying to say that one OS is better than another is foolish in this context. Selling OS/2 qua OS/2 will merely take advantage of some users' inexperience and gullibility when they didn't need OS/2 at all. This is more likely than their buying Unix unnecessarily because of the faddishness of OS/2. (A tip for eager salespeople: Get a prospect list containing only those people who bought pet rocks. Your job will be a *lot* easier). What do *I* prefer? Well, I happen to like Unix. I personally believe that the world needs another commercial OS like I need another hole in the head. OS/2 is sufficiently different from both MSDOS and Unix that it's neither fish nor fowl, and I fear that trying to make it swim OR fly will not work out well. [I will be careful NOT to be snide and mention the "teaching the pig to sing" joke]. With its being compatible with neither and offering no growth path, I would be careful about it. Now, if I were buying a package from a Lotus or Ashton-Tate (who presumabably want to make their software as ubiquitious as possible) I would be less concerned, as they would have a version of their product on whatever OS I'm gonna run. (Of course, I also bought a VW Rabbit in its first model year, too). Then again, IBM has been successful with its S/3-(34-36)-38 product lines, all of which are mutually incompatible and have no growth path, and this despite the technical superiority of our own boxes. <-- (Sorry, my boss says we need the sales :-)) [And don't tell me about Silverlake; the users who bought the 34 and 36 and 38 didn't know for certain that it'd be happening. The path was, and still is until they bring out the new machine, the 43xx or 9370]. Maybe the market doesn't really care about crossing bridges until they crumble beneath their feet... Dave Madsen ---dcm ihnp4!vijit!madsen or vijit!madsen@gargoyle.uchicago.edu Experience is a teacher, but here's what makes me burn: She's always teaching me the things that I do not care to learn! --- Author Unknown As usual, my opinions are my own, but, of course, so self-evidently true that only people with the sensibility of a grapefruit would doubt them. (Maybe I should say "tongue-in-cheek" here?)
burton@parcvax.Xerox.COM (Philip M. Burton) (10/13/87)
I enjoyed Dave Madsen's looong posting. Since I started all this, I waant to say that I'm not confused. I may not entirely like the marketplace situation of OS/2 and UNIX, but I'm clear about it. That's why I posted the original article. Thanks to everyone who posted a reply. It's amazing hyow much traffic this issue has generated, especially since there are very few folks out there who have actually seen OS/2. (I haven't - can't justify the $3K just to play around.) -- Philip Burton burton@parcvax.COM or ...!hplabs!parcvax!burton Xerox Corp. preferred path: burton.osbunorth@xerox.COM (Xerox net) 408 737 4635 ... the usual disclaimers apply ...