ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) (11/12/90)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Microsoft And Friends In article <90313.225702RFM@psuvm.psu.edu> RFM@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >I've wondered about Microsoft sometimes myself, but let's face it: if Intel >keeps driving the Mainstream PC market, Microsoft is in the catbird's seat. >Would I drop DOS? No way, not for UNIX, at least. Prejudiced, Maybe. Butt >more, DOS is where all my software apps are. I could play along with this viewpoint... yes, that to a lot of users, the machine is largely a set of applications. (You have to remember that the same set of apps running on a real multi-tasking windowing big-screen system is a real screamer against something like Windows which makes my 386 feel like a PC-XT. The applications, yes, but on what platform? NeXT is a wonderful platform for running 123 and WordPerfect (say). Similarly, WingZ on the Sun really kicks in as compared with anything you can do with Windows or the Mac). >Hence I'm vitally interested in >what Microsoft is doing. How does that follow? Microsoft is just one player in a big game. NeXT, Sun, Amiga etc. all have powerful acts in place. Microsoft is neither very innovative nor very fast; I don't see how it is axiomatic that they figure as central players. > As for OS/2, it's time is coming (albeit slowly) It's the 32-bit >operating system (if the future is 32 bits). DOS Extenders are patches, >more in the genre of temporary fixes than permanent solutions. As far as I'm >concerned, Windows was a dog, is a dog, adn will continue to woof. The next >REAL step forward is to 32-bit systems, and Windows can't touch that. >OS/2 is in our futures. How does that follow? You start off by agreeing that OS/2 today is a dead duck. What is to prevent it from staying a dead duck? Since you think applications are so important, isn't it striking that there are more 100% GUI applications for the NeXT and for the Sun than for OS/2 (this is from the Applications Watch column of _Personal_Workstation_). Think about this: $3k buys you a NeXT with 8M of memory, big screen, megapixel display, a real multitasking OS, cshell windows if your IQ is better than a basketball player, a spectacular frontend, a consistent imaging model, a 400 dpi postscript laser printer addon for $1500, etc. No amount of money can buy a Intel box of the same performance, and the closest that you can come with a 486 will cost something like $10k. SPARC/Mips boxes running Unix are far better candidates for our future (in the sense that I would bet on them) than Intel and Microsoft. A few weeks ago, Sun announced the Sparcstation 2, which delivers 28.5 mips and 4.5 MFlops, all this with less investment in VLSI technology than the 486. You can buy SPARC chipsets for $30, when Intel (monopolist) hawks anemic 20 MHz 386 chips for $300. You have to have your head in the ground to ignore the impending death of Intel-Microsoft... sure sound like PC Magazine in emitting the official line on OS/2! Nothing personal of course.. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Ajay Shah, (213)734-3930, ajayshah@usc.edu The more things change, the more they stay insane. _______________________________________________________________________________
bender@oobleck.Eng.Sun.COM (Michael Bender) (11/13/90)
In article <90313.225702RFM@psuvm.psu.edu> RFM@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
-->I've wondered about Microsoft sometimes myself, but let's face it: if Intel
-->keeps driving the Mainstream PC market, Microsoft is in the catbird's seat.
-->Would I drop DOS? No way, not for UNIX, at least. Prejudiced, Maybe. Butt
-->more, DOS is where all my software apps are. Hence I'm vitally interested in
-->what Microsoft is doing.
--> As for OS/2, it's time is coming (albeit slowly) It's the 32-bit
-->operating system (if the future is 32 bits). DOS Extenders are patches,
-->more in the genre of temporary fixes than permanent solutions. As far as I'm
-->concerned, Windows was a dog, is a dog, adn will continue to woof. The next
-->REAL step forward is to 32-bit systems, and Windows can't touch that.
-->OS/2 is in our futures.
Hey, I've always wondered if there really were people that think OS/2 is the
future, and that DOS is pretty good also, but I've never met one. This
posting somehow forgot the :->'s, right? I mean, OS/2 - you can't be
serious?!
mike
--
Won't look like rain, Won't look like snow, | DOD #000007
Won't look like fog, That's all we know! | AMA #511250
We just can't tell you anymore, We've never made oobleck before! | MSC #298726madler@piglet.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) (11/13/90)
OS/2 for PS/2 --- half an operating system for half a computer ... Mark Adler madler@piglet.caltech.edu
edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG) (11/13/90)
Though I usually try to stay out of these threads, I thought I might have some information that would be of use in this context. In article <28063@usc> ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: >Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc >Subject: Re: Microsoft And Friends > >In article <90313.225702RFM@psuvm.psu.edu> RFM@psuvm.psu.edu writes: [stuff deleted] >>Hence I'm vitally interested in >>what Microsoft is doing. >How does that follow? Microsoft is just one player in a big >game. NeXT, Sun, Amiga etc. all have powerful acts in place. >Microsoft is neither very innovative nor very fast; I don't see >how it is axiomatic that they figure as central players. I find it interesting that you have listed Microsoft among other companies that are hardware vendors. Indeed Microsoft is a player insofar that it has some say in the evolution of an important component of many computer systems. People are interested in the direction of Microsoft primarily because so many users and purchasers of computers are currently locked into the software architecture (even more so than being locked into a particular hardware architecture). Alot of people depend on someone to migrate them toward better computers while minimizing the pain of lost data, process and conceptual model investment. Many think that Microsoft is a logical candidate to carry that responsibility. Many think that Microsoft will be unable to or does not want to meet that requirement. In is true, others need to carry that banner. [more stuff deleted] >How does that follow? You start off by agreeing that OS/2 today >is a dead duck. What is to prevent it from staying a dead duck? >Since you think applications are so important, isn't it striking >that there are more 100% GUI applications for the NeXT and for >the Sun than for OS/2 (this is from the Applications Watch column >of _Personal_Workstation_). I won't comment on the "OS/2 is a dead duck" debate, but I will say that the _Personal Workstation_ Applications Watch column has been incorrectly reporting OS/2 applications for the better part of a year now (call it 9 months). Various parties at Microsoft have contacted them with updated information (over the past 9 months), but this newer information has not appeared in the column. Draw your own conclusions, and perhaps temper them with a magazine's typical chaos when new. And yes, we are talking about pure, ground- up development using PM GUI. Certainly OS/2 has not met expectations! But it does have an installed base rivalling Sun; Windows has an installed base rivalling Macintosh; and Microsoft would like to leverage this by making the move from one to the other more simple. [good points about the superior price/performance ratio of NeXT] >SPARC/Mips boxes running Unix are far better candidates for our >future (in the sense that I would bet on them) than Intel and >Microsoft. A few weeks ago, Sun announced the Sparcstation 2, >which delivers 28.5 mips and 4.5 MFlops, all this with less >investment in VLSI technology than the 486. You can buy SPARC >chipsets for $30, when Intel (monopolist) hawks anemic 20 MHz 386 >chips for $300. Very good point! Now the question is: do you think this is unknown to Microsoft, or do you just think that Microsoft will not do anything about it? Microsoft announced a portable OS. Microsoft would be pretty silly not to have it running Windows apps, right, to the extent that technology supports cross-CPU compatibility? >You have to have your head in the ground to ignore the impending >death of Intel-Microsoft... sure sound like PC Magazine in >emitting the official line on OS/2! The interesting question to me is what you consider death. If it means a lack of industry-wide technological innovation, then perhaps you are correct (but perhaps not). If you mean abandoning 50 million users, then you are not correct. If you mean going belly-up and bankrupt, then you are not correct (and I would question who really has their head in the sand) ;-). At Microsoft, the challenge of Sun and RISC and how these factors are affecting the market is taken extremely seriously. You know, it's not fun being the "bad guy", and there are people who would love to just come out with something really cool and technologically advanced without thinking about our installed base. But to really bring this stuff to the computer user of today, someone has got to think about their migration needs. Going whole hog on Unix, new hardware and software architectures, and all that is a good thing (TM), but needs to be thought out carefully lest we really torque off some users by making them feel abandoned. Let's say that Microsoft, IBM, Compaq, etc. all got together and delivered a really hot MIPS-based 12-processor machine with a fully object-oriented OS, DSP, digital video and audio in/out, FDDI net, 3D rendered graphics and acceleration, etc., etc. To whom are we doing a favor? To the 50 million DOS users? Nope. They wouldn't care if that cost $5k; they would still need a solution that preserves their existing investments. For better or for worse, lots of investment is in a particularly brain-dead form... Another thing to consider is that Microsoft does not produce hardware. This means that Microsoft often needs to wait for the industry to get to a certain point before releasing software for it. Would Windows 3 run usefully in the market of hardware present in 1987? Some of the objects work that Microsoft has been working upon for the last three years is still waiting for the appropriate platform -- very few PCs have 8-16MB RAM and a 330 MB HD today. By 1992 that may be different! NeXT has done some awesome work in showing the industry how it can be done. It is not in their interest to work out the details of how people can migrate; indeed NeXT only needs to worry about that to whatever extent is required for their survival; beyond that they should continue to do what they do so well: innovate. It is left to others how the lame, brain-dead users of a lame, brain-dead system can be brought along into this new world. Believe it or not, there are people who don't like mice, and don't see a great need for GUI. There are people who argue about click to type ;-). These things make it harder to migrate people while keeping them happy. Thought you might like to know what it's like in the trenches. Not everyone can handle the gore down here... but someone has to clean and take out the garbage! -- Edward Jung Microsoft Corp. My opinions do not reflect any policy of my employer.
cbradley@blackbox.lonestar.org (Chris Bradley) (11/17/90)
Ed Jung's recent article concerning Microsoft's present focus and direction really underscores what, IMO, is the nature of the confusion over innovations at Microsoft. In article <59048@microsoft.UUCP> edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG) writes: >Alot of people depend on someone to migrate them toward better >computers while minimizing the pain of lost data, process and >conceptual model investment. Many think that Microsoft is a >logical candidate to carry that responsibility. Many think that >Microsoft will be unable to or does not want to meet that requirement. >In is true, others need to carry that banner. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This would seem to say that, in Jung's personal opinion, Microsoft should not have to ``carry the responsibility'' of ``minimizing the pain of lost data, process and conceptual model investment.'' Without the burden of these noble, altruistic goals, the company would seemingly be free to pursue other paths, perhaps even including the development of radically new and different technologies, with the joint objectives of creating new markets and of improving customer satisfaction. However, it seems to me that another path has been chosen: in trying to retain the loyalties of existing customers, Microsoft seem to be dragging their collective heels when presented with the opportunity to capitalize on new systems. Jung continues: >At Microsoft, the challenge of Sun and RISC and how these factors >are affecting the market is taken extremely seriously. You know, >it's not fun being the "bad guy", and there are people who would >love to just come out with something really cool and technologically >advanced without thinking about our installed base. But to really >bring this stuff to the computer user of today, someone has got to >think about their migration needs. Going whole hog on Unix, new >hardware and software architectures, and all that is a good thing >(TM), but needs to be thought out carefully lest we really torque >off some users by making them feel abandoned. Microsoft could present the face of an innovator by porting a selected set of their popular productivity applications to new platforms, like the NeXT, the MultiPersonal, or the SPARC II. In fact, in their early years, we witnessed the porting of MultiPlan to almost every existing small system architecture extant in the early 1980's, including the Apple ][, the Apple ///, 680X0 *NIX systems like the Fortune 16:32, as well as some downright strange animals like the Convergent Ngen and the Burroughs B-20 :-). I suspect that the Microsoft applications could indeed be ported to these (and other) new architectures, if the development teams were given a freer rein. Could it be that the systems software people are holding them back? -- Chris Bradley | "I confess freely to you, I could never look Businessland Advanced Systems | long upon a monkey, without very mortifying Dallas, Texas US | reflections." cbradley@blackbox.lonestar.org | -- WILLIAM CONGREVE 1670-1729
cbenda@unccvax.uncc.edu (carl m benda) (11/19/90)
If you want mainstream... let's get going! there is NO reason why we can't have workstations (i.e. 8 meg of memory, megapel monochrome display, and 200 meg hard disk, and Unix) priced at under 1000 dollars. If you want mainstream, (there are over 10 million PC's that can run DOS) you have to get the numbers. If you want numbers, you have to reduce the cost. This is how the Japanese got 30% of the American Car market, and it CAN be how UNIX gets the whole DESKTOP computer market. Gates Has got a numbers edge, but just let him try to get into the NON-Intel market with his software and operating systems, and he will learn the true meaning of the word "OPEN". If he thinks he can get his proprietary stuff into the true workstation world, he's got another thing comming. Even big IBM new that it could not put a NON "OPEN" operating system onto its high-est end workstation RS/6000. Just some views. /Carl