[comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc] Bill Gates, in memo, warns of attack and defeat by rivals

reisert@mast.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) (06/21/91)

 Microsoft - Gates, in memo, warns of attack and defeat by rivals

	{The Wall Street Journal, 19-Jun-91, p. B8}

   Mr. Gates' state of mind is evident in a memo he wrote in April to his top
 executives in which he said that some of his worst fears were coming true:
 "Our nightmare - IBM 'attacking' us in system software, Novell 'defeating' us
 in networking and more agile, customer-oriented applications competitors
 getting their Windows act together - is a reality." The memo was obtained by
 the San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News, which quoted from it in a story published
 in its editions yesterday. The authenticity of the memo  was independently
 confirmed by Microsoft. ... Though Mr. Gates publicly insists he still has
 plans for OS/2, an alternative piece of the software that IBM and Microsoft
 formally are jointly developing and Mr. Gates once heralded as the standard of
 the future, he indicates he has relegated OS/2 to oblivion. "Our strategy for
 the '90s is Windows - one evolving architecture, a couple of implementations.
 Everything we do should focus on making Windows more successful," Mr. Gates
 wrote, according to the San Jose Mercury News. That position angers IBM, which
 paid Microsoft huge amounts of money over the years to lead OS/2 development.
 Frustrated with Microsoft's stance, IBM began directly pushing OS/2. The split
 has had unintended benefits, writes Mr. Gates, who complains that the
 partnership with IBM forced Microsoft to accept "poor code, poor design and
 other overhead." Ironically, in his memo, Mr. Gates instructs his senior staff
 to refrain from publicly criticizing IBM, advising that they "not attack IBM
 as a company, and even out public 'attacks' on [IBM's] OS/2 will be very
 professional." Mr. Gates, known for playing hardball with both rivals and
 allies alike, makes it clear that such restraint is self-serving. "Eventually
 we need to have at least a neutral relationship with IBM," he writes. "For the
 next 24 months it may be fairly cold. We can emerge as a better and stronger
 company where people won't just say we are the standard because IBM chose us."
 Among other observations, Mr. Gates writes:
   -- Losing the legal battle with Apple Computer Inc., which is fighting in
 court to prove Microsoft copied some key features of Apple's Macintosh
 software for its own Windows program could be "disastrous."
   -- The current Federal Trade Commission investigation into allegations of
 unfair business practices by Microsoft "will use up even more executive staff
 time than the Apple lawsuit has. However, I know we don't get unfair
 advantages. I hope we can quickly educate the FTC on our business."
   -- Microsoft isn't doing an adequate job responding to customer inquiries
 about its products. "The number of customers who get a bad impression because
 of this must be in the millions world-wide."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"The opinions expressed here in no way represent the views of Digital
 Equipment Corporation."

James J. Reisert                Internet:  reisert@mast.enet.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.         UUCP:      ...decwrl!mast.enet!reisert
146 Main Street			Voice:     508-493-5747
Maynard, MA  01754		FAX:       508-493-0395

vcl@mimas.UUCP (Victor C. Limary) (06/21/91)

reisert@mast.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) writes:

> 
>  Microsoft - Gates, in memo, warns of attack and defeat by rivals
> 
> 	{The Wall Street Journal, 19-Jun-91, p. B8}
> 
>    Mr. Gates' state of mind is evident in a memo he wrote in April to his top
>  executives in which he said that some of his worst fears were coming true:
>  "Our nightmare - IBM 'attacking' us in system software, Novell 'defeating' u
>  in networking and more agile, customer-oriented applications competitors
>  getting their Windows act together - is a reality." The memo was obtained by
>  the San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News, which quoted from it in a story publishe
>  in its editions yesterday. The authenticity of the memo  was independently
>  confirmed by Microsoft. ... Though Mr. Gates publicly insists he still has
>  plans for OS/2, an alternative piece of the software that IBM and Microsoft
>  formally are jointly developing and Mr. Gates once heralded as the standard 
>  the future, he indicates he has relegated OS/2 to oblivion. "Our strategy fo
>  the '90s is Windows - one evolving architecture, a couple of implementations
>  Everything we do should focus on making Windows more successful," Mr. Gates
>  wrote, according to the San Jose Mercury News. That position angers IBM, whi
>  paid Microsoft huge amounts of money over the years to lead OS/2 development
>  Frustrated with Microsoft's stance, IBM began directly pushing OS/2. The spl
>  has had unintended benefits, writes Mr. Gates, who complains that the
>  partnership with IBM forced Microsoft to accept "poor code, poor design and
>  other overhead." Ironically, in his memo, Mr. Gates instructs his senior sta
>  to refrain from publicly criticizing IBM, advising that they "not attack IBM
>  as a company, and even out public 'attacks' on [IBM's] OS/2 will be very
>  professional." Mr. Gates, known for playing hardball with both rivals and
>  allies alike, makes it clear that such restraint is self-serving. "Eventuall
>  we need to have at least a neutral relationship with IBM," he writes. "For t
>  next 24 months it may be fairly cold. We can emerge as a better and stronger
>  company where people won't just say we are the standard because IBM chose us
>  Among other observations, Mr. Gates writes:
>    -- Losing the legal battle with Apple Computer Inc., which is fighting in
>  court to prove Microsoft copied some key features of Apple's Macintosh
>  software for its own Windows program could be "disastrous."
>    -- The current Federal Trade Commission investigation into allegations of
>  unfair business practices by Microsoft "will use up even more executive staf
>  time than the Apple lawsuit has. However, I know we don't get unfair
>  advantages. I hope we can quickly educate the FTC on our business."
>    -- Microsoft isn't doing an adequate job responding to customer inquiries
>  about its products. "The number of customers who get a bad impression becaus
>  of this must be in the millions world-wide."

I'm sorry, but I cannot help but laugh at all that.  I don't know about 
anybody else, but I've started to become rather annoyed (to say the 
least) by Microsoft and all of its ventures.  OS/2 for the 386 might've 
been nice, since I don't care for Windows 3.0 and all of its 'features', 
and Microsoft, to me, having no set goals except to sell millions of 
copies of revamped, less-than-acceptable software (ie Windows 3.0, and 
MS-DOS).  They're just out there to milk the consumers out of money, 
IMHO.  I'm glad they're failing.  If I've offended anybody, tough.

       _______
      /       \
     |  O   O  |         Victor Limary
    <|    <    |>        mimas!vcl@bbx.basis.com
     |  _____  |
      \   U   /
       "-----"

fred@compu.com (Fred Rump) (06/21/91)

vcl@mimas.UUCP (Victor C. Limary) writes:

>MS-DOS).  They're just out there to milk the consumers out of money,
>IMHO.  I'm glad they're failing.  If I've offended anybody, tough.

        They're failing? I wouldn't mind failing like that any day now.
        
        I think MS goes where the money is. They have a good feel for the 
        marketplace which IBM does not - despite it's minions of high 
        priced analysts. IBM keeps trying to change the market, MS flows 
        with it.
        
        You give the consumer (the little guy) what he wants and all is 
        well.
        
        Fred
-- 
Fred Rump              | 'A little learning is a dangerous thing/Drink deep
CompuData, Inc.        | or taste not the Pierian spring'    Alexander Pope
10501 Drummond Rd.     |		SCO Advanced Product Center
Philadelphia, Pa. 19154| Internet: fred@COMPU.COM         (215-824-3000)

brk102@leah.albany.edu (Brian King) (06/21/91)

I have NEVER stated MHO's before in a post before, but I can't hold
back on this one!

In article <23720@shlump.lkg.dec.com> you write:
>
> Microsoft - Gates, in memo, warns of attack and defeat by rivals
>
>	{The Wall Street Journal, 19-Jun-91, p. B8}
> ...
> confirmed by Microsoft. ... Though Mr. Gates publicly insists he still has
> plans for OS/2, an alternative piece of the software that IBM and Microsoft
            ^^^^
              yeah, right. It's called "Windows for OS/2 -- turns presentation
manager into a completely unstable environment. Also comes with a free program
that randomly prints windows on your screen telling you to reboot you system!
You'll think you're running under DOS!!!"

> formally are jointly developing and Mr. Gates once heralded as the standard of
> the future, he indicates he has relegated OS/2 to oblivion. "Our strategy for
> the '90s is Windows - one evolving architecture, a couple of implementations.
> Everything we do should focus on making Windows more successful," Mr. Gates
> wrote, according to the San Jose Mercury News.

HAHA! Har HEE HEE! Gag, choke, (*faint*).  What a joke!  Microsoft has
essentially held back the PC world at large.  Come ON!  Get your
priorities straight, MS! In the days where 386 PC's are becoming the
standard on desktops, Microsoft has some serious BALLS (steel, that
is) to release ANOTHER version of DOS, not to mention planning the
FUTURE around Windows!!!! We are supposed to be writing software
(operating systems specifically) to take advantage of our resources
that we have at hand.  Ok, so DOS 5.0 came out. IT allows us to free
up our base 640K of memory. Think about that for just a minute! I
don't know how many posts I have read over the past 6 months where
users have complained about having all this memory on their machines,
but not being able to take advantage of it.  Can we all say "protected
mode virtual memory?"  And I am not talking about Window's so called
"protected mode!"  Any program than misbehaves by poking in a place
where it shouldn't be poking, should just be terminated. IT should not
cause your system to hang, and it should not give you a message
telling you "Unrecoverable Application Error! Woah! Reboot me now!"
Of course, I guess I should not blame this on Windows. It is the
operating system which should me handling memory management. DOS?
Memory management? Yeah, right.  Microsoft should be embarrased to
releasing another version of DOS, and giving up its development on
OS/2, which has had these features for quite a while now, along with
UNIX. I won't even discuss the multitasking kludges that run under
DOS.  All I'll say is an OS should inherently provide that for the
user. Period.

> That position angers IBM, which
> paid Microsoft huge amounts of money over the years to lead OS/2 development.
> Frustrated with Microsoft's stance, IBM began directly pushing OS/2. The split

I stand fully behind IBM's move to push OS/2. (Like they really
care... :-) IMO (what else is new), the biggest reason that OS/2 has
not taken off yet is because of not ONLY its lack of applications, but
also the cost of migrating from DOS to OS/2. With OS/2 2.0, this will
no longer be a concern. With the ability to run DOS apps, Windows
apps, and OS/2 apps (of course), there will be no more need for DOS!
Yeah!!! I'll have a few more frisbee's more my dog to chew up!


Ok. Maybe I have been a little spoiled by UNIX, and I have been teased
and tormented by the possibilities of OS/2 2.0, but those of you that
haven't seen these OS's in action, you don't know what your missing.
THESE are operating systems of the 90's!

>
>James J. Reisert                Internet:  reisert@mast.enet.dec.com
>Digital Equipment Corp.         UUCP:      ...decwrl!mast.enet!reisert
>146 Main Street			Voice:     508-493-5747
>Maynard, MA  01754		FAX:       508-493-0395

Thanks James. I really needed to read that! :-)
 

-Brian King  (brk102@leah.albany.edu)

vcl@mimas.UUCP (Victor C. Limary) (06/23/91)

fred@compu.com (Fred Rump) writes:

>         They're failing? I wouldn't mind failing like that any day now.
>         
>         I think MS goes where the money is. They have a good feel for the 
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It sure is.  That's all it thinks about.  That's why 386 machines are 
still running an operating system about 10 years old now.

>         marketplace which IBM does not - despite it's minions of high 
>         priced analysts. IBM keeps trying to change the market, MS flows 
>         with it.
>         
>         You give the consumer (the little guy) what he wants and all is 
>         well.

Well, what I want (I'm a consumer, a little guy) is something better than 
MS-DOS.  I want a real, multitaking operating system that I don't have to 
spend $1000 in software, and another $500 (at least) in hardware on (a la 
Unix).  IBM tries to change the market because it knows tha yo can't live 
on bread and water all your life.  I think that Microsoft just tries to 
push the bread and water in your face until the day you die from 
malnutrition, and *then* it'll try to find another victim.


-----------------------
Victor C. Limary
mimas!vcl@bbx.basis.com

frotz@dri.com (Frotz) (06/27/91)

<-:...Now where was that gasoline...:->

brk102@leah.albany.edu (Brian King) writes:
]HAHA! Har HEE HEE! Gag, choke, (*faint*).  What a joke!  Microsoft has
]essentially held back the PC world at large.  Come ON!  Get your
]priorities straight, MS! In the days where 386 PC's are becoming the
]standard on desktops, Microsoft has some serious BALLS (steel, that
]is) to release ANOTHER version of DOS

They had little choice...  The marketplace demanded it.  It would have
been very embarrassing to have Digital Research assume control over the
direction of DOS (as they assumed control over the direction of
CPM-86, I mean DOS 1.1;-)

]Microsoft should be embarrassed to releasing another version of DOS, 
]and giving up its development on OS/2, 

Here, you have it backwards.  They were embarrassed to have NOT
released another version of DOS (in essence, giving up on it) and
concentrating on OS/2.  It wasn't until we started making noises about
our DR-DOS 5 release in the UK that we "suddenly" heard about the
"new" release of DOS 5... 

As for OS/2, I think that regardless of its technical merits (or not)
it will be relegated to a niche market, as has our Flexos operating
system.  There will be no other operating system for the 90s other
than DOS (at least for the first half!).  The installed user base is
getting much more sophisticated, than 5 years ago, but there is still
a large amount of inertia to overcome.  I don't believe that OS/2 can
do it (yet). 

--
John "Frotz" Fa'atuai	frotz@dri.com			(email@domain)
Digital Research, Inc.	uunet!drivax!frotz		(bang!email)
c/o MIS Dept.		408/647-6570 or 408/646-6287	(vmail)
80 Garden Court, CompRm	408/649-3896			(phone)
Monterey, CA  93940	408/646-6248			(fax)

#include <sys/disclaimers.h> // These are MY thoughts, not those of DRI.

eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) (06/27/91)

frotz@dri.com (Frotz) writes:
>There will be no other operating system for the 90s other
>than DOS (at least for the first half!).  

I beg to differ, John.  Unix is going to be a major player in the 
Operating System game of the 90's.  I'm actually surprised at how long
MeSsy-DOS has lasted!  Now, whether or not my next computer (NeXT
computer?) runs OS/2, I don't know.  I can guarantee you one thing,
however: it will NOT be MS-DOS!

>John "Frotz" Fa'atuai	frotz@dri.com

Daniel L'Hommedieu
eagle@catt.ncsu.edu
--
As the sweat poured down my forehead, I quickly glanced at the clock to
see how much longer I had to complete my exam.  The two hours left would
seem like days.  As each precious second passed, I decided I should make
up new math rules.  Two hours is enough to be creative, isn't it?

draper@cpsin2.cps.msu.edu (Patrick J Draper) (06/27/91)

In article <1991Jun26.215452.27235@ncsu.edu> eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:
>frotz@dri.com (Frotz) writes:
>>There will be no other operating system for the 90s other
>>than DOS (at least for the first half!).  
>
>I beg to differ, John.  Unix is going to be a major player in the 
>Operating System game of the 90's.  I'm actually surprised at how long

Very true. However, Borland is working with IBM to develop an OS/2
32-bit compiler for version 2.0

Right now, OS/2 can be bought for less than DOS+Windows (if you can find
it). A Borland 32bit compiler would be a big incentive for me to chose
OS/2 over UNIX.

Of course, I'd like to see 32-bit Borland compilers for BOTH operating
systems. :-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Draper     "College is supposed to prepare you for the future,
cps.msu.edu               but all my future's behind me." 
draper@cps.msu.edu      -- My GrandPa, age 85, Fall 1990 graduate
                           of Western Michigan University 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

frotz@dri.com (Frotz) (06/28/91)

eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:

]frotz@dri.com (Frotz) writes:
]>There will be no other operating system for the 90s other
]>than DOS (at least for the first half!).  

	Perhaps I should have qualified this a bit more than I did.  I
don't forsee another operating system replacing DOS on the machines
already in existence (and running DOS).  I am a believer in Unix and I
hope that the Unix marketplace expands to fill much of the software
power requirements of the DOS market, but *I* just don't see it
happening.  Those who will move to Unix *from* DOS have already done
it or have access to/own a Unix boxen.  These numbers are not all that
large. 

At work I use our Ultrix boxen because it gives me better productivity
than using the VMS side of things here.  I still have a DOS box at
home.  In fact, I go out of my way to find PD sources that are
available on Unix to port to DOS to make it do the things that I need.
This however, does not mean I have the $$$ (let alone the room at
home;-} to go get a unix machine, at least not the unix box that *I*
want...;-)

]I beg to differ, John.  Unix is going to be a major player in the
]Operating System game of the 90's.  I'm actually surprised at how long
]MeSsy-DOS has lasted!  

I am not arguing this point, but I think that the game in which Unix
is a major place is not the *exactly* same game in which DOS plays.
Sure, there are overlaps, but there are many factors which go into
installing a system in a small (or large) office. 

1) What applications are needed and *are* they available under Unix? 

2) What are the installation costs of Unix v. DOS?  (I have no
experience here with Unix installations.)

3) What are the maintenance costs of Unix v. DOS?  (Milage may vary,
depending on the uses of the box.  e.g. If you have email connectivity
between workstations in an office, then you have (most likely) UUCP or
SMTP to keep track of, in addition to writing the user scripts to
"hide" much of the details of this from the Joe Average User.)

4) What are the costs of Unix v. DOS/Lans?  (Here I would suspect that
Unix would win out in terms of productivity gains.)

]Now, whether or not my next computer (NeXT
]computer?) runs OS/2, I don't know.  I can guarantee you one thing,
]however: it will NOT be MS-DOS! 

I also would probably not want a DOS OS on my next box, however, there
are DOS alternatives that are managable.  Our Multi-user DOS v5 is not
that bad.  (Personally, I still want Unix, but it is still not that
bad for 386/486 users.)

--
John "Frotz" Fa'atuai	frotz@dri.com			(email@domain)
Digital Research, Inc.	uunet!drivax!frotz		(bang!email)
c/o MIS Dept.		408/647-6570 or 408/646-6287	(vmail)
80 Garden Court, CompRm	408/649-3896			(phone)
Monterey, CA  93940	408/646-6248			(fax)

#include <sys/disclaimers.h>	// My thoughts and these words are my own.