brahms@NECAM.tdd.sj.nec.com (George Skillman) (02/14/91)
In response to Tom Haapanen: ---------------------------- > You call the 6502-equipped Apple II an "innovative machine using a decent > microporcessor"? No? Then you must be getting confused by the 1981 launch > of the PC, and the 1984 launch of the Mac. In its day, I'm sure the 6502 Apple II was an innovative machine. When IBM came out with the PC, the 8088/8086 chips weren't when compared with the already available MC68000 (which didn't have that damned segmentation). Remember, as I said earlier, the Lisa/Mac were available shortly after the IBM PC came out but it's taken Microsoft years to catch up via Windows 3.0. Some people argue that with its better use of icons, the Mac is still more sophisticated than Windows. I think the Mac as a complete environment is better integrated than Windows patching over DOS. > Unix wasn't really a reasonable example to consider at the time. Back then, > it was still a minicomputer operating system which certainly couldn't be > made to run on a 16K IBM PC with floppies (remember, the original PC did not > support a hard disk). [I can hardly believe that I'm actually justifying the > existence of DOS... :)] In that sense, you're right: Unix wasn't a reasonable example for DOS. But in the same sense, neither was Multics a reasonable example for Unix. There are lots of things in Unix that DOS should have had by now without its necessarily having to be a complete Unix implementation. DOS didn't have to have such a dumb file system with such restrictive file naming conventions. It could easily have had tools, especially a command interpreter, that were as powerful as Unix's. In terms of the kernel, DOS is long overdue in providing more transparent and powerful access to devices instead of forcing applications to implement device access in ways that conflicted with each other. Windows is basicly an OS extension in this respect. Also, note that it took products from companies like Borland, Qualitas and Quarterdeck to get DOS to finally take advantage of the 386's memory addressing and to introduce TSRs. If Microsoft had given DOS better memory and process management, we would have had access to more memory in a controlled/consistent manner. Finally, note that Microsoft did make an effort to bring Unix to PCs with Xenix. But they couldn't make it into a viable product so SCO rose to the occasion to carry on what MS couldn't handle. > Here is where you go completely off track. Microsoft has been offering OS/2 > for, what, about three years now, with steadily improving versions (1.0, 1.1 > and 1.2). However, there have been few major applications written, and the > market has responded by not buying OS/2. On the other hand, when Windows 3.0 > was introduced in May (with much hoopla, yes, but no more than at the OS/2 > intro back in '87), hordes of developers and users rushed to Windows. How > can you say that it's Microsoft that's making us use Windows instead of OS/2? > We certainly have a choice as consumers. Microsoft is, like most succesful > companies, a market driven company. Yes, Microsoft has been improving OS/2 with its consistently late releases. Remember, I like OS/2. I don't trust Microsoft, however. Given the choice of making lots of money and screwing the future of PC operating systems vs. giving us OS/2 2.0 and sharing the market with IBM, I think they'll push Windows as much as possible. The dismal success of OS/2 has more to do with MS being late with OS/2 2.0 and spending too much time on Windows than with the market. Also, I disagree; Microsoft gave more advertising to Windows than OS/2. Windows + DOS is cheaper than OS/2 and it shouldn't be. The development kit is MUCH cheaper. Windows takes better advantage of the 386; OS/2 2.0 would if Microsoft would concentrate on getting it out the door. I don't think the market rejects OS/2 because of hardware requirements. OS/2 does require more expensive hardware but no more expensive than PCs were for DOS originally. My 386 which I bought loaded cost me $4K a year ago. The same machine can now be purchases for $3K. A basic 386SX with 4 meg now costs under $2K. > Microsoft originally wanted to create OS/2 using the Windows API, but IBM > refused, as they basically wanted to go proprietary. Think about that --- > what if all those Windows applications out there could just be recompiled > to run on OS/2? Might not OS/2 have been more succesful? What's wrong with PM? Compared with X Windows, either Windows 3.0 or PM are wonderful programming environments. I don't know if a Windows API would have really helped make OS/2 more successful. I've noticed a lot of people stating that PM is better than the Windows API, most notably Charles Petzold whom I have a great deal of respect for. I'd like to quote Petzold's article in the 11/27/90 issue of PC Magazine. It's one of my favorites: On the API level, DOS and Windows are inferior to OS/2 and PM in every way -- in memory management, in file system support and I/O functions, in multi-tasking capability, in interprocess commu- nication, in the windowing architecture, in the graphics power and versatility. The PM API has an elegance, an internal consistency, a completeness in form and function that makes the Windows API look like a sloppy first draft. ... By extensively promoting Windows 3.0, Microsoft is playing dangerous games with this industry, pretending that a meager and fragile operating system such as DOS and a 16-bit graphical interface such as Windows 3.0 are adequate for the long term. When OS/2 2.0 is ready, Microsoft will find it difficult to convince the industry that this hype was without substance, and that OS/2 is the real answer. What the industry needs in the 1990s is a powerful 32-bit operating system. And if it isn't OS/2, well then, there's always Unix. (Talk about biting the hand...! Way to go Petzold!) > Microsoft has not abandoned OS/2, and they are working on OS/2 3.0. I can > see it becoming a success, as it will run on a variety of platforms, and > provide Microsoft's original vision of a Windows API (alongside the PM API), > thus allowing thousands of Windows applications to run on OS/2 natively. What the hell is Microsoft doing changing OS/2 so radically with 3.0? They haven't even gotten the damn 2.0 release out the door yet! Microsoft DID NOT market OS/2 like they did Windows 3.0. And when OS/2 came out, it was the ugly 1.1 release. OS/2 wasn't really decent until version 1.2 and they should never have told us they were going to release it for the 286. Also, as I said above, OS/2 is priced too high. An OS is a win or bust proposition, so why bother charging a lot for it when the way you make money is by selling zillions of copies, like DOS, rather than charge a lot. They may be working on OS/2 3.0, but, with Microsoft's schedules, when will that ever come out? I agree with the person who posted that OS/2 3.0 will be too large. I want an elegant, powerful operating system, not one that tries to be everything for everybody. Finally, Microsoft should get OS/2 on software store shelves. I suppose there are hardware compatibility problems, but for most 386 clones, OS/2 works fine. Anyone disagree? (It works fine on all the Gateway 2000 machines I've used and we got the OS directly from Microsoft, not Gateway.) > In conclusion, don't flame Microsoft for doing Windows 3.0; flame all the > millions of users out there who are buying Windows instead of OS/2. And > maybe even give some thought to *WHY* they are still using DOS and Windows > instead of switching to OS/2. I can best explain my anger against Microsoft by saying that Microsoft is an example of a company that doesn't start with the objective of making money by creatively marketing good products but by starting with the simpler objective of making money by creative marketing. (Actually, in MS's case, it's more a matter of strategic positioning than good marketing.) I have a favorite example. I saw yet another box of food in the grocery store that demonstrated a company that asked itself "How can I get people to buy this?" without first fixing the product so people should buy it. The box said "No Cholesterol!" meaning the producer was telling me to buy it because it was good for me. Reading the ingredients, however, I found the stuff contained cottonseed oil. The company wasn't lying but it was deliberately missleading me. Microsoft isn't this bad, of course. However, due to its unique position in the PC industry, I believe Microsoft has a moral obligation to do more than just respond to the market. It has already made tons of money so I think it can afford to be more altruistic and think about what would be best for the industry rather than what will make the most money and leave them in control of things. We already have one tyrant in this industry (Gee, who might that be?); I don't want it to be simply replaced with another. I respect companies that have a dream or a vision; companies that want to make lots of money but only by creating something wonderful. I include Apple, SUN, Adobe, HP and Next in this category. Microsoft only saw a good oportunity when it aligned itself with IBM, and they did a good job of milking it for all it was worth. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In response to people who don't like C++, I agree it's a kludge on top of C and isn't SmallTalk. However, having inheritance via C++ is better than not having it at all, particularly when you're trying to enhance a third party package to which you don't have the source, but, if it were written in C++, you would have the header files. My favorite example is X Windows which was written with inheritance in mind but since C++ wasn't widely used at the time, they worked out an inheritance scheme under C that is so convoluted I think it's indecipherably complex. Anyway, I wasn't trying to make a point that Microsoft should have C++, just that Borland managed to introduce a cheaper compiler than MS (that has a better programming environment and debugger, by the way) and they also managed to throw in C++ to boot! I suspect Borland's strategy is to price things cheap to get their foot in the door. I just bought Paradox for only $170! Turbo C++ is only $180! These are incredibly cheap prices. I wish Borland would port their products to UNIX boxes. George Skillman brahms@tdd.sj.nec.com NEC America ==================================================================== Needless to say, my opinions aren't necessarily those of my company.
jcav@ellis.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (02/16/91)
In article <1991Feb14.010238.1048@sj.nec.com> brahms@NECAM.tdd.sj.nec.com (George Skillman) writes: >In response to Tom Haapanen: >---------------------------- > >> You call the 6502-equipped Apple II an "innovative machine using a decent >> microporcessor"? No? Then you must be getting confused by the 1981 launch >> of the PC, and the 1984 launch of the Mac. > >In its day, I'm sure the 6502 Apple II was an innovative machine. When IBM >came out with the PC, the 8088/8086 chips weren't compared with the already >available MC68000 (which didn't have that damned segmentation). Remember, >as I said earlier, the Lisa/Mac were available shortly after the IBM >PC came out but it's taken Microsoft years to catch up via Windows 3.0. >Some people argue that with its better use of icons, the Mac is still more >sophisticated than Windows. I think the Mac as a complete environment >is better integrated than Windows patching over DOS. Do not forget that the Apple II was the first microcomputer with color graphics (in 1977!). It was also the ONLY one until the Atari 400 and 800 appeared in 1979. (was the VIC-20 around yet?) The story I heard regarding the choice of the 6502 was that Steve Wozniak (who designed the Apple II by himself, sans committee) was going to use the Z-80 (MUCH better choice, IMHO) but changed his mind because 6502s were cheaper. Another story I heard is that IBM had three design teams in an internal competition to design their first PC. Two teams based their designs on the MC68000, the third on the 8088. One design was picked. :-( Can/will some better-informed person or persons elaborate? -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 "Opinions, my boy. Just opinions" | Telephone: 312-702-6901