cfoughty@digi.lonestar.org (Cy Foughty) (09/20/90)
This is getting stupid!! 'Alo, 'alo, MicroSoft, where is 2.0? I'm tired of getting flack from the Unix people. Give us a real date! I don't know what is taking so long. In the time that you have worked on OS/2, our company has written an extremely complicated multiprocessing Real-Time OS and the telecom equipment that it runs on. I've written a lot of the OS myself. We are talking well over a million lines of code for the whole project. I don't understand why it is taking soooooo long. Inform us MicroSoft. -- Cy Foughty DSC Communications, Inc. 1000 Coit Rd., Plano,TX 75075 Work:214.519.4237 La Casa:214.578.8837 Don't compromise your compromises.
steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) (09/24/90)
In article <992@digi.lonestar.org> cfoughty@digi.lonestar.org (Cy Foughty) writes: >I don't know what is taking so long. In the time that you have worked on >OS/2, our company has written an extremely complicated multiprocessing >Real-Time OS and the telecom equipment that it runs on. I've written >a lot of the OS myself. We are talking well over a million lines of code >for the whole project. I don't understand why it is taking soooooo long. Well, I am not associated with the OS/2 development efforts, but I can think of three reasons OS/2 should take longer than your project: * OS/2 has to run on many different system configurations, with all manner of hard disk controllers, video controllers, printers, keyboards, etc. It is indeed a luxury to be able to design the target hardware as your company has. * OS/2 has to have not just a US version, but also French, German, and many other language versions. I suspect that your project does complicated things, but OS/2 does complicated things *and* has a complicated user interface. * OS/2 has to have backward-compatible DOS boxes, which is a tremendous pain because so many DOS apps are so ill-behaved. Also, while I have never seen the source code to OS/2, I suspect that it may be much bigger than your million lines of code in view of the above three points. Especially if you count printer drivers, device drivers, networking code, and so on, all of which have to be provided and have to work together. -- Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== ::::: uunet!microsoft!steveha steveha@microsoft.uucp ` \\==|
nbladt@aut.UUCP (Norbert Bladt) (09/24/90)
cfoughty@digi.lonestar.org (Cy Foughty) writes: [Text about OS/2 2.0 (and waiting for it) deleted] >I don't know what is taking so long. In the time that you have worked on [Text deleted] >for the whole project. I don't understand why it is taking soooooo long. Imagine, they are trying to use a real programming language (C) instead of MASM (if that rumour is right, which I expect, considering the announcements of MS and IBM for further OS/2 development) ! "Just" changing the underlying CPU from '286 to '386 (or '486) must not take sooooooo much time, right ? Rewriting the code, however, in order to port it to other hardware, i.e. i960 (or was it 860 ?), is one factor which increases the amount of time (and money) they have to spent greatly. The other factor might be that they would like to functionally enhance OS/2 a lot. For better shape against other OSs (you mentioned one of them) or operating environments (Win 3.0). Not waiting for it (and don't have it), Norbert Bladt. -- Please use this path as return address. DON'T USE THE RETURN PATH IN THE HEADER Norbert Bladt, Ascom Autelca AG, Worbstr. 201, CH-3073 Guemligen, Switzerland Phone: +41 31 52 92 14 EMail: ..!uunet!mcsun!chx400!hslrswi!bladt
seg@ingres.com (scott e garfinkle) (09/24/90)
In article <57655@microsoft.UUCP> steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes: >In article <992@digi.lonestar.org> cfoughty@digi.lonestar.org (Cy Foughty) writes: >>I don't know what is taking so long.... > > >Well, I am not associated with the OS/2 development efforts, but I can think >of three reasons OS/2 should take longer than your project: > ... I can think of one much better reason: Microsoft has shifted resources out of the OS2 project. Presumably, this happened well in advance of the recent (infamous) "joint announcement". It does tend to push back release dates when you're not working on a project. -Scott E. Garfinkle I speak for nobody but myself.