Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!iank
From: i...@microsoft.com (Ian KENNEDY)
Subject: Sad news for IBM and OS/2
Message-ID: <1992Feb19.232312.17503@microsoft.com>
Date: 19 Feb 92 23:23:12 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Keywords: Har!
Lines: 35
The following is an e-mail I recieved from some guys at
Microsoft Product Support Services. It's pretty intresting.
<<Begin Forewarded mail>>
Mr. Honaker and myself had a discussion about OS/2
2.0 the other day and some of you might find it
interesting.
IBM has spent > 1 billion dollars (billion with a "b")
so far on OS/2 2.0 and is close to ship.
If IBM retails OS/2 2.0 for $150 a pop, that means
they have to sell 6.67 million copies to break even.
Out of the $150, their cost is $25, and for each copy
they have to pay us $35 for the use of Win3 technology.
Now they're down to $95/unit which means they have
to sell 10.5 million copies to break even.
IBM has publicly stated that upgrading to 2.0 will
be free to current users, approximately 700,000 units.
They are also going to give away 1 million copies to
influential users.
So now they're up to 12.2 million copies. The best
selling software ever released (Win 3.0) has sold
roughly 10 million copies in 20 months, a truely
phenomenal rate. OS/2 has been out since '85 and has
only about 700,000 users.
So, if IBM actually sells 12.2 million copies,
Microsoft still makes $427 million per our licensing
agreement. And they haven't even taken 1 support call.
<<End Forewarded mail>>
I...@microsoft.com
Path: sparky!uunet!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!
homer.cs.mcgill.ca!costin
From: cos...@cs.mcgill.ca (Costin RIZAN)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sad news for IBM and OS/2
Keywords: Har!
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.052843.13013@cs.mcgill.ca>
Date: 20 Feb 92 05:28:43 GMT
References: <1992Feb19.232312.17503@microsoft.com>
Sender: n...@cs.mcgill.ca (Netnews Administrator)
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Lines: 68
In article <1992Feb19.232312.17...@microsoft.com> i...@microsoft.com
(Ian KENNEDY) writes:
>The following is an e-mail I recieved from some guys at
>Microsoft Product Support Services. It's pretty intresting.
>
><<Begin Forewarded mail>>
>Mr. Honaker and myself had a discussion about OS/2
>2.0 the other day and some of you might find it
>interesting.
>
>IBM has spent > 1 billion dollars (billion with a "b")
>so far on OS/2 2.0 and is close to ship.
It's nice to see some companies putting some money back into
R&D. I'm sure it will pay off in the long run.
>
>If IBM retails OS/2 2.0 for $150 a pop, that means
>they have to sell 6.67 million copies to break even.
>Out of the $150, their cost is $25, and for each copy
>they have to pay us $35 for the use of Win3 technology.
>Now they're down to $95/unit which means they have
>to sell 10.5 million copies to break even.
Don't forget that sooner or later IBM will offer upgrades
to OS/2. These will have a much higher profit margin since less
R&D money will be spent on them.
>IBM has publicly stated that upgrading to 2.0 will
>be free to current users, approximately 700,000 units.
>They are also going to give away 1 million copies to
>influential users.
>
>So now they're up to 12.2 million copies. The best
>selling software ever released (Win 3.0) has sold
>roughly 10 million copies in 20 months, a truely
>phenomenal rate. OS/2 has been out since '85 and has
>only about 700,000 users.
I don't think it's fair to compare OS/2 1.3 and previous with the
2.0 release. It is radicaly different. If only for the fact that it is
3 operating systems in one!
Win 3.0 might be the best selling software ever released but it's
certainly not the best ever written. Up until now it was the only alternative
if you wanted a GUI (and didn't mind your 386 acting like an XT) and still
wanted to run your old MS-DOS application.
>
>So, if IBM actually sells 12.2 million copies,
>Microsoft still makes $427 million per our licensing
>agreement. And they haven't even taken 1 support call.
><<End Forewarded mail>>
So what's your point? The question is this. If Microsoft keeps
up it's endless whining, gets on the nerves of more and more users,
doesn't produce anything that they can put up against OS/2 (looking
forward to seeing how NT will compare), and everybody
switches to OS/2 and stops buying Microsoft applications and such,
will Bill and Company survive on a measely 427$ Millions????
>
>I...@microsoft.com
Besides, I believe IBM is thinking long term on this one. Right now
they'd like to crush microsoft and take back the operating system market.
In a couple of years, or even sooner come up with something resembling
the CUA demo (If you've seen it, I think you'll agree it is fantastic).
I cannot believe you guys are laughing at IBM for actualy investing big
bucks in order to satisfy it's users! Weird business tactics! I wonder
who's impressed by them?
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!mips!atha!aunro!alberta!ubc-cs!mueller
From: muel...@cs.ubc.ca (Stephan Mueller)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sad news for IBM and OS/2
Keywords: Har!
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.093814.4750@cs.ubc.ca>
Date: 20 Feb 92 09:38:14 GMT
References: <1992Feb19.232312.17503@microsoft.com>
<1992Feb20.052843.13013@cs.mcgill.ca>
Sender: use...@cs.ubc.ca (Usenet News)
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 49
In article <1992Feb20.052843.13...@cs.mcgill.ca> cos...@cs.mcgill.ca
(Costin RIZAN) writes:
> Win 3.0 might be the best selling software ever released but it's
>certainly not the best ever written. Up until now it was the only alternative
>if you wanted a GUI (and didn't mind your 386 acting like an XT) and still
>wanted to run your old MS-DOS application.
This sounds to me like the existing of Win 3.0 is a good thing. If it
weren't for Win 3.0, there would be no GUI (although perhaps under
different circumstances GEM might have caught on) until OS/2 2.0. Wait
a minute, what about OS/2 1.3 and before? Also, without Windows doing
so well, do you think IBM would be so fervently working on OS/2 2.0?
> So what's your point? The question is this. If Microsoft keeps
>up it's endless whining, gets on the nerves of more and more users,
>doesn't produce anything that they can put up against OS/2 (looking
>forward to seeing how NT will compare), and everybody
>switches to OS/2 and stops buying Microsoft applications and such,
>will Bill and Company survive on a measely 427$ Millions????
So what's your point? About what is Microsoft whining? They keep
shipping products that people want to buy, it seems. Whose nerves are
they getting on? Give NT a little time. It takes a while to develop a
decent OS. Also keep in mind that MS did a substantial portion of the
development of OS/2 2.0. It's ironic that the biggest OS challenge MS
has ever faced will be from a product they developed. I wouldn't hold
my breath for _everybody_ to switch to OS/2. They didn't switch to OS/2
1.0, 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 and IBM seems to feel that incredibly low prices
will be needed to get them to switch to 2.0. Clearly it's not going to
be an easy battle.
> Besides, I believe IBM is thinking long term on this one. Right now
>they'd like to crush microsoft and take back the operating system market.
>In a couple of years, or even sooner come up with something resembling
>the CUA demo (If you've seen it, I think you'll agree it is fantastic).
>I cannot believe you guys are laughing at IBM for actualy investing big
>bucks in order to satisfy it's users! Weird business tactics! I wonder
>who's impressed by them?
IBM has an impressive history of wanting to crush other companies. How
about competing with them on the basis of technological superiority, instead?
Suppose they do succeed in eradicating Windows (which I consider highly
unlikely.) How long will the price of their operating systems and upgrades
be ridiculously low? Check out what OS/2 1.1 Extended Edition listed for.
I think it was in the $495 range, but I could be wrong (about everything else
I am absolutely correct, of course :-)
--
stephan();
muel...@cs.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!utgpu!cunews!nrcnet0!bnrgate!bcars267!
bcarh775!dclayton
From: dclay...@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Subject: Re: Sad news for IBM and OS/2
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.134849.12821@bnr.ca>
Keywords: Har!
Sender: n...@bnr.ca (usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bcarh775
Reply-To: dclay...@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
References: <1992Feb19.232312.17503@microsoft.com>
<1992Feb20.052843.13013@cs.mcgill.ca> <1992Feb20.093814.4750@cs.ubc.ca>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 13:48:49 GMT
In article <1992Feb20.093814.4...@cs.ubc.ca>, muel...@cs.ubc.ca (Stephan Mueller)
writes:
|> This sounds to me like the existing of Win 3.0 is a good thing. If it
|> weren't for Win 3.0, there would be no GUI (although perhaps under
|> different circumstances GEM might have caught on) until OS/2 2.0. Wait
|> a minute, what about OS/2 1.3 and before? Also, without Windows doing
|> so well, do you think IBM would be so fervently working on OS/2 2.0?
Actually, IBM was fervently working on OS/2 2.0 up to a year before Win
3.0 came out, and if it wasn't for the need for IBM to add Win 3.0 support
to OS/2 2.0 it would have come out over a year ago.
|>
|> So what's your point? About what is Microsoft whining? They keep
|> shipping products that people want to buy, it seems. Whose nerves are
|> they getting on? Give NT a little time. It takes a while to develop a
|> decent OS. Also keep in mind that MS did a substantial portion of the
|> development of OS/2 2.0. It's ironic that the biggest OS challenge MS
|> has ever faced will be from a product they developed. I wouldn't hold
|> my breath for _everybody_ to switch to OS/2. They didn't switch to OS/2
|> 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 and IBM seems to feel that incredibly low prices
|> will be needed to get them to switch to 2.0. Clearly it's not going to
|> be an easy battle.
You clearly do not understand the difference between OS/2 2.0 and it's
earlier versions. Would you pick an unstable, slow GUI that doesn't run
DOS programs very well (Windows 3.0/3.1) or one that runs DOS, Windows and
real 32bit applications in a fast and stable environments (OS/2 2.0)? I
think the PC S/W industry is in for a suprise. Users have absolutely nothing
to lose by going to OS/2 (while they did with early version - DOS compatibility).
|>
|> IBM has an impressive history of wanting to crush other companies. How
|> about competing with them on the basis of technological superiority, instead?
OS/2 2.0 is signficantly superior in terms of technology to Windows 3.0.
Would you like a list? I have an OS book that compares OS/2 to the Mach
kernal, and Mach barly wins.
|> Suppose they do succeed in eradicating Windows (which I consider highly
|> unlikely.) How long will the price of their operating systems and upgrades
|> be ridiculously low? Check out what OS/2 1.1 Extended Edition listed for.
|> I think it was in the $495 range, but I could be wrong (about everything else
|> I am absolutely correct, of course :-)
I agree, competition is good, and that's what Microsoft is going to get.
There is a reason for the ranting against Microsoft. MS went to every other
S/W company and proclaimed the virtues of OS/2 and how strongly they supported
it. They then released Windows 3.0 and 5 applications written specifically
for it (Word/Excel/Project/Draw/C). Under American law this is illegal,
and MS is being investigate by the FTC because of it. Outside the law, this
action created a great hate for MS in the S/W industry. Other vendors produce
Windows versions because the have to, not because they want to. Why do you
think so many vendors have signed up with OS/2 2.0? Microsoft has lost their
greatest ally in the PC industry (IBM, who BTW owns 40% of Intel) and pissed off
just about every other S/W vendor in the PC industry, for quick earnings. This
will bear out in the future for them, I am sure.
Don
Are these the views of BNR - of course not, BNR would never say
anything that ridiculous!
We appologize for the inconvenience - Gods final message to his creation.
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!
news.u.washington.edu!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!mueller
From: muel...@cs.ubc.ca (Stephan Mueller)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sad news for IBM and OS/2
Keywords: Har!
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.191349.14256@cs.ubc.ca>
Date: 20 Feb 92 19:13:49 GMT
References: <1992Feb20.052843.13013@cs.mcgill.ca> <1992Feb20.093814.4750@cs.ubc.ca>
<1992Feb20.134849.12821@bnr.ca>
Sender: use...@cs.ubc.ca (Usenet News)
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 145
In article <1992Feb20.134849.12...@bnr.ca> dclay...@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
>In article <1992Feb20.093814.4...@cs.ubc.ca>, muel...@cs.ubc.ca (Stephan Mueller)
writes:
>|> This sounds to me like the existing of Win 3.0 is a good thing. If it
>|> weren't for Win 3.0, there would be no GUI (although perhaps under
>|> different circumstances GEM might have caught on) until OS/2 2.0. Wait
>|> a minute, what about OS/2 1.3 and before? Also, without Windows doing
>|> so well, do you think IBM would be so fervently working on OS/2 2.0?
>
>Actually, IBM was fervently working on OS/2 2.0 up to a year before Win
>3.0 came out, and if it wasn't for the need for IBM to add Win 3.0 support
>to OS/2 2.0 it would have come out over a year ago.
At that time, _Microsoft_ was also fervently working on OS/2 2.0. There
was a joint development agreement then. It became an IBM-only
development project when IBM decided that Microsoft wasn't taking
it seriously enough (which IMHO was not the case) which was after
Win 3.0 started selling like hotcakes. IBM only decided it needed to
add Win 3.0 support when Win 3.0 started selling like hotcakes.
If it had come out a year ago, or thereabouts, before Win 3.0 started
selling like hotcakes, there would have been no need to add Win 3.0
support.
OS/2 2.0 wasn't ready a year ago.
>|> So what's your point? About what is Microsoft whining? They keep
>|> shipping products that people want to buy, it seems. Whose nerves are
>|> they getting on? Give NT a little time. It takes a while to develop a
>|> decent OS. Also keep in mind that MS did a substantial portion of the
>|> development of OS/2 2.0. It's ironic that the biggest OS challenge MS
>|> has ever faced will be from a product they developed. I wouldn't hold
>|> my breath for _everybody_ to switch to OS/2. They didn't switch to OS/2
>|> 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 and IBM seems to feel that incredibly low prices
>|> will be needed to get them to switch to 2.0. Clearly it's not going to
>|> be an easy battle.
>
>You clearly do not understand the difference between OS/2 2.0 and it's
>earlier versions. Would you pick an unstable, slow GUI that doesn't run
>DOS programs very well (Windows 3.0/3.1) or one that runs DOS, Windows and
>real 32bit applications in a fast and stable environments (OS/2 2.0)? I
>think the PC S/W industry is in for a suprise. Users have absolutely nothing
>to lose by going to OS/2 (while they did with early version - DOS compatibility).
I still don't see what Microsoft is supposedly whining about. Rest
assured I know the difference between OS/2 2.0 and its early versions.
OS/2 1.x (x>0) featured a DOS compatibility box. While not as powerful
as OS/2 2.0 which features multiple DOS boxes and Windows compatibility
too, the OS/2 1.x DOS box was certainly good enough to be considered
DOS compatible. It managed to run Windows, Flight Simulator, Word,
Borland development tools and Microsoft development tools (personal
experience.) I suspect it's good enough to run WordPerfect and 1-2-3,
which is all that an awful lot of people need. (Of course, if that's
all they need, then DOS will do them just fine too.) OS/2 specific
versions of Word and Excel also exist, so there's more compatibility,
ALL FROM OS/2 1.x.
Personally, I would pick OS/2 2.0 if it were available and NT were not
in the pipeline. For the last year or so, I would have (and did) use
OS/2 1.x. If neither were available, I would use Windows 3.0, for the
task-switching ability. Millions of other users seem to have picked
Windows 3.0 despite its flaws and despite OS/2 1.x's superiority.
I dunno why.
Please don't state that Windows 3.1 is also slow and unstable until its
out. I think you'll find it a big improvement.
>There is a reason for the ranting against Microsoft. MS went to every other
>S/W company and proclaimed the virtues of OS/2 and how strongly they supported
>it.
Yup. This was at the time of the joint development agreement with IBM.
> They then released Windows 3.0 and 5 applications written specifically
>for it (Word/Excel/Project/Draw/C).
Um, Excel was around for years already, using Windows version 2.0.
C? MS C still doesn't run under Windows. Currently, and since version
5.1, Windows has had support for OS/2 code generation. What do you
mean C is 'specifically for OS/2.' Word for Windows had been in
development for years (far longer than MS would have liked) and shipped
v1.0 for Windows 2.0.
Never did Microsoft claim not to be developing an update to Windows,
which they have been pushing for years and years. While pushing the
virtue of OS/2 it was mentioned that Windows would be there so that
the low end users could benefit too. It is not Micr
>Under American law this is illegal,
>and MS is being investigate by the FTC because of it.
I'm not sure this is the exact reason for the FTC investigation.
Speaking of which, what's the current status on this, and how does
it affect or is it affected by the recent reorganization.
>Outside the law, this
>action created a great hate for MS in the S/W industry. Other vendors produce
>Windows versions because the have to, not because they want to.
MS sank a lot of effort into OS/2 apps. There is a Word for OS/2.
There is OS/2 Excel. LanMan for OS/2. Support for OS/2 in the C
and Fortran compilers. OS/2 itself! MS didn't put all their eggs in
one basket and developed for all the platforms that they. (As an
aside, I think there are too many of those, and the world would be
a much better place if OS/2 1.0 had been 386 specific, but that was
not Microsoft's decision. Remember: joint development agreement.
IBM had a lot of influence over what OS/2 1.0 became and I can assure
you it wasn't all for the best.) It was the consumers who bought
Windows instead of OS/2. It was those who developed only for OS/2
who got burned. Is that Microsoft's fault?
>Why do you
>think so many vendors have signed up with OS/2 2.0?
Because it'll let them write 32-bit apps and because they learned
from last time and hence will be writing for both Windows and 2.0,
not wanting to be left out, if 2.0 should happen to catch on.
>Microsoft has lost their
>greatest ally in the PC industry (IBM, who BTW owns 40% of Intel) and pissed off
>just about every other S/W vendor in the PC industry, for quick earnings. This
>will bear out in the future for them, I am sure.
Not for quick earnings. If you think that Microsoft's current Windows
success is 'quick earnings' please remember that Windows came out close
to a decade ago, and that MS has been pouring development effort into
it and its applications (not to mention a lawsuit from Apple :-)
for nearly 10 years, the first 7 or so of which saw no tremendous
return.
Having lost IBM as an ally is unfortunate for the consumer because it
means more fragmentation in the marketplace. I believe that it is
in some respects liberating. For example, NT (which even IBM and
MS were working together was an MS only project) development is
much more rapid than OS/2 1.x was. Why? Because MS can make decisions
without IBM's bureaucracy.
>Don
>Are these the views of BNR - of course not, BNR would never say
> anything that ridiculous!
>We appologize for the inconvenience - Gods final message to his creation.
--
stephan();
muel...@cs.ubc.ca
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!
news.hawaii.edu!wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu!lauch
From: la...@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Chung Lau)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sad news for IBM and OS/2
Keywords: Har!
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.224627.4243@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Date: 20 Feb 92 22:46:27 GMT
References: <1992Feb20.093814.4750@cs.ubc.ca> <1992Feb20.134849.12821@bnr.ca>
<1992Feb20.191349.14256@cs.ubc.ca>
Sender: r...@news.Hawaii.Edu (News Service)
Organization: University of Engineering, College of Engineering
Lines: 76
Nntp-Posting-Host: wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu
In article <1992Feb20.191349.14...@cs.ubc.ca> muel...@cs.ubc.ca (Stephan Mueller)
writes:
>
>Personally, I would pick OS/2 2.0 if it were available and NT were not
>in the pipeline.
I don't see why I should wait for NT if OS/2 2.0 does ship on-time.
It offers almost all of the advanced features of NT (multi-threading,
memory protection..), and can run on less powerful machine (a 2.0
preview I saw was run on a 386sx and its performance is very respectable),
NT needs a 386/33 w/ 8 megs to be usable. I also very much doubt Microsoft
would ship NT on time.
>task-switching ability. Millions of other users seem to have picked
>Windows 3.0 despite its flaws and despite OS/2 1.x's superiority.
>I dunno why.
You can't buy OS/2 1.3 off the shelf, which IBM claims would change
when 2.0 is released.
>Please don't state that Windows 3.1 is also slow and unstable until its
>out. I think you'll find it a big improvement.
Whatever safeguards to prevent UAE Microsoft has put into Windows 3.1,
it still doesn't have memory protection. Please realize that we are
comparing Window 3.1 to OS/2 2.0, Windows NT is still vaporware.
>Um, Excel was around for years already, using Windows version 2.0.
>C? MS C still doesn't run under Windows. Currently, and since version
>5.1, Windows has had support for OS/2 code generation. What do you
>mean C is 'specifically for OS/2.' Word for Windows had been in
>development for years (far longer than MS would have liked) and shipped
>v1.0 for Windows 2.0.
I think what he meant was Microsoft pull OS/2 support under the newest
version of MS C. Talk about major cheap shot. Do you know that
they've stopped development on all apps. specifically for OS/2?? (Excel,
Word for PM..)
>MS sank a lot of effort into OS/2 apps. There is a Word for OS/2.
>There is OS/2 Excel. LanMan for OS/2. Support for OS/2 in the C
>and Fortran compilers.
As I said, all development on apps. specifically for OS/2 have
been stopped. OS/2 support in MS C has been removed. What do you
call this?
>IBM had a lot of influence over what OS/2 1.0 became and I can assure
>you it wasn't all for the best.) It was the consumers who bought
>Windows instead of OS/2. It was those who developed only for OS/2
>who got burned. Is that Microsoft's fault?
Not really, until they now said that NT is the future, not OS/2.
OS/2 2.0 has almost all the features of Windows NT *NOW*.
>Because it'll let them write 32-bit apps and because they learned
>from last time and hence will be writing for both Windows and 2.0,
>not wanting to be left out, if 2.0 should happen to catch on.
More like some people got p*ss off at Microsoft after spending couple
thousand dollars on the OS/2 SDK.
>Having lost IBM as an ally is unfortunate for the consumer because it
>means more fragmentation in the marketplace. I believe that it is
>in some respects liberating. For example, NT (which even IBM and
>MS were working together was an MS only project) development is
>much more rapid than OS/2 1.x was. Why? Because MS can make decisions
>without IBM's bureaucracy.
No. Having Microsoft controlling Intel clone's OS would be
unfortunate for the consumer. At least IBM has stick with OS/2
all these times.
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
Stephen Lau, Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Hawaii
Internet: la...@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu UseNet: uunet!easy!slau!slau
1992 - The beginning of the end for MS-DOS
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!
ubc-cs!mueller
From: muel...@cs.ubc.ca (Stephan Mueller)
Subject: Re: Sad news for IBM and OS/2
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.023906.23863@cs.ubc.ca>
Keywords: Har!
Sender: use...@cs.ubc.ca (Usenet News)
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
References: <1992Feb20.134849.12821@bnr.ca> <1992Feb20.191349.14256@cs.ubc.ca>
<1992Feb20.224627.4243@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 02:39:06 GMT
In article <1992Feb20.224627.4...@news.Hawaii.Edu> la...@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu
(Chung Lau) writes:
>In article <1992Feb20.191349.14...@cs.ubc.ca> muel...@cs.ubc.ca (Stephan Mueller)
writes:
>>Personally, I would pick OS/2 2.0 if it were available and NT were not
>>in the pipeline.
> I don't see why I should wait for NT if OS/2 2.0 does ship on-time.
>It offers almost all of the advanced features of NT (multi-threading,
>memory protection..), and can run on less powerful machine (a 2.0
>preview I saw was run on a 386sx and its performance is very respectable),
>NT needs a 386/33 w/ 8 megs to be usable. I also very much doubt Microsoft
>would ship NT on time.
I'm not suggesting that you should wait for NT. If you like OS/2 2.0,
go buy it. I'm only saying I would wait. Why do you believe OS/2 2.0
will ship on time, but NT won't? 2.0 is already late. It was to have
shipped in December of 1991. Granted NT requires more powerful
hardware. If I wanted a small, memory efficient OS, I would use
AmigaDOS (I do!) NT has advantages over 2.0 that you may not have
considered. It's portable. It will run on ACE platforms based on
MIPS processors. It is a way of getting away from the Intel tyranny,
gracefully and gradually.
>>task-switching ability. Millions of other users seem to have picked
>>Windows 3.0 despite its flaws and despite OS/2 1.x's superiority.
>>I dunno why.
> You can't buy OS/2 1.3 off the shelf, which IBM claims would change
>when 2.0 is released.
So buy 1.2. Why can't you buy 1.3 off the shelf? Why doesn't IBM let
you buy it now? Sounds like they're keeping something from those
customers that they (earlier in this thread) were so devoted too.
>>Please don't state that Windows 3.1 is also slow and unstable until its
>>out. I think you'll find it a big improvement.
> Whatever safeguards to prevent UAE Microsoft has put into Windows 3.1,
>it still doesn't have memory protection. Please realize that we are
>comparing Window 3.1 to OS/2 2.0, Windows NT is still vaporware.
AmigaDOS doesn't have memory protection. It's not a fatal flaw.
I don't recall explicitly comparing Windows 3.1 to OS/2 2.0. That
would be counterproductive since neither is shipping yet. NT is
not the only vapourware here. My plan is to wait for the one
I believe to be the best, namely NT, and use Windows 3.0 in the
meantime.
> I think what he meant was Microsoft pull OS/2 support under the newest
>version of MS C. Talk about major cheap shot. Do you know that
>they've stopped development on all apps. specifically for OS/2?? (Excel,
>Word for PM..)
His point was pretty clear, I thought. Something like "ship windows,
and five apps specifically for it shortly thereafter." I don't think
that pulling OS/2 support, a relatively recent development was what
he had in mind.
The reason for pulling OS/2 support I think, is the same as that for
halting all OS/2 app development. Nobody is buying shipping versions
of OS/2. So why spend money on apps for it? They certainly gave their
OS/2 apps far more attention before giving up on them than they did
Amiga apps. (i.e. none, and we can't count AmigaBasic since that was
a contract job for Commodore.)
>>MS sank a lot of effort into OS/2 apps. There is a Word for OS/2.
>>There is OS/2 Excel. LanMan for OS/2. Support for OS/2 in the C
>>and Fortran compilers.
>
> As I said, all development on apps. specifically for OS/2 have
>been stopped. OS/2 support in MS C has been removed. What do you
>call this?
I'm not sure what you're looking for here. They invested effort
in OS/2 apps, and stopped that investment when it didn't pay off.
Just like WordPerfect did with the Amiga version of their word
processor. You would have MS continue to spend money developing
for an OS/2 nobody buys? Especially, when people have been so
overwhelmingly clear in their PC GUI choice, namely Windows?
>>IBM had a lot of influence over what OS/2 1.0 became and I can assure
>>you it wasn't all for the best.) It was the consumers who bought
>>Windows instead of OS/2. It was those who developed only for OS/2
>>who got burned. Is that Microsoft's fault?
>
> Not really, until they now said that NT is the future, not OS/2.
>OS/2 2.0 has almost all the features of Windows NT *NOW*.
It is not shipping yet. NT is not that far behind. If you feel
that 2.0 is the OS for you, get it. NT Windows used to be called
NT OS/2. The NT product, whatever it's called, is the future.
Or rather, it's finally an implementation of what Unix users have
known for years was the 'right thing:' a portable, powerful,
full-featured, multi-tasking OS with memory protection.
>>Because it'll let them write 32-bit apps and because they learned
>>from last time and hence will be writing for both Windows and 2.0,
>>not wanting to be left out, if 2.0 should happen to catch on.
>
> More like some people got p*ss off at Microsoft after spending couple
>thousand dollars on the OS/2 SDK.
Sigh. I assure you, MS spent far more money on OS/2 than the few
thousand bucks for an SDK. I also don't see that a wise developer
will choose to develop for 2.0 just to spite Microsoft.
>>Having lost IBM as an ally is unfortunate for the consumer because it
>>means more fragmentation in the marketplace. I believe that it is
>>in some respects liberating. For example, NT (which even IBM and
>>MS were working together was an MS only project) development is
>>much more rapid than OS/2 1.x was. Why? Because MS can make decisions
>>without IBM's bureaucracy.
>
> No. Having Microsoft controlling Intel clone's OS would be
>unfortunate for the consumer. At least IBM has stick with OS/2
>all these times.
Excuse me? You can buy DOS with IBM's name on it. Who do you think
was mostly responsible for DOS 4? Note that DOS 5 is actually
smaller than DOS 4, yet more functional. IBM still has its fingers
in DOS. And don't forget about DR-DOS. Even with Microsoft supposedly
`controlling the Intel clone's OS' there is competition in the DOS
market. Personally, having to choose between MS in control of
the Intel clone OS, and having IBM in control of the Intel clone
OS (which might be what happens if OS/2 really catches on,) I'd
rather have MS in charge.
>*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
>Stephen Lau, Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Hawaii
>Internet: la...@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu UseNet: uunet!easy!slau!slau
> 1992 - The beginning of the end for MS-DOS
Ever seen the Abacus time line? It predicts the end of Cobol every even
year, and the end of Fortran every odd year.
--
stephan();
muel...@cs.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!news.hawaii.edu!wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu!
lauch
From: la...@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Chung Lau)
Subject: Re: Sad news for IBM and OS/2
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.084024.21588@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.misc
Keywords: Har!
Sender: r...@news.Hawaii.Edu (News Service)
Nntp-Posting-Host: wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu
Organization: University of Engineering, College of Engineering
References: <1992Feb20.191349.14256@cs.ubc.ca>
<1992Feb20.224627.4243@news.Hawaii.Edu> <1992Feb21.023906.23863@cs.ubc.ca>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 08:40:24 GMT
In article <1992Feb21.023906.23...@cs.ubc.ca> muel...@cs.ubc.ca (Stephan Mueller)
writes:
>
>I'm not suggesting that you should wait for NT. If you like OS/2 2.0,
>go buy it. I'm only saying I would wait. Why do you believe OS/2 2.0
>will ship on time, but NT won't?
Because there is 20,000 betas circulating around the globe already,
and I've seen the OS/2 demo myself, it's very real and does exactly
what IBM claims. I'll believe NT when I saw the beta.
>2.0 is already late. It was to have
>shipped in December of 1991.
LA (Limited Availability) version *IS* out. You can get it *NOW*.
Just pick up your phone.
>considered. It's portable. It will run on ACE platforms based on
>MIPS processors. It is a way of getting away from the Intel tyranny,
>gracefully and gradually.
I don't believe ACE at all.
>So buy 1.2. Why can't you buy 1.3 off the shelf? Why doesn't IBM let
>you buy it now? Sounds like they're keeping something from those
>customers that they (earlier in this thread) were so devoted too.
Because they don't know how to market the thing. You can buy
OS/2 1.3 at EggHead but not some no-name software store. This will
change when 2.0 is released.
>The reason for pulling OS/2 support I think, is the same as that for
>halting all OS/2 app development. Nobody is buying shipping versions
>of OS/2. So why spend money on apps for it? They certainly gave their
>OS/2 apps far more attention before giving up on them than they did
>Amiga apps. (i.e. none, and we can't count AmigaBasic since that was
>a contract job for Commodore.)
Yeah right. Because OS/2 is a flop, Microsoft think it's
wiser to spend money to develop another OS from ground up, and
rewrite applications to the new OS instead of trying to fix the problems
that plagued OS/2 since its release (brain-dead dos box, buggy
printer drivers..). Remember, OS/2 becomes usable (OS/2 1.3) when
IBM took over the project.
>that 2.0 is the OS for you, get it. NT Windows used to be called
>NT OS/2. The NT product, whatever it's called, is the future.
>Or rather, it's finally an implementation of what Unix users have
>known for years was the 'right thing:' a portable, powerful,
>full-featured, multi-tasking OS with memory protection.
Yeah if you are willing to spend more than $500 bucks on NT, go for
it. I am not holding my breath. Remember that NT was supposed to
be OS/2 3.0, that will run OS/2 2.0/1.3 apps, but NT will not
run OS/2 apps when it's released, know why?
>Sigh. I assure you, MS spent far more money on OS/2 than the few
>thousand bucks for an SDK. I also don't see that a wise developer
>will choose to develop for 2.0 just to spite Microsoft.
People pay $2600 bucks to develope OS/2 apps. Microsoft discontinue
support for OS/2 2.0 simply because it's now a competitor's product.
They offer developers a choice of free development software for Windows
3.1 "when it becomes available", or enrollment in the 32-bit
Windows beta program "when it begins in first half of 1992" or a refund
for $750. Talk about fair competition.
>Excuse me? You can buy DOS with IBM's name on it. Who do you think
>was mostly responsible for DOS 4? Note that DOS 5 is actually
>smaller than DOS 4, yet more functional. IBM still has its fingers
>in DOS. And don't forget about DR-DOS. Even with Microsoft supposedly
>`controlling the Intel clone's OS' there is competition in the DOS
>market. Personally, having to choose between MS in control of
>the Intel clone OS, and having IBM in control of the Intel clone
>OS (which might be what happens if OS/2 really catches on,) I'd
>rather have MS in charge.
And who do you think is responsible for the 640k limitation?
or the infamous UAE? or the 64k resource problem? or the stupid
TIFF bug in Word for Windows 2.0? or the...
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
Stephen Lau, Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Hawaii
Internet: la...@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu UseNet: uunet!easy!slau!slau
1992 - The beginning of the end for MS-DOS
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!smsmith
From: smsm...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith)
Subject: Re: Sad news for IBM and OS/2
Message-ID: <1992Feb22.065312.22068@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: n...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1992 06:53:12 GMT
Lines: 32
la...@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Chung Lau) writes:
>muel...@cs.ubc.ca (Stephan Mueller) writes:
>>
>>I'm not suggesting that you should wait for NT. If you like OS/2 2.0,
>>go buy it. I'm only saying I would wait. Why do you believe OS/2 2.0
>>will ship on time, but NT won't?
>
> Because there is 20,000 betas circulating around the globe already,
>and I've seen the OS/2 demo myself, it's very real and does exactly
>what IBM claims. I'll believe NT when I saw the beta.
Don't forget that NT is now scheduled to be 6 months late. We were
told in November that NT was targetted for mid-92, then two months
later that date is pushed back 6 months.
>>2.0 is already late. It was to have
>>shipped in December of 1991.
>
> LA (Limited Availability) version *IS* out. You can get it *NOW*.
>Just pick up your phone.
Yes. I believe the number is 1-800-3IBM-OS2.
BTW, I've enjoyed Stephan Mueller's posts. He is one of the few that
seems well-informed about NT's advantages over OS/2 (such as portability)
and is looking forward to it for that reason. Not that OS/2 can't be
made portable--I'm just stating that most people who are waiting for
NT have no idea of the hardare requirements it will demand or what
advantages it will actually give. Stephan seems to be pretty level-
headed.
SS
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!gatech!cc.gatech.edu!holly!barrett
From: barr...@holly.gatech.edu (James Barrett)
Subject: Re: Sad news for IBM and OS/2
Message-ID: <barrett.698769541@cc.gatech.edu>
Sender: n...@cc.gatech.edu
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
References: <1992Feb22.065312.22068@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1992 14:39:01 GMT
smsm...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:
>seems well-informed about NT's advantages over OS/2 (such as portability)
>and is looking forward to it for that reason. Not that OS/2 can't be
>made portable--I'm just stating that most people who are waiting for
Huh? OS/2 is written in Intel Assembly language. How are you going to
port that within our lifetime? NT (I refuse to call it W*ndows) is what
used to be called OS/2 3.0 and was always planned to be the portable
version of OS/2. Therefore, it's written in C. I'm sure IBM will
investigate the possibility of porting OS/2, but with 80,000,000 DOS
machines right now, the market gain would have to be huge.
James C. Barrett (barr...@cc.gatech.edu)| "Whales are a lot like humans...
Georgia Tech College of Computing | Only they mate for life." - D.Barry
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!news.hawaii.edu!galileo!tholen
From: tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Sad news for IBM and OS/2
Message-ID: <1992Feb22.150041.7079@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Sender: r...@news.Hawaii.Edu (News Service)
Nntp-Posting-Host: galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1992 15:00:41 GMT
James Barrett writes:
> > Not that OS/2 can't be made portable
>
> Huh? OS/2 is written in Intel Assembly language. How are you going to
> port that within our lifetime?
Huh? Where did you hear that? I've heard that something like 90 percent
(maybe more?) of OS/2 is written in C, and very little is written in
assembly.
> I'm sure IBM will
> investigate the possibility of porting OS/2, but with 80,000,000 DOS
> machines right now, the market gain would have to be huge.
The rumors circulated in this very newsgroup indicate that IBM already has
a version of OS/2 running on their RS/6000 platform. That sounds like a
few steps beyond investigating the possibility.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!mueller
From: muel...@cs.ubc.ca (Stephan Mueller)
Subject: Re: Sad news for IBM and OS/2
Message-ID: <1992Feb23.085354.21728@cs.ubc.ca>
Keywords: Har!
Sender: use...@cs.ubc.ca (Usenet News)
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
References: <1992Feb20.224627.4243@news.Hawaii.Edu>
<1992Feb21.023906.23863@cs.ubc.ca> <1992Feb21.084024.21588@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 08:53:54 GMT
In article <1992Feb21.084024.21...@news.Hawaii.Edu> la...@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu
(Chung Lau) writes:
>In article <1992Feb21.023906.23...@cs.ubc.ca> muel...@cs.ubc.ca (Stephan Mueller)
writes:
>>Why do you believe OS/2 2.0
>>will ship on time, but NT won't?
> Because there is 20,000 betas circulating around the globe already,
>and I've seen the OS/2 demo myself, it's very real and does exactly
>what IBM claims. I'll believe NT when I see the beta.
OS/2 2.0 is a little late. Please give NT a chance. I certainly
wouldn't hold my breath for it, but unless you have any evidence
that NT will be late, why assume it will be? Development on NT
has gone very well; for a while (when OS/2 2.0 was still at MS)
there was speculation as to which would ship first. Progress on
NT was that good.
>>2.0 is already late. It was to have
>>shipped in December of 1991.
> LA (Limited Availability) version *IS* out. You can get it *NOW*.
>Just pick up your phone.
So I've heard. But being primarily an Amiga kind of guy, I won't
bother :-)
>>considered. It's portable. It will run on ACE platforms based on
>>MIPS processors. It is a way of getting away from the Intel tyranny,
>>gracefully and gradually.
> I don't believe ACE at all.
Why not?
>>The reason for pulling OS/2 support I think, is the same as that for
>>halting all OS/2 app development. Nobody is buying shipping versions
>>of OS/2. So why spend money on apps for it? They certainly gave their
>>OS/2 apps far more attention before giving up on them than they did
>>Amiga apps. (i.e. none, and we can't count AmigaBasic since that was
>>a contract job for Commodore.)
>
> Yeah right. Because OS/2 is a flop, Microsoft think it's
>wiser to spend money to develop another OS from ground up, and
>rewrite applications to the new OS instead of trying to fix the problems
>that plagued OS/2 since its release (brain-dead dos box, buggy
>printer drivers..). Remember, OS/2 becomes usable (OS/2 1.3) when
>IBM took over the project.
Well, first of all, OS/2 1.2 is quite usable. And secondly, Microsoft
thought it wiser to spend money to develop a portable version of OS/2
What is now NT Windows was once NT OS/2, or OS/2 3.0. It was the
next logical step, after the (IMHO) braindamaged idea of writing OS/2
2.0 and earlier in assembly. The brain-dead DOS box (what's wrong
with it, anyway?) was largely a function of trying to get a 286 to
do stuff that you really want the virtual 8086 mode of the 386 to do.
Whose idea was it that OS/2 1.x must run on 286s? IBM's.
> Yeah if you are willing to spend more than $500 bucks on NT, go for
>it. I am not holding my breath. Remember that NT was supposed to
>be OS/2 3.0, that will run OS/2 2.0/1.3 apps, but NT will not
>run OS/2 apps when it's released, know why?
Because there aren't enough to bother? Also, last I heard it was
unclear whether or not OS/2 apps will be supported. Certainly
Windows apps get higher priority. Because there are 12 million
copies of Windows out there, and a decent (and quickly growing)
number of Windows apps. Seeing as it hasn't been released yet,
I wouldn't speculate on the price of NT. The price of OS/2 2.0
is artificially low, much lower than OS/2 1.x originally. In
some markets, selling something ridiculously cheap to try to
eliminate the competition is considered an unfair trade practice. Even
at $500, NT would be priced comparably to similarly capable Unix
systems, no? I hear NeXTStep 486 will cost $1000.
> People pay $2600 bucks to develope OS/2 apps. Microsoft discontinue
>support for OS/2 2.0 simply because it's now a competitor's product.
You suggest that MS should be providing support for a product they
do not have control over? "We're sorry this bug is preventing you from
shipping your product, but I'm afraid we don't control the source and
hence can't fix it for you." If by 'support' you mean MS stopping
development of apps for OS/2, then the SDK is irrelevant.
>They offer developers a choice of free development software for Windows
>3.1 "when it becomes available", or enrollment in the 32-bit
>Windows beta program "when it begins in first half of 1992" or a refund
>for $750. Talk about fair competition.
Ah. Maybe they're trying to make it up to the developers. You would
rather that MS charged those irate developers another $2600 for the
NT or Win 3.1 SDKs? The best support that MS can possibly give to
those who invested in OS/2, is to replace what they no longer control,
(OS/2 2.0) with something that they do.
> And who do you think is responsible for the 640k limitation?
>or the infamous UAE? or the 64k resource problem? or the stupid
>TIFF bug in Word for Windows 2.0? or the...
I'll certainly never claim that MS stuff is perfect. And I'll never
claim that DOS is something to be proud of. Backwards compatibility
is a horrible cross to have to bear, and hindsight is always 20/20.
However, I will claim that MS software tends to be better than
equivalent IBM software. AmigaBasic, well, mumble.
--
stephan();
muel...@cs.ubc.ca
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!qmw-dcs!icdoc!ibmassc!yktnews!admin!The-Village!
waterbed
From: marg...@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Sad news for IBM and OS/2
Message-ID: <1992Feb23.185132.14476@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 23 Feb 92 18:51:32 GMT
Sender: n...@watson.ibm.com (NNTP News Poster)
Reply-To: marg...@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Lines: 58
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Nntp-Posting-Host: waterbed.watson.ibm.com
In <1992Feb23.085354.21...@cs.ubc.ca> muel...@cs.ubc.ca (Stephan Mueller) writes:
> In article <1992Feb21.084024.21...@news.Hawaii.Edu> la...@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu
> >In article <1992Feb21.023906.23...@cs.ubc.ca> muel...@cs.ubc.ca (Stephan Muelle
> >>Why do you believe OS/2 2.0
> >>will ship on time, but NT won't?
> > Because there is 20,000 betas circulating around the globe already,
> >and I've seen the OS/2 demo myself, it's very real and does exactly
> >what IBM claims. I'll believe NT when I see the beta.
>
> OS/2 2.0 is a little late.
Customer feedback showed a requirement for three features not originally
planned. That's why GA was pushed back to March, which will include these
features not originally announced. The LA version, for those who absolutely
could not wait, went out in December as scheduled.
> but unless you have any evidence
> that NT will be late, why assume it will be?
Perhaps you missed the post (<1992Feb22.062238.21...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>)
containing quotes from various Microsofties swearing that the retail
version of NT would be shipping in mid-92? When you say "why assume it
will be late", you really have to specify "late according to *which* date".
:-)
> Development on NT has gone very well; for a while (when OS/2 2.0 was
> still at MS) there was speculation as to which would ship first.
Perhaps, but in what year? :-)
> What is now NT Windows was once NT OS/2, or OS/2 3.0. It was the
> next logical step,
Yes, *OS/2 3.0* was the next logical step. Unless MS flip-flops again,
and NT will run *all* my OS/2 programs (which means PM), then NT is
of no use to me.
> after the (IMHO) braindamaged idea of writing OS/2
> 2.0 and earlier in assembly.
Where did you get the brain-damaged idea that 2.0 was written in
assembly? As has been pointed out repeatedly, it's C code.
> Whose idea was it that OS/2 1.x must run on 286s? IBM's.
And it was a great idea; I'm still running 1.3 quite happily on my PC/AT.
> Also, last I heard it was
> unclear whether or not OS/2 apps will be supported.
Last I heard, they were talking about character-mode apps. I need all my
PM apps.
> Certainly Windows apps get higher priority.
Sure - they need higher priority because they're not multi-threaded. :-)
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), marg...@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!gordonl
From: gord...@microsoft.com (Gordon LETWIN)
Subject: OS/2 source language
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.180414.4328@microsoft.com>
Date: 28 Feb 92 18:04:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
References: <1992Feb22.150041.7079@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Lines: 25
In article <1992Feb22.150041.7...@news.Hawaii.Edu> tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu
(Dave Tholen) writes:
>James Barrett writes:
>
>> > Not that OS/2 can't be made portable
>>
>> Huh? OS/2 is written in Intel Assembly language. How are you going to
>> port that within our lifetime?
>
>Huh? Where did you hear that? I've heard that something like 90 percent
>(maybe more?) of OS/2 is written in C, and very little is written in
>assembly.
You've heard wrong. A lot of OS/2 is in C, but those are the various
utilities, etc. Nearly all of the kernel is written in assembly language.
The OS/2 1.1 VIO code was also all in assembly. I'm not sure about
PM, I forget.
I should know; I wrote some of it and reviewed nearly all of the rest.
Boy, those folks in Boca sure are special programmers! I can say with
complete truthfullness that I saw some amazingly unique code come out of
there. Fortunately, a subsequent program of heavy drinking eroded my
long term memory.
gordon letwin
not a Microsoft spokesperson
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!
lims01.lerc.nasa.gov!smbrush
From: smbr...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Andy Brush @Sverdrup)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 source language
Message-ID: <28FEB199216232901@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: 28 Feb 92 21:23:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: lims01.28FEB199216232901
References: <1992Feb22.150041.7079@news.Hawaii.Edu>
<1992Feb28.180414.4328@microsoft.com>
Sender: n...@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Lines: 22
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
In article <1992Feb28.180414.4...@microsoft.com>, gord...@microsoft.com
(Gordon LETWIN) writes...
>The OS/2 1.1 VIO code was also all in assembly. I'm not sure about
^^^
>PM, I forget.
>
>I should know; I wrote some of it and reviewed nearly all of the rest.
>Boy, those folks in Boca sure are special programmers! I can say with
>complete truthfullness that I saw some amazingly unique code come out of
>there. Fortunately, a subsequent program of heavy drinking eroded my
>long term memory.
>
> gordon letwin
> not a Microsoft spokesperson
Did you work on 2.0, Gordon ?
BTW, as long as you are bashing IBM with "microsoft" in your address, I
think we'll just forget that crap about "not speaking for Microsoft".
Andrew S. Brush | SMBR...@LIMS01.lerc.nasa.gov
Sverdrup Technology | 2001 Aerospace Parkway
NASA LeRC Group | Brook Park, OH 44142
"Opinions are Mine, Only" | (216) 826-6770
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!cheshire.oxy.edu!rafetmad
From: rafet...@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller)
Subject: Re: OS/2 source language
Message-ID: <1992Feb29.005524.28568@cheshire.oxy.edu>
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041
References: <1992Feb22.150041.7079@news.Hawaii.Edu>
<1992Feb28.180414.4328@microsoft.com> <28FEB199216232901@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 00:55:24 GMT
Lines: 15
In article <28FEB199216232...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> smbr...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov
(Andy Brush @Sverdrup) writes:
>Did you work on 2.0, Gordon ?
>BTW, as long as you are bashing IBM with "microsoft" in your address, I
>think we'll just forget that crap about "not speaking for Microsoft".
Don't be so harsh; Letwin was one of the original architects of OS/2. I don't
think he's bashing. I've seen him on this group before, and he has only had
resonable posts that tried to be factual.
-Dave
--
David Giller, box 134 ---------------------------------- rafet...@cub.oxy.edu
Occidental College
1600 Campus Road <This space intentionally left blank>
Los Angeles, CA 90041 -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!panews!news
From: ca...@vnet.ibm.com (Jeff Carty)
Subject: Re: OS/2 source language
Message-ID: <1992Mar3.020021.12694@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com>
Sender: n...@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com (News Master)
Organization: IBM PSP Palo Alto, Ca.
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 92 02:00:21 GMT
In <1992Feb29.005524.28...@cheshire.oxy.edu> rafet...@cheshire.oxy.edu
(David R. Giller) writes:
> In article <28FEB199216232...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> smbr...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov
> >Did you work on 2.0, Gordon ?
> >BTW, as long as you are bashing IBM with "microsoft" in your address, I
> >think we'll just forget that crap about "not speaking for Microsoft".
>
> Don't be so harsh; Letwin was one of the original architects of OS/2. I don't
> think he's bashing. I've seen him on this group before, and he has only had
> resonable posts that tried to be factual.
>
> -Dave
Sorry Dave, I disagree. In this instance, his post was hardly factual.
He was trying to make "authoritative" disparaging remarks about an altogether
excellent product he hasn't been part of in years.
Remember, folks, he hasn't worked on IBM OS/2 since *1.2* at best (and we
all know what a beast that was).
Jeff
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!gordonl
From: gord...@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin)
Subject: Re: OS/2 source language
Message-ID: <1992Mar19.023522.24622@microsoft.com>
Date: 19 Mar 92 02:35:22 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
References: <1992Mar3.020021.12694@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com>
Lines: 30
In article <1992Mar3.020021.12...@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com> ca...@vnet.ibm.com
(Jeff Carty) writes:
re: this "gordon letwin" guy:
>He was trying to make "authoritative" disparaging remarks about an altogether
>excellent product he hasn't been part of in years.
>
>Remember, folks, he hasn't worked on IBM OS/2 since *1.2* at best (and we
>all know what a beast that was).
Remember, folks, that I resigned from OS/2 long before the IBM/microsoft
split. There's a reason for that. Maybe one day I'll post.
But more importantly, remember that the sources for OS/2 2.0 are about 20
key strokes away on the machine that I'm posting from now. I've seen
those sources. You don't have to have *worked* on a release to know
what language it's written in, you just have to see it.
And finally, it turns out that I'm an important contributor to OS/2 2.0,
after all!
The "SuperFat" that IBM has worked so hard on? "SuperFat" is just the
HPFS caching code (I designed and wrote HPFS) stuck onto the back of FAT.
I know all about that, since I studied that source recently. The bulk
of the SuperFat improvments were just "cut and pasted" from the HPFS sources.
gordon letwin
not a microsoft spokesperson
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!timbuk.cray.com!hemlock.cray.com!bgm
From: b...@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Re: OS/2 source language
Message-ID: <1992Mar19.103811.8172@hemlock.cray.com>
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
References: <1992Mar3.020021.12694@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com>
<1992Mar19.023522.24622@microsoft.com>
Date: 19 Mar 92 10:38:11 CST
In article <1992Mar19.023522.24...@microsoft.com> gord...@microsoft.com
(Gordon Letwin) writes:
>
>But more importantly, remember that the sources for OS/2 2.0 are about 20
>key strokes away on the machine that I'm posting from now. I've seen
>those sources. You don't have to have *worked* on a release to know
>what language it's written in, you just have to see it.
AAAAAhhhhh ... I thought MS dropped the MS-SDK because they could not get
the source from IBM at least this is the reason MS gave. Must not be that
recent.
BTW, since you have the source, you'll notice IBM documents it well so
fixing problems in a timely manner for the end-user is easy. You'll
notice that rewriting is not an activity which scares IBM and this means
a portable version is coming in a timely manner.
>
>And finally, it turns out that I'm an important contributor to OS/2 2.0,
>after all!
>
>The "SuperFat" that IBM has worked so hard on? "SuperFat" is just the
>HPFS caching code (I designed and wrote HPFS) stuck onto the back of FAT.
>I know all about that, since I studied that source recently. The bulk
>of the SuperFat improvments were just "cut and pasted" from the HPFS sources.
Gordon, SuperFat is more than HPFS caching code. SuperFat is having the
FAT subsystem written in 32 bit code in addition to the caching.
Bert Moshier
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!gatech!news.ans.net!yktnews!
admin!watson!larrys
From: lar...@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.)
Subject: Re: OS/2 source language
Message-ID: <1992Mar19.210723.20325@watson.ibm.com>
Sender: lar...@watson.ibm.com
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 20:57:18 GMT
News-Software: NewsKit 1.2 - LaMail
Reply-To: lar...@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References: <1992Mar19.023522.24622@microsoft.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: ibmman2.watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Research
I'm sorry folks, but even though I don't post, it doesn't mean I'm not
aware of what's going on. When I saw Gordon's post, I was compelled as
one of the knights in shining armor to take up the cause and defend us
from this siege once more.
In <1992Mar19.023522.24...@microsoft.com>, gord...@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin)
writes:
>
>Remember, folks, that I resigned from OS/2 long before the IBM/microsoft
>split. There's a reason for that. Maybe one day I'll post.
I'm interested.
>But more importantly, remember that the sources for OS/2 2.0 are about 20
>key strokes away on the machine that I'm posting from now. I've seen
>those sources. You don't have to have *worked* on a release to know
>what language it's written in, you just have to see it.
Gordon, I'm going to tell you that this is a lie in its worst form, if
you are referring to the CURRENT source for OS/2 2.0. I realize that you
have access to the (extremely) old beta drops, but after having worked in
IBM Boca for a month AND being a LAN administrator myself (meaning that I
know and understand what kind of security measures they have in place) I
can assure you that if you believe that you can access the current OS/2
source, then you should stay at Microsoft because I don't want to be
associated with someone as deluded as you.
>And finally, it turns out that I'm an important contributor to OS/2 2.0,
>after all!
>
>The "SuperFat" that IBM has worked so hard on? "SuperFat" is just the
>HPFS caching code (I designed and wrote HPFS) stuck onto the back of FAT.
>I know all about that, since I studied that source recently. The bulk
>of the SuperFat improvments were just "cut and pasted" from the HPFS sources.
Well, gee, that's funny, since I personally know the "technical contact"
for the HPFS code (meaning he's the owner and main - if not sole -
developer for it), and he says that there are significant differences
between that and the FAT caching code:
1) HPFS cache is managed by near pointers and is written in 16 bit code.
FAT cache is managed by **32 bit** pointers and is written in 32 bit
code.
2) HPFS cache has a maximum of 2 megabytes.
FAT has NO SUCH LIMITATION.
3) The parts of the caching algorithm that dealt with lazy writing have
been enhanced such that synchronous reads do not need to happen.
The similarities are:
1) The HPFS code had nice, clear names for the procedures, so they
remained the same.
2) The read-ahead logic remained because it is fairly straight forward.
Now, if you'd like to argue with that, then I'll argue with you all day
long. In the meantime, quit talking just to try and make yourself look
good. Better yet, quit talking.
Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LAR...@YKTVMV.BITNET
OS/2 Applications and Tools lar...@watson.ibm.com
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center lar...@ibmman.watson.ibm.com
Yorktown Heights, NY lar...@ibmman2.watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my
own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a
reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too
seriously.