Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!petunia!polyslo!jdudeck
From: jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Need input for future DOS release
Keywords: future DOS release
Message-ID: <261148cf.506b@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 28 Mar 90 23:29:19 GMT
References: <53686@microsoft.UUCP> <2017@clyde.concordia.ca> <1990Mar22.202023.25752@seri.gov> <2019@clyde.concordia.ca> <260E5BA2.4917@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> <2032@clyde.concordia.ca> <1990Mar28.200515.26593@seri.gov>
Reply-To: jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 38


In article <1990Mar28.200515.26593@seri.gov> marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) writes:
>>>>> 12) Windows built in.
>
>I have it on good authority that that's exactly what Marshall meant.  If
>DOS comes standard with Windows, then more people will write software to
>support it.  Keep in mind that I mean a GOOD version of Windows - not that
>garbage they've been selling for the last year or so.  Still waiting for
>version 3.

I sincerely hope Microsoft will take a few moments to rethink their risky
position market-wise.  I have become more and more aware lately how much the
Macintosh is becoming the PC of choice for all those users who want their
computer to be a tool and not a hobby.

I have a modest proposal to make: Microsoft should bundle Windows 3.0 with
every copy of MS-DOS, and without raising the price.  The first effect that
this would have is to get users interested in using Windows.  The next effect
would be to get developers interested in developing software for Windows.
The next effect would be that some of those customers that have been leaning
towards the Mac would reconsider the PC world.

The next proposal would be to provide a modern language with DOS that includes
a Windows library.  The effect of this would be to encourage more programmers 
and students to produce Windows software.  It doesn't have to be an elaborate
language.  I'm thinking of GEM which had Basic-2 or something like that which
could do GEM graphics (I believe that one was available in the UK, and wasn't
bundled with GEM...).  The big reason there isn't more interest in Windows
software development right now is the cost of the SDK.  As far as I know,
only Actors provides the capability of writing Windows programs without
buying the SDK.

I am quite sure that Microsoft could do this if they wanted to.  And they
could price it under $100 if they wanted to.  Look at the NeXT.  It has
software bundled with it that for any other system would cost the price of
a NeXT.  Even the Mac has HyperCard.  Nobody is going to make anyone believe
that Microsoft has to charge the prices they do in order to stay in business.
They have the PC market in a stranglehold, and are pretty blase' about it.

-- 
John Dudeck                           "You want to read the code closely..." 
jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu             -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching 
ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549          Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system.