Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!edwardj From: edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Microsoft and Friends Message-ID: <59048@microsoft.UUCP> Date: 13 Nov 90 05:07:25 GMT References: <28063@usc> Reply-To: edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA Lines: 134 Though I usually try to stay out of these threads, I thought I might have some information that would be of use in this context. In article <28063@usc> ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: >Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc >Subject: Re: Microsoft And Friends > >In article <90313.225702RFM@psuvm.psu.edu> RFM@psuvm.psu.edu writes: [stuff deleted] >>Hence I'm vitally interested in >>what Microsoft is doing. >How does that follow? Microsoft is just one player in a big >game. NeXT, Sun, Amiga etc. all have powerful acts in place. >Microsoft is neither very innovative nor very fast; I don't see >how it is axiomatic that they figure as central players. I find it interesting that you have listed Microsoft among other companies that are hardware vendors. Indeed Microsoft is a player insofar that it has some say in the evolution of an important component of many computer systems. People are interested in the direction of Microsoft primarily because so many users and purchasers of computers are currently locked into the software architecture (even more so than being locked into a particular hardware architecture). Alot of people depend on someone to migrate them toward better computers while minimizing the pain of lost data, process and conceptual model investment. Many think that Microsoft is a logical candidate to carry that responsibility. Many think that Microsoft will be unable to or does not want to meet that requirement. In is true, others need to carry that banner. [more stuff deleted] >How does that follow? You start off by agreeing that OS/2 today >is a dead duck. What is to prevent it from staying a dead duck? >Since you think applications are so important, isn't it striking >that there are more 100% GUI applications for the NeXT and for >the Sun than for OS/2 (this is from the Applications Watch column >of _Personal_Workstation_). I won't comment on the "OS/2 is a dead duck" debate, but I will say that the _Personal Workstation_ Applications Watch column has been incorrectly reporting OS/2 applications for the better part of a year now (call it 9 months). Various parties at Microsoft have contacted them with updated information (over the past 9 months), but this newer information has not appeared in the column. Draw your own conclusions, and perhaps temper them with a magazine's typical chaos when new. And yes, we are talking about pure, ground- up development using PM GUI. Certainly OS/2 has not met expectations! But it does have an installed base rivalling Sun; Windows has an installed base rivalling Macintosh; and Microsoft would like to leverage this by making the move from one to the other more simple. [good points about the superior price/performance ratio of NeXT] >SPARC/Mips boxes running Unix are far better candidates for our >future (in the sense that I would bet on them) than Intel and >Microsoft. A few weeks ago, Sun announced the Sparcstation 2, >which delivers 28.5 mips and 4.5 MFlops, all this with less >investment in VLSI technology than the 486. You can buy SPARC >chipsets for $30, when Intel (monopolist) hawks anemic 20 MHz 386 >chips for $300. Very good point! Now the question is: do you think this is unknown to Microsoft, or do you just think that Microsoft will not do anything about it? Microsoft announced a portable OS. Microsoft would be pretty silly not to have it running Windows apps, right, to the extent that technology supports cross-CPU compatibility? >You have to have your head in the ground to ignore the impending >death of Intel-Microsoft... sure sound like PC Magazine in >emitting the official line on OS/2! The interesting question to me is what you consider death. If it means a lack of industry-wide technological innovation, then perhaps you are correct (but perhaps not). If you mean abandoning 50 million users, then you are not correct. If you mean going belly-up and bankrupt, then you are not correct (and I would question who really has their head in the sand) ;-). At Microsoft, the challenge of Sun and RISC and how these factors are affecting the market is taken extremely seriously. You know, it's not fun being the "bad guy", and there are people who would love to just come out with something really cool and technologically advanced without thinking about our installed base. But to really bring this stuff to the computer user of today, someone has got to think about their migration needs. Going whole hog on Unix, new hardware and software architectures, and all that is a good thing (TM), but needs to be thought out carefully lest we really torque off some users by making them feel abandoned. Let's say that Microsoft, IBM, Compaq, etc. all got together and delivered a really hot MIPS-based 12-processor machine with a fully object-oriented OS, DSP, digital video and audio in/out, FDDI net, 3D rendered graphics and acceleration, etc., etc. To whom are we doing a favor? To the 50 million DOS users? Nope. They wouldn't care if that cost $5k; they would still need a solution that preserves their existing investments. For better or for worse, lots of investment is in a particularly brain-dead form... Another thing to consider is that Microsoft does not produce hardware. This means that Microsoft often needs to wait for the industry to get to a certain point before releasing software for it. Would Windows 3 run usefully in the market of hardware present in 1987? Some of the objects work that Microsoft has been working upon for the last three years is still waiting for the appropriate platform -- very few PCs have 8-16MB RAM and a 330 MB HD today. By 1992 that may be different! NeXT has done some awesome work in showing the industry how it can be done. It is not in their interest to work out the details of how people can migrate; indeed NeXT only needs to worry about that to whatever extent is required for their survival; beyond that they should continue to do what they do so well: innovate. It is left to others how the lame, brain-dead users of a lame, brain-dead system can be brought along into this new world. Believe it or not, there are people who don't like mice, and don't see a great need for GUI. There are people who argue about click to type ;-). These things make it harder to migrate people while keeping them happy. Thought you might like to know what it's like in the trenches. Not everyone can handle the gore down here... but someone has to clean and take out the garbage! -- Edward Jung Microsoft Corp. My opinions do not reflect any policy of my employer.