Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!blackbox!cbradley
From: cbradley@blackbox.lonestar.org (Chris Bradley)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Microsoft and Friends
Summary: which is it?
Keywords: microsoft direction
Message-ID: <1990Nov17.041420.369@blackbox.lonestar.org>
Date: 17 Nov 90 04:14:20 GMT
References: <28063@usc> <59048@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: news@blackbox.lonestar.org
Followup-To: comp.sys.next
Organization: Businessland Advanced Systems
Lines: 57

Ed Jung's recent article concerning Microsoft's present focus and direction 
really underscores what, IMO, is the nature of the confusion over innovations
at Microsoft.  

In article <59048@microsoft.UUCP> edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG) writes:
    >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.
	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This would seem to say that, in Jung's personal opinion, Microsoft should not
have to ``carry the responsibility'' of ``minimizing the pain of lost data,
process and conceptual model investment.''  

Without the burden of these noble, altruistic goals, the company would 
seemingly be free to pursue other paths, perhaps even including the 
development of radically new and different technologies, with the joint
objectives of creating new markets and of improving customer satisfaction.

However, it seems to me that another path has been chosen: in trying to
retain the loyalties of existing customers, Microsoft seem to be dragging
their collective heels when presented with the opportunity to capitalize
on new systems.  

Jung continues:
    >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.

Microsoft could present the face of an innovator by porting a selected set
of their popular productivity applications to new platforms, like the NeXT,
the MultiPersonal, or the SPARC II.  In fact, in their early years, we 
witnessed the porting of MultiPlan to almost every existing small system
architecture extant in the early 1980's, including the Apple ][, the Apple ///,
680X0 *NIX systems like the Fortune 16:32, as well as some downright strange
animals like the Convergent Ngen and the Burroughs B-20 :-).

I suspect that the Microsoft applications could indeed be ported to these
(and other) new architectures, if the development teams were given a freer
rein.  Could it be that the systems software people are holding them back?


-- 
Chris Bradley			| "I confess freely to you, I could never look 
Businessland Advanced Systems	| long upon a monkey, without very mortifying 
Dallas, Texas US		| reflections." 
cbradley@blackbox.lonestar.org	|		-- WILLIAM CONGREVE 1670-1729