Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!looking!brad From: brad@looking.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: A different View of the value of OS/2 - it's better than UNIX(TM) Message-ID: <965@looking.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-Sep-87 00:59:48 EDT Article-I.D.: looking.965 Posted: Tue Sep 15 00:59:48 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 16-Sep-87 05:31:51 EDT References: <494@parcvax.Xerox.COM> <961@looking.UUCP> <498@parcvax.Xerox.COM> Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 92 Phillip Burton suggests that the quick death of CP/M, in spite of it's position as the OS for most applications software in 1981, fortells a similar fate for Unix. This was in response to my comment that because Unix would be the only major 386 OS for the next 2 years, true 386 applications would move there, giving it life. I think the situations here are quite a bit different for several reasons: 1) The PC software that dominated was quite a bit better than the CP/M software. CP/M was for the 8080 (although many ran it on Z-80 systems) while PC software had access to the 8086 and even the 8087. In addition, 8080 software could be translated up. The Unix vs OS/2 competition will be fought on the same processors. No inherent reason one bit of software should be superior to another. There will be marketing reasons. 2) The Unix software base is considerably larger and more widely used than the CP/M software base was. It contains a lot of powerful software, once written for large machines, that can now be run on micros. 3) Unix is supported by AT&T, until recently a company larger than IBM. Of course, they don't give it the support their size can truly offer, but in the crunch... Compare this with Digital Research, who were unable to support CP/M enough to get IBM to bless it the way they did MS-DOS. 4) Unix is also supported, in the Xenix variant, by Microsoft, although Microsoft may face pressure from IBM to favour OS/2 over Xenix. 5) Software today is written more portably. Back then, putting your application on DOS and CP/M would have been double the work. Putting it on Unix and OS/2 isn't nearly so bad. This helps OS/2 as well, as old Unix applications can be moved over, but what it really means is that the Unix base doesn't have to be nearly as large before developers can profit by supporting it. 6) (linked of 5) Many companies actually do their DOS development on Unix already. We do, and then move it down to DOS. The Microsoft C compiler under Xenix makes this easy. The 286 protected mode environment is much better for testing software since all bad pointers trap. This means that software done this way can be sold with zero development effort. That's not to say zero marketing, documenting and packaging effort, but it does make it easier and helps break the threshold. Again, the big factor is the 386 and the two year gap while Xenix 386 runs and OS/3(?) is vapour. Corporate micro users are buying 386s because they need power, and because they want the fanciest thing around on *their* desk. For whatever reason, when it comes time for them to run a 386-needing application, they will only have Unix and small players to choose from. Those who can, may wait. But those who can't wait will run Unix. And then Unix's weaknesses will become its strengths. The more they run Unix, the more they will need to STAY with Unix. The harder it is to maintain, the more $$$$ they will invest in maintaining it and the more time they will spend learning to use and maintain it. By the time OS/3 ships, they will not want to change. Thus Unix *can* become the dominant OS, but it needs a) Lots of people who need or want or think they want 386 power b) 386 applications NOW. Part b should be easy, because the 386 is a fine machine to compile C for. All of the old programs for Vaxen and 68000s should come in fine. As noted above, many programs are already developed with Unix. ------------ The Unix command structure and administration structure does need to change. As I noted before, the Unix hacks are the block to this. Right now Unix sells mainly to people already sold on Unix, or people who buy it as part of an OEM package. It loses others because of the reputation Unix has. If you change the commands etc. you lose the old folks and wait a long time to get the new folks. Not profitable. Unix can be changed heavily and still be Unix. It's "Unix" in many respects if it can still run software written for Unix. It doesn't have to look like that on the outside. Unix is a trade mark of Bell Labs. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473