Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!mtxinu!unisoft!hoptoad!peora!rtmvax!bilver!jwt!john
From: john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why unix doesn't catch on
Message-ID: <273@jwt.UUCP>
Date: 30 Apr 89 02:52:38 GMT
References: <274@tree.UUCP>
Reply-To: john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples)
Organization: John W. Temples, III -- Orlando, FL
Lines: 42

In article <274@tree.UUCP> stever@tree.UUCP (Steve Rudek) writes:
>This is *Microsoft*,
>people: You know--the company which markets perhaps the best optimized 
>C compiler in the world.  And they aren't writing OS/2 in C [...] You suppose
>they're just stupid?

I doubt they're stupid.  But just because they're successful at marketing
their products doesn't mean their products are implemented the "best" way.  I
saw comments in the MKS Newsletter stating that they felt certain features in
OS/2 were not implemented the "best" way -- because UNIX had already done it
that way, and Microsoft didn't want OS/2 to be like UNIX.  Yes, this is
*Microsoft*, the company that finally came out with a multitasking OS...on a
CPU that has been obsolete for years.  Yes, this is *Microsoft*, the company
that can't do DOS multitasking yet, even though UNIX has been doing DOS
multitasking on the 386 for years.  And as for the "best optimized C compiler"
(I assume you meant "best optimizing"), yes, it has a good optimizer -- when
it generates good code.  I've put tens of thousands of lines of code through
MSC 5.0/5.1.  After initial experiences with 5.0, I wouldn't use it.  5.1
fixed many optimizer bugs, but you still have to be careful with the
optimizer.  Yes, Microsoft is a big, successful company.  But I don't see any
Microsoft products that I think are incredibly innovative or unusual.  The old
"ten million fans can't be wrong" argument doesn't wash with me. 
  
>And the efficiency of UNIX on the 386 is
>almost certainly going to look rather sickly when compared to a mature
>version of 386 OS/2.

I've never used OS/2, but I've seen many comments indicating that it's quite
slow -- slower than UNIX, even.  I would imagine that it will improve in the
future, but to the point where it will make UNIX look "sickly"?  I doubt it. 
And it's just as likely that UNIX's performance on the 386 will continue to
improve as well.

>Does anyone remember the UCSD "P-Code" operating system which at one point
>was being touted as superior to MS-DOS because it allowed developers to sell

I really don't think comparing P-code, which is interpreted, to compiled
C is valid at all.  No, C will probably never be as fast as assembly.  But
improvements in compiler and optimization technology will continue to close
the gap.
-- 
John Temples - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!rtmvax!bilver!jwt!john