Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!watdragon!violet!afscian
From: afscian@violet.waterloo.edu (Anthony Scian)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why unix doesn't catch on
Message-ID: <13546@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Date: 2 May 89 14:20:13 GMT
References: <7632@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <256@jwt.UUCP> <2496@bucsb.UUCP> <274@tree.UUCP> <552@rna.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu
Reply-To: afscian@violet.waterloo.edu (Anthony Scian)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 35

In article <552@rna.UUCP> kc@rna.UUCP (Kaare Christian) writes:
>In article <274@tree.UUCP>, stever@tree.UUCP (Steve Rudek) writes:
>> 
>> I read just the other day in _Computer_Systems_News_ that Microsoft's OS/2
>> for the 386 is being delayed because of the difficulty of converting
>> 100,000+ lines of 286 assembly to 386 assembly.  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; or even
>> following the UNIX lead and doing it 95% in C with bottlenecks in assembly.
>> You suppose they're just stupid?

Yes. A company that ignores history is doomed to repeat it.
Maybe they'll invent SNOBOL in five years. It is beyond comprehension
how anybody can develop an OS in assembly language this day and age.
Where have the OS architects at Microsoft been for the last two decades?
They should have started in C (even if their compilers were weak) and
had a parallel development of a good stable compiler with good
code generation but instead we have OS/2 coded in assembly and MSC 5.1.

>It's pretty common knowledge that OS/2 *IS* being rewritten in C. Microsoft
>doesn't want to miss out on RISC developments, etc. Their goal is
>ubiquity; portablity combined with excellence are required to attain that goal.

Where is the excellence in a product that will be six years too late?
With the conversion to C, we can expect the 386 version by 1993 (if we're
lucky). How can a RISC version of OS/2 run the binaries from MS-DOS?
Binary compatibility is the cornerstone of the Microsoft "vision"(?).
We will also have to factor in the time required for Microsoft to write
a good stable compiler that can optimize code besides null loops.
(they haven't got one for the 8086 after how many years?)

The future is looking better for UNIX thanks to Microsofts inept actions.

//// Anthony Scian afscian@violet.uwaterloo.ca afscian@violet.waterloo.edu ////
"I can't believe the news today, I can't close my eyes and make it go away" -U2