Microsoft vs The Free World

[nslay]

x86] link=topic=9370.msg119344#msg119344 date=1179451514]
Yea..because all of the talent in OS Development is strictly at IBM right...

Probably...yeah, them and DEC probably had most of the talent.  IBM is notable for creating secure mainframe operating systems (e.g. like MVS, OS390, z/OS, etc...)

Microsoft broke up with IBM before OS/2 became anything important anyhow. It was initially textbased and got a WM in 1988, after Win2.0 was out.

Considering OS/2 took two years and change to release in 1985, it's perfectly plausible that Microsoft could of played a (significant) roll in the development of OS/2.

Given that we don't know actual numbers, its possible.  But operating systems cost a lot to develop ... IBM had the resources to do it.  They also most certainly had the people too.  What I will say about IBM is that it was traditionally a hardware and mainframe company.  Many of the higher-ups did not take the PC seriously at first.  It jumped on the band wagon a little too late.  My father often tells me that IBM didn't have the balls to pit OS/2 against Microsoft later on ... which confuses me since Microsoft was a small insect to IBM at the time.  Additionally, Microsoft has the tendency to keep pushing products...even if they fail at first.  When IBM starts failing, they immediately pull out.  It really is a pitty that IBM sucks now.

[Skywing]

x86] link=topic=9370.msg119301#msg119301 date=1179432381]
I'm fully aware of that, however perhaps Microsoft did not see the need for NT until they saw the limitations brought forth by 9x. Why is it so hard for you to believe they simply hired some specialists in the OS department who were a part of the staff before the venture? Even though 9x(Especially 98) and ME were DOS Hacks they implement a lot of modern features of the x86 architecture. That is no simple feat. I think you're just writing the fact that they use DOS as the underlying system off as a reason why they couldn't possibly have engineered an operating system.

Work on NT predates the Win9x releases.  The reason typically given for not switching everything over to the NT code base immediately is that as far as resource requirements go, it was ahead of its time for the end-user-computer market.

Remember that pretty much everything in the Win16 code base that was grandfathered into Win9x was focused firstly on things like minimum size and maximum execution speed.  The entire Win16 programming model is essentially a result of that line of thinking.

NT was designed for cross-processor-architecture portability and robustness even in the face of buggy programs.  These are luxuries not shared by the mostly assembler (and as far as the Win16 parts go, cooperative multitasking) 9x code base.

Given the technology of the day, NT could be ruled out on a typical home computer.  (For example, the suggested NT 3.51 requirements are roughly double the Win95 requirements.)

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=9370.msg119344#msg119344 date=1179451514]
Yea..because all of the talent in OS Development is strictly at IBM right...

Probably...yeah, them and DEC probably had most of the talent.  IBM is notable for creating secure mainframe operating systems (e.g. like MVS, OS390, z/OS, etc...)

That still doesn't mean they're the one stop place for talent in the world on operating systems. Ruling out Microsoft "just because" sounds silly.

Given that we don't know actual numbers, its possible.  But operating systems cost a lot to develop ... IBM had the resources to do it.  They also most certainly had the people too.  What I will say about IBM is that it was traditionally a hardware and mainframe company.  Many of the higher-ups did not take the PC seriously at first.  It jumped on the band wagon a little too late.  My father often tells me that IBM didn't have the balls to pit OS/2 against Microsoft later on ... which confuses me since Microsoft was a small insect to IBM at the time.  Additionally, Microsoft has the tendency to keep pushing products...even if they fail at first.  When IBM starts failing, they immediately pull out.  It really is a pitty that IBM sucks now.

They didn't do it themselves, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that they worked with IBM to achieve this common goal (OS/2) then they forked when their views differed.

[nslay]

x86] link=topic=9370.msg119386#msg119386 date=1179491700]

x86] link=topic=9370.msg119344#msg119344 date=1179451514]
Yea..because all of the talent in OS Development is strictly at IBM right...

Probably...yeah, them and DEC probably had most of the talent.  IBM is notable for creating secure mainframe operating systems (e.g. like MVS, OS390, z/OS, etc...)

That still doesn't mean they're the one stop place for talent in the world on operating systems. Ruling out Microsoft "just because" sounds silly.

I'm ruling out Microsoft because it was then a twobit startup while IBM was the #1 and largest computer corporation in the world and DEC a pioneer in OS design and innovation.  Yes, this is so silly indeed.  It's more likely the "talent" is on board with IBM and DEC than it is for them to be on board with Microsoft, if not for their titles, at least by the shere size!

Given that we don't know actual numbers, its possible.  But operating systems cost a lot to develop ... IBM had the resources to do it.  They also most certainly had the people too.  What I will say about IBM is that it was traditionally a hardware and mainframe company.  Many of the higher-ups did not take the PC seriously at first.  It jumped on the band wagon a little too late.  My father often tells me that IBM didn't have the balls to pit OS/2 against Microsoft later on ... which confuses me since Microsoft was a small insect to IBM at the time.  Additionally, Microsoft has the tendency to keep pushing products...even if they fail at first.  When IBM starts failing, they immediately pull out.  It really is a pitty that IBM sucks now.

They didn't do it themselves, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that they worked with IBM to achieve this common goal (OS/2) then they forked when their views differed.

Sure.  But its more believable that IBM played the more significant role, not Microsoft.

[MyndFyre]

Sure.  But its more believable that IBM played the more significant role, not Microsoft.

It's funny you say this as I just read this article by one of the chief Windows developers:

Instead, I decided to talk about something that people could not read about in my book. This was a subject that interested me at the time, which was how Microsoft first developed Windows, and how Microsoft and IBM then got involved in the development of OS/2, how Microsoft had convinced IBM to go graphical in the windowing environment, and how IBM decided they wanted to develop an entirely new API, and then how the success of Windows led to the eventual split between Microsoft and IBM.

Hmmmmm....

[nslay]

x86/64] link=topic=9370.msg119419#msg119419 date=1179522936]

Sure.  But its more believable that IBM played the more significant role, not Microsoft.

It's funny you say this as I just read this article by one of the chief Windows developers:

Instead, I decided to talk about something that people could not read about in my book. This was a subject that interested me at the time, which was how Microsoft first developed Windows, and how Microsoft and IBM then got involved in the development of OS/2, how Microsoft had convinced IBM to go graphical in the windowing environment, and how IBM decided they wanted to develop an entirely new API, and then how the success of Windows led to the eventual split between Microsoft and IBM.

Hmmmmm....

So what if IBM wanted a new API for OS/2?  Windows 1.0 was a program that ran on DOS, its success selling Windows 1.0 does not suggest anything about Microsoft's involvement with OS/2 development.  And I'd like to remark, in light of Unix, the kernel and GUI are not related.
Again, and again and again, operating systems are not cheap to develop, IBM had the resources and the people to do it.  Microsoft was relatively a new player...its not likely they could have funded the development of a system as advanced as OS/2 or NT by themselves.  Based on their track record, it does not seem they were even capable of writing a full blown OS ... they bought QDOS and a license to AT&T UNIX, maybe this doesn't prove they couldn't write a DOS or UNIX, but it seems to act as evidence against them.  Seeing as IBM had already written sophisticated and secure mainframe operating systems (many of which still run today, some haven't even rebooted since the '80s and '90s), it seems more likely they would have designed and implemented most of OS/2.

Not to offend, and only as constructive criticism, but you and Warrior are among the most narrow minded people I've ever seen. Not to involve Skywing, but in many years talking with Skywing, an advocate of Microsoft technologies, and an avid Windows developer, not even he behaves or talks like either of you.  One difference lay in the fact that he's actually used and developed for other operating systems, including Linux ... when he remarks anything about another OS (particularly Linux), it isn't pure FUD.  You simply cannot accept that, at one time, Microsoft was not the greatest computer corporation ever and you especially cannot accept, in spite of many very practical points, that IBM may have largely been responsible for NT.  I've remarked again and again that, in the absense of numbers, its possible that Microsoft could have developed OS/2 largely, but in light of these points

• IBM was involved
• IBM was then the #1 and largest computer corporation in the world
• IBM had already written sophisticated and secure mainframe operating systems
• Microsoft was a startup
• Microsoft bought QDOS
• Microsoft purchased AT&T UNIX license
• Microsoft had never actually produced its own OS before
• And the very fact that operating system development is EXPENSIVE...especially something SOPHISTICATED

It's not a favorable possibility...
We keep having this circular discussion, in which I continually give you the same answer each time.  Why are the above points so hard to accept?  What makes you believe Microsoft was always some sort of world-class sophisticated computer corporation instead of, at one time, a startup with some excellent entrepeneurship?  And finally, what do you care if IBM was largely responsible for OS/2 and NT?  It shouldn't be hard to suggest that NT was derived from OS/2, considering Windows NT and 2000 both offered OS/2 API, support for HPFS, and many other things reminiscent to OS/2.
In all seriousness, and unrelated to our discussion, perhaps you both should be more open minded to other technologies and aware of their advantages and disadvantages.  You both look like absolute fools, synanomous to those old men who only buy Ford because its American, or whatever...
And what now?  Are we going to play quote wars?

[MyndFyre]

You accuse me of being narrow-minded, and yet you yourself have said that you're repeatedly giving me the same answer every time?

You also haven't brought in any numbers that demonstrate the involvement of Microsoft or IBM.  I've only seen speculation and what could be considered, at best, circumstantial evidence.

If one person can put together an operating system kernel (Linux), it's certainly feasible that a team of ten can put together a 400-function API around an abstracted kernel (Windows 1.0 debuted with an API of about 400 functions).  Software I've written by myself has an API that is much larger.  Bringing people in with expertise in the field of OS development seems even more to bolster this.  In 1980, Microsoft had 40 employees.  By the end of 1980, it had 128.

Are you honestly going to tell me that there aren't enough people to make such a modest debut OS?

[nslay]

x86/64] link=topic=9370.msg119429#msg119429 date=1179531438]
You accuse me of being narrow-minded, and yet you yourself have said that you're repeatedly giving me the same answer every time?

You also haven't brought in any numbers that demonstrate the involvement of Microsoft or IBM.  I've only seen speculation and what could be considered, at best, circumstantial evidence.

If one person can put together an operating system kernel (Linux), it's certainly feasible that a team of ten can put together a 400-function API around an abstracted kernel (Windows 1.0 debuted with an API of about 400 functions).  Software I've written by myself has an API that is much larger.  Bringing people in with expertise in the field of OS development seems even more to bolster this.  In 1980, Microsoft had 40 employees.  By the end of 1980, it had 128.

Are you honestly going to tell me that there aren't enough people to make such a modest debut OS?

There are no numbers as I have already noted on many many occassions.  40-128 developers is a joke.  I grew up in Boca Raton where IBM hosted 10000 software engineers alone (that has changed in 1992-3 due to Florida politics).  It was a monstrous complex...it even had its own park for baseball, picnics, etc...  My father has often noted that there was a team of 300 working on OS/2 in Boca.
Unix is a simple system to clone...albeit far more sophisticated than DOS.  Why do you think nobody has cloned, for example, VMS, Twenex, etc?  It's amazing there is even Windows clone in the works, ReactOS.  You cite a bad example since Linus was assisted by an army of programmers very early on (even in the late 80s), a better example would be Andrew S Tannebaum, who wrote Minix, a Unix clone for educational purposes.  But then, that just furthers my point that Microsoft didn't have the staff or knowhow to write an OS ... thats why they purchased QDOS and a license to AT&T UNIX and then later brought DEC OS developers on board.  Minix however was very simple, it could run off of a 5 1/4 floppy while, as Skywing has mentioned, NT required some insane amount of hardware.  Compare that to OS/2 or NT which had a lot of functionality and features, a GUI desktop, ability to multitask, etc, etc...these are most certainly not modest systems and they were more sophisticated than Linux and Minix at the time.  Perhaps Microsoft developed the GUI?  Again, I do not believe Microsoft possessed the resources to develop OS/2 / NT by itself...perhaps this is why they partnered with IBM in the first place?  If they had 40-128 developers, and IBM 300...who do you think is going to produce more?  Keeping in mind, thats 300 employees in the Boca Raton branch alone ... what about other locations?

And yes you are often narrow minded...try to be more open minded.  I used to be a BSD zealot...well, at least I try not to be.  OS zealotry is never a good thing.