The Arsenal Files 4/The Arsenal Files 4 (Arsenal Computer).ISO/misc/fud.txt

Internet Message Format | 1995-03-05 | 13KB

From news.alpha.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Sat Mar  4 17:38:26 1995
Path: news.alpha.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: [e-mail] (Dan Porter)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Re: Software Returns in TIME Mag (was Re: OS/2 is here, Windoze 95 is not)
Date: 4 Mar 1995 18:00:30 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 200
Sender: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <3jaree$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Dan Porter)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

The following article explains FUD as it applies to the OS War. The
article originally appeared in the February 27 issue of InnoVal Report on
OS/2. It is posted here with permission.


Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt     (c) 1995 InnoVal Report on OS/2

    Some Microsoft employees, posing as IBM customers, may be waging a
dirty tricks campaign to discredit Microsoft competetors such as IBM.
William Zachmann, the president of Canopus Research in Duxbury,
Massachussett, certainly thinks so. He recently wrote a four page letter
to the Board of Directors of Microsoft calling for an investigation of
possible inappropriate conduct by Microsoft employees. Mr. Zachmann,
suggesting in his letter that this may be a systematic campaign,
recommends that Microsoft Board of Directors engage an outside
investigative agency to examine the situation.
    Mr. Zachmann states in his letter that there have been persistent
rumors in the industry of a "dirty tricks" campaign by Microsoft. Mr.
Zachmann wrote: "These rumors include claims that Microsoft has engaged in
a systematic practice of having employees of Microsoft as well as
independent agents of Microsoft log onto on-line services such as
CompuServe, Prodigy, America Online, the Internet and others, sometimes
under assummed names, to spread disinformation about Microsoft's
competitors and to discredit critics of the Microsoft Corporation. They
have also included claims of deliberate efforts by Microsoft improperly to
influence the editorial content of various publications and to silence
critics of Microsoft in the press."
    Only an investigation can determine for certain if Microsoft
employees, with or without management knowledge, are using the public
information networks to wage an unethical and irresponsible campaign of
disinformation.What is clear, however, after reviewing dozens of posting
on the forums and reading articles in many of the trade periodicals, is
that there is an emotional war of words  being waged in the networks and
in the press between the proponents of Windows 95 and the proponents of
OS/2. That this war of words was caused, partly or entirely by a "dirty
tricks" campaign is quite possible.
    In the electronic forums and in the PC trade press, bias on the
part of operating systems proponents is to be expected. It is even
appropriate when supported with facts or rational opinion. What is
evident,  though, is that much of what is being written is derived from
misinformation, worse - disinformation, and worst of all - lack of
information.  Why is this so? Perhaps it stems from  what those in the
industry call FUD - fear, uncertainty, and doubt;  perhaps to fuddle the
issues for customers  os OS/2.

Vaporware
    FUD takes many forms. One is "vaporware", a future product,
pre-announced  long before it is ready for the market. Such was
Microsoft's "Chicago" now called Windows 95. This form of FUD id what U.S.
District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin wrote about in his 45 page decision
to reject the proposed antitrust settlement between Microsoft and the
Justice Department. Judge Sporkin wrote: "Vaporware is a practice that is
deceitful on its face and everybody in the business community knows it."
    FUD is also the manifestation of inaccurate information. Many in
the industry believe that Microsoft often makes claims about its software
that are  inaccurate or misleading. Andrew Schulman in a new book
entitled, "Unauthorized Windows 95," gives his readers a view of this with
numerous examples. Mr. Schulman tells us that contrary to what Microsoft
would have us believe Windows 95 is not a pure 32-bit operating system,
uses MS-DOS,  and employs old 16-bit Windows code. I highly recommend the
second preface and the epilog of this book to everyone who is concerned
about the operating system marketplace. It may not be what you want to
hear but it is something that you need to understand. You may not agree
with everything that Mr. Shulman writes but you should appreciate having
his perspective to ponder.

"Dear Lou, Dump OS/2."
    Finally, FUD is spawned by lack of information. An article by x
that  appeared in the San Francisco Cronicle on February 14, 1995, is a
good example of this. Had this article been written a year ago, when so
much less was known about the contending operating systems, its
lack-of-information foundation might well have been excusable. I might
then have agreed with Mr. x.
    Journalists, like Mr. x, who want to draw a reader's attention
into an article, will sometimes resort to the "open letter" technique and
address themselves to a prominent person. The idea is that people are
often inclined to read "mail" addressed to someone else. Mr. x did exactly
that by addressing some advice  directly to Lou Gerstner, Chairman of the
Board and Chief Executive Officer of IBM. "Dear Lou," he wrote, "Dump
OS/2".  His reason: OS/2 can't compete against Windows.
    Mr x missed the point completely. For an experienced columnist who
touts his own credentials in this very article, I am surprised how little
he seems to know about the operating system marketplace, OS/2, or for that
matter, Windows 95.
    Mr. x is right when he writes that OS/2 can't compete against
Windows. It can't. The marketplace is Windows. OS/2 Warp is a
next-generation operating system and is positioned in the marketplace to
take advantage of the Windows applications installed base while providing
a platform for new 32-bit technology. Windows 95 is similarly positioned.
Mr. x has fallen into the trap of thinking that Windows 95 is a
replacement for Windows and that OS/2 is not. That many consumers perhaps
think so is understandable. For Mr. x  to think so is inexcusable. Mr. x,
clearly has failed to look at or understand the underlying technology.
    Microsoft Windows is not an operating system. It is an
environment. To run Windows you need either Microsoft DOS or IBM DOS.It is
an environment that provides a graphical user interface (GUI) and,
incidentally, affords some level of cooperative multitasking. A graphical
user interface is what we see on the screen and the facility for
interacting with programs using a mouse or keyboard. It is "windows" with
text and pictures that can be moved about and re-sized, push buttons that
look like push buttons, menu bars, pictorial images, etc.  Creative
programmers and designers have been able to capitalize on this technology
to create effective real-world metaphorical representations within
application software. This makes programs easier to use. Anyone who has
ever looked at Quicken for Windows can appreciate the value of metaphor
with a checkbook window that looks like a checkbook and entry fields that
sport controls that look and work like calculators.
    Few would argue that Microsoft Windows has had a revolutionary
effect on the PC marketplace. Estimates of the number of people who use
Windows varies. But it is safe to say that there are approximately 60
million users. Most PC's sold in retail outlets have Windows pre-loaded.
And the number of application programs  in circulation as well as custom
in-house programs used in industry and government is staggering.  Windows
is the marketplace. Mr. x's comment about calling an Egghead store and
finding that there were only four software packages for OS/2 and countless
packages for Windows demonstrates how little understanding he has for the
marketplace.
    Everyone who understands the computer industry knows that it is an
industry of expanding capability and function, both driven by technology
advances and demanding of technology advances. Mr x must certainly know
that.  The problem is that Microsoft's Windows technology is mostly 16-bit
technology. (Some iterations of current Windows offerings use some
single-thread 32-bit components.) There is nothing inherently wrong with
that; but there are limits to what can be accomplished with 16-bit
technology. It is not, for instance, suitable for true multitasking and
multithreading. Multitasking is the means by which multiple programs run
at the same time on a computer. Multithreading  is the process by which
one program divides work along different paths or threads. It is true that
Windows affords some limited multitasking capability known as cooperative
multitasking. But in effect, this is like asking  children in a family to
cooperate perfectly on everything. True preemptive multitasking, in which
a parent, the operating system, is in control, is the only viable approach
for multitasking and multithreading. And this requires 32-bit technology.
    Sophisticated customers in government and industry clearly
recognize the benefits afforded by 32-bit technology. It is becoming ever
more important that applications be able to share information and
function, not only within a single computer, but across networks. This
requires multitasking to be effective.  As programs become ever more
complex  and sophisticated it is important that users not have to wait
while functions are performed in a single-thread manner. Effective use of
facilitues for on-demand information on a global scale and implementation
of new technologies such as voice recognition and dynamic language
translation demand  32-bit technology.
    How soon this will affect the general consumer marketplace and the
so-called small office and home office marketplace ( SOHO)  is anybody's
guess. And even as it does so, there will be a residual base of 16-bit
Windows applications that will persist in all levels of the marketplace
and be activly used for many years to come. That is why the
next-generation operating system must fully support all Windows
applications. That is why OS/2 and Windows 95 are built to do so.
    Had Mr. x really pursued the technology underpinnings of Windows
95 he might not have even suggested that it is a replacement for  current
versions of Windows. Like OS/2, Windows 95 will run most Windows
applications just as well, if not better, than the current versions of
Microsoft Windows. Like OS/2, Windows 95 is a good multitasking operating
system for 32-bit technology. But as platform for supporting both Windows
applications and 32-bit application in a combined and concurrent
environment Windows 95 has a potentially serious Achilles heel of 16-bit
code. This legacy 16-bit code could cause multitasking programs to halt
and even crash. In an upcoming issue, InnoVal Report on OS/2 will examine
thismatter in more detail. For now, I recommend the following material:

     "Today's Apps Tomorrow: Thunk, thread, semaphore. Navigating the
wonderful world of 32-bit computing with your favorite 16-bit apps" in the
January 1995 issue of Window Sources magazine.

     "Unauthorized Windows 95," by Andrew Schulman. IDG Books
Worldwide, 1994.

     "OS/2 Warp 3.0: The Next Generation" in the February 1995 issue of
OS/2 Magazine.


IBM fights back
    With showmanship and evangelism uncharacteristic of the "old" IBM,
David Barnes, an IBMsenior product manager, is going about the country
showing OS/2  to PC users' groups and potential customers. "We're not
stupid, anymore," he states as he takes careful aim on problems with
Windows 95. I felt that I was in the audience of a late night
"infomercial" complete with enthusiastic applause  as he stated that
"Windows 95 is Windows on steroids." He adds, " It is DOS 7.0 and Windows
4.0."
    Several of us from InnoVal listened carefully to Mr. Barnes. I can
say, unequivacly, that he is accurate with his facts as he explains how
OS/2 provides crash protection by exploiting full 32-bit technology.
Programs are just as likely to crash with OS/2 as they are in  Windows and
Windows 95 but it highly improbable that they will crash the entire system
or  and running 32-bit programs. Even other 16-bit programs can be
protected from  failures of other programs by running them in their own
protected areas of memory.
    All the while that Mr. Barnes is talking he is demonstrating Warp;
running numerous Windows applications, downloading multiple files
simultaneously from the Internet and running 32-bit programs. Mr. Barnes
is not showing a future product, he stresses as he wave the product's box
around. Perhaps to underscore his point he gives several copies away to
people in the audience.
    To his credit Mr. Barnes is doing what he can to dispel fear,
uncertainty and doubt about OS/2. Will this be enough to overcome the
cloud of FUD?