home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Monster Media 1993 #2
/
Image.iso
/
text
/
ibmrebut.zip
/
IBMREBUT.DOC
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-07-01
|
47KB
|
789 lines
IBM Personal Software Products
PSP's Rebuttal to the Microsoft Document:
"Windows NT and OS/2 2.1 : The Advantages of Windows NT for
Today's Client Server Computing" May, June, & July 1993 Versions
Introduction:
The purpose of this document is to rebut any inaccurate and/or
misleading information that Microsoft published in a document
called "Windows NT and OS/2 2.1: The advantages of Windows NT
for Today's Client-Server Computing".
Although it is not IBM's normal practice to produce such a
rebuttal, we believe our customers should make their decisions
based on facts, and therefore felt it was worth communicating
our viewpoint relative to Microsoft's claims and statements
made in this document. IBM is extremely proud of OS/2 and
welcomes the opportunity to compare OS/2 to any version of
Windows Microsoft. We are confident that OS/2 provides a far
better operating environment than Windows 3.1 and Windows NT,
and that we will continue to provide superior technology and
client/server solutions in the years to come. We therefore
encourage our customers to get the facts when comparing
OS/2 to Windows and Windows NT.
There are currently 3 versions of the Microsoft document dated
May, June, and July 1993. The June version, in our opinion, did
not correct any of the problems contained in the May version.
The July version corrected a few of the problems, due in part to
our direct contact with Microsoft, but still included the vast
majority of the problems. Although we have contacted Microsoft
regarding this document, we do not endorse the July version as
approved in any way by IBM. Our rebuttal is intended for
customers who received the May, June, or July version of the
referenced Microsoft document.
To ensure we are direct and to the point in our rebuttal, we
have organized our response as a series of claims from Microsoft's
document, in the order of occurrence, followed by our viewpoint.
The sections are divided by page numbers from the original May
version of the Microsoft document for easy reference.
Prior to the item by item discussion, it is worth discussing
some overall themes that Microsoft consistently uses to distort
requirements and features truly important to you, our customers,
who are considering or implementing a mission critical client/
server application. The most prominent theme Microsoft stresses
throughout the document is that the client/server functions
needed for most customers are 'built-in' to Windows NT and
Windows NT Advanced Server and therefore are integrated. Most of
the functions, however, were actually previously separate or are
still separate Microsoft products that are bundled with Windows
NT e.g.. the LAN server function in Windows NT Advanced Server
was a port of the Microsoft OS/2 LAN Manager product plus
enhancements.
Our customers have told us they want the flexibility to install
and pay for the right function on the right machine and to be able
to choose that function from the vendor who is best-of-breed
(e.g. the ability to choose IBM LAN Server, NetWare from IBM,
a 3rd party solution, or all of the above based on their
specific requirements and long term strategies. To assist with
this customization, we provide solutions such as LAN NetView
to help customers centrally or remotely automate individual
and LAN software configuration, installation, and distribution.
'Built-in' does not mean products are more tightly integrated.
Both IBM LAN Server 3.0 and NetWare from IBM for OS/2 products,
for instance, are integrated down to 'ring 0' (privileged kernel
areas) of the OS/2 operating system. The fact that Microsoft uses
the word 'built-in' is much more of a marketing and packaging
statement than it is an integration statement. Another key
requirement that Microsoft focuses on is reliability. We agree
that this is a major requirement for client/server environments.
We disagree with Microsoft's definition of reliability, which is
summarized on Microsoft's chart on page 3 as 'Tightly integrated
security', 'Built-in fault tolerance', 'Integrated systems and
network management services', and 'Application and system
integrity'. Removing the words "tightly", "integrated", and
"built-in", per the discussion above, OS/2 and its family of
flexible extensions is delivering virtually all of what Microsoft
is referring to plus many more important IBM exclusives, and IBM
PSP has demonstrated or announced products that extend our lead
as the premier provider of client/server solutions.
Most important, however, is that customers will view Windows NT
as reliable when and if it establishes a track record of proven
reliable operation in production client/server environments.
Microsoft is claiming that Windows NT, on its first release, with
over 4 million lines of new code (not including its client server)
extensions of SQL Server/NT, SNA Server/NT, and Hermes systems
management) will be more reliable than our 32-bit OS/2 and its
family of extensions that have been shipping and in production
use by well over a million customers for over a year. In addition,
we just shipped the second generation, OS/2 2.1, which has met
higher quality standards than all previous releases. Although
Microsoft has done extensive beta testing with a proclaimed
75,000 users, it is difficult to see how it can compare to the
over 4 years that OS/2 1.X and 2.0 and its client/server extensions
have been in actual production use. Reliability to us is what you
tell us it is - products that work. Reliability is a function of
proven quality and maturity. Windows NT has yet to prove how
reliable it is. The Microsoft document also has distorted Windows
3.0 and Windows 3.1 volumes to emphasize Windows market acceptance.
There is no dispute that Microsoft has achieved market success with
the Windows 3.X family, but what is misleading about the document
is that it uses Windows 3.X volumes when comparing to OS/2's market
presence but uses Windows NT's features when comparing product lines.
We have therefore added Windows 3.1 to several of the comparison
charts Microsoft uses to compare client/server features to show
that Windows 3.1 fails to meet most of Microsoft's own criteria.
Given these overall observations we would like to address the
statements one by one.
Page 1 (of May version of Microsoft's Document):
Microsoft Claim : "It [OS/2 2.1] does not run Windows applications
as well as Windows does."
IBM Response : OS/2 2.1 includes the actual Windows code 3.1 to
provide Microsoft Windows 3.1 functionality and
compatibility. OS/2 can also provide Windows
applications with key client/server features such
as crash-protection and preemptive multitasking
by running them in separate Virtual DOS Machines
(VDMs). These are features that Microsoft
presentations concede will not be supported in
Windows NT for 16-bit Windows 3.1 applications.
Others agree. According to John Ruley, an editor
for Windows Magazine... "OS/2 2.1 is a better DOS
than DOS and probably a better Windows than
(pause for effect\) Windows..." (June 1993 issue)
Microsoft Claim : "Today, OS/2 does not support key Windows features
[such] as dynamic data exchange (DDE), object
linking and embedding (OLE) and even cut and paste
between separate Windows virtual device machines
(VDMs)."
IBM Response : Not true. OS/2's public clipboard enables DDE and
cut and paste to work correctly between Windows
applications in separate Windows VDMs (OLE works
correctly between applications in the same Windows
VDM which is equivalent to Windows NT OLE support).
Microsoft Claim : "Windows NT is a more powerful, reliable, and open
solution for client-server computing."
IBM Response : Windows NT is not yet generally available. While
it is certainly designed to be powerful (with a
32-bit data model, multithreading and preemptive
multitasking like OS/2 has available today), NT's
reliability and openness have yet to be proven.
Microsoft's justification for this statement
references symmetric multiprocessing, portability,
openness, integrated security and built-in networking
as key high-end OS features.
Multi-processor computers may be an option for
customers with very high capacity server needs and
there are different kinds of multiprocessing
architectures to consider. IBM provides asymmetric
multiprocessor support for OS/2 on the PS/2 model
295 and 195 today. Recently, IBM also demonstrated
symmetric multiprocessing on OS/2 on a variety of
multi-processor systems at Spring '93 Comdex in
Atlanta and at PC Expo 1993 in New York.
Operating system portability is one alternative
for customers who are integrating and supporting
different hardware architectures. A more important
requirement for this environment is for vendors to
support open industry standards. IBM is supporting
both of these requirements by supporting OSF's
Distributed Computing Environment (DCE) and by
providing an OS/2 environment on a portable (to
RISC architectures) and open microkernel, via the
IBM Microkernel based OS technology which was also
demonstrated at Spring Comdex.
Microsoft's commitment to Open Systems, especially
DCE and CORBA, has been incomplete. We are not alone
in this viewpoint. From an article in PC Week, March
1993, titled "Microsoft goes it alone: standards
stance leaves users concerned", "Users and observers
say that Microsoft Corp. is taking advantage of its
dominant position as a leader in the microcomputer
software market to set its own standards and ignore
those set by other industry groups.....Buyers are
concerned about interoperability, according to
analysts critical of Microsoft's often-proprietary
approach.....Microsoft claims that it will support
standards that have clear industry-wide support,
such as POSIX, TCP/IP, and remote procedure call but
has stopped short of endorsing the full Distributed
Computing Environment (DCE) standard and some other
widely supported standards."
Of course, security and networking are necessary
requirements for distributed computing. Including
these features in the operating system is a packaging
and marketing consideration. It may be a convenience
for some customers but it can also limit their options
and unnecessarily increase the system requirements.
Microsoft Claim : "IBM Has No Single Strategy....Long term IBM is
working on eight different operating systems"
IBM Response : IBM recognizes that there is no "one size fits all"
strategy when it comes to customer computing
environments. The number of operating systems offered
by IBM is a result of our long term leadership in
helping customers develop mission critical systems
to meet their needs on a wide variety of hardware
platforms. The breadth of IBM offerings is underscored
by a singular commitment to serve our customers. On
the Intel compatible platform alone, Microsoft has at
least eight operating systems supporting their
strategy: Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups,
Windows NT, Windows NT Advanced Server, Chicago,
Cairo, Modular Windows and Winpad, all of which have
differences in their application programming
interfaces (APIs).
For a complete discussion of IBM's microcomputer
based operating systems strategy, see the related
document called "Why OS/2?" (updated version
available August 1993).
Microsoft Claim : "IBM Embraces Windows"
IBM Response : It is true that the IBM PC Company resells Windows and
may also pre-load Windows NT when customers request it.
IBM recommends OS/2 and its client/server extensions
over Windows and Windows NT because it is a superior
platform for client-server computing.
Microsoft Claim : "Key ISVs, such as Micrografx, are halting their OS/2
development efforts...."
IBM Response : This statement is incorrect. OS/2 Professional
magazine published the following in the May 1993
issue: "PC Week recently published an article saying
Micrografx was not behind OS/2. On the contrary,
J. Paul Grayson, Micrografx CEO, says the company has
more people working on OS/2 than ever before, Grayson
says Mirrors is doing very well, and they are
evaluating new directions for OS/2 products. Among
Micrografx's OS/2 offerings are Designer and Windows
Draw. Grayson also reportedly attempted to get the
PC Week article corrected prior to publication, but
was unsuccessful."
Microsoft Claim : "...25 Million customers are using Windows already..."
IBM Response : While the shipment volumes of Windows is granted,
there are several reasons to question the number of
actual Windows users. First, the 25 Million number
is the number of shipments since Windows 3.0. Most
users of Windows 3.0 have upgraded to OS/2 or
Windows 3.1. Second, 60% of all PCs ship with
Windows pre-installed whether the user intends to
use it or not. Last October, Windows Magazine
estimated that only 1/3 of all Windows shipments
were actually being used.
Microsoft Claim : "Windows 3.1 leverages existing hardware and software
better."
IBM Response : It is a pretty safe assumption that most of the PCs
that are running Windows 3.1 are 386 class machines
or above with 32-bit architectures. While Windows
3.1 runs on more existing machines configurations,
it doesn't fully exploit the capabilities of those
machines like OS/2 2.X can since Windows 3.1 is a
16-bit DOS extender running on 32-bit hardware.
In addition, there are more software packages and
advanced 32-bit OS/2 applications.
Microsoft Claim : "...Usage of OS/2 has dwindled. This is because
Windows NT best addresses customer requirements
for high-end operating systems."
IBM Response : Contrary to Microsoft's claims, usage of OS/2 has
not "dwindled". Shipments of OS/2 2.0 exceed all
previous releases of OS/2 combined, and OS/2 2.1
has had a very positive reception in the market
and is currently shipping in high volumes.
[Phrase "Usage of OS/2 has dwindled" was removed
from the July version of Microsoft document]
The assertion that Windows NT best addresses
requirements for high-end operating systems is
subjective and unsupported. A phone survey done
by Communications week for their April 19th issues
asked the question: "Which operating system is more
strategic to your enterprise network: IBM's OS/2 or
Microsoft's forthcoming Windows NT?". Over 1,400
votes were cast for OS/2 with only 75 cast for NT
(95% to 5%).
The primary correction (besides the inaccuracies about OS/2) is to
include Windows 3.1, Microsoft's high volume client OS. As you can
see, it fails Microsoft's own criteria as a client for client-server
computing. By these criteria, Microsoft's strategy might be looked
at as a server-server strategy.
Microsoft Claim : "OS/2 2.X only runs on the Intel x86 platform. IBM
claims they are porting OS/2 to the Mach kernel,
but this means creating an entirely new OS, which
is a long and difficult project. For example,
Windows NT took over four and one-half years to
develop and spent over a year and one-half in
large scale external testing."
IBM Response : To compare the development of an OS/2 personality to
work on top of the IBM microkernel (Mach based) to
the development of Windows NT is very misleading.
Windows NT was developed from scratch to provide
complex, high-end operating systems functions that
are not available in the DOS/Windows environment,
such as multitasking, multithreading, 32 bit memory
model, high performance file system, etc. OS/2
already has all these high end features, and we do
not have to 'create' an entirely new operating
system to move them to a microkernel environment.
We also don't need to 'create' the Mach microkernel
which is an established code-base developed by
Carnegie Melon University, and is adopted, approved
and licensed by the Open Software Foundation.
Microsoft, on the other hand, decided to build the
kernel for NT from scratch (which they admit is a
long and difficult project). In doing so, they have
also decided to keep their operating system
proprietary, not truly open to the industry. IBM,
on the other hand, is in the process of licensing
our microkernel technology to various industry
players.
Microsoft Claim : "OS/2 2.X does not support multiprocessor systems"
IBM Response : As mentioned earlier, OS/2 currently supports the
multiprocessing (asymmetric) PS/2 195 and 295
(available today), and OS/2 2.X was demonstrated
on a variety of symmetric multiprocessing machines
at Spring Comdex 1993 and PC Expo 1993.
Microsoft Claim : "[Windows NT] RPC facility is interoperable with
other OSF/DCE compatible RPC implementations."
IBM Response : While Microsoft claims Windows NT's RPC will be
interoperable with DCE there are at least 13 known
incompatibilities between it and the DCE RPC as
documented in Microsoft's RPC developers guide
available with the March 1993 Windows NT beta
program. Microsoft's decision to develop their
own proprietary code base, instead of licensing
it from the Open Software Foundation (OSF),
introduces the potential for additional
incompatibilities. IBM's implementation of DCE is
based on software licensed directly from the OSF.
In addition IBM is enhancing the RPC software with
plans to license it back to the OSF, meaning
Microsoft will always be playing 'catch-up' with
the latest OSF RPC specifications. IBM is also
licensing software for the other OSF DCE standards
which are network time management, security, and
distributed directory services (we know of no
Microsoft commitment to support these other DCE
standards).
Microsoft Claim : "OS/2 does not have integration between 16-bit
Windows and 32-bit OS/2 applications. In addition,
integration features such as OLE and DDE do not
work between separate 16-bit Windows VDMs. In many
cases, simple cuts and pastes between VDMs do not
work properly."
IBM Response : As stated earlier, OS/2's public clipboard enables
DDE and cut and paste to work correctly between
applications in separate Windows VDMs (OLE works
correctly between applications in the same Windows
VDM which is equivalent to Windows NT OLE support).
We also support cut and paste and DDE between
Windows and OS/2 applications. [In the July version
of the Microsoft document the phrase "OS/2 does not
have integration" was changed to "OS/2 has limited
integration" with claims that Microsoft internal
testing shows complicated cut and pastes and DDEs
are not reliable between separate VDM's. Our internal
testing and customer feedback indicates that we met
our design goal which was to support all cut and
pastes and DDEs between Windows applications in
separate VDM's that perform correctly under DOS
with Windows 3.1].
Microsoft Claim : "OS/2 2.x offers no integrated security. IBM promises
security add-ons for future releases of OS/2, but to
have truly integrated security, it must be designed
into the system from the ground up."
IBM Response : The requirements for PC security varies from "none
at all" for most end-users to "government certified"
for military and international banking institutions.
Microsoft is correct that some high-security features
should be included in the base operating system.
However, Microsoft's implication that OS/2 needs to
be redesigned from the ground up is subjective and
unsupported by facts. We have made design changes
in OS/2 to enhance security over the years,
specifically in support for OS/2 LAN Server which is
the current method of providing fundamental security
on an OS/2 system. We have plans in place to improve
OS/2's security further and demonstrated a technology
enhancing OS/2's security at Fall 1992 Comdex.
Microsoft Claim : "This [NT's] complete memory protection prevents
errant applications from corrupting data, interfering
with other applications, or damaging the system."
IBM Response : This is not correct. Because NT runs all 16-bit
Windows applications in a single address space, it is
possible for one of these applications to interfere
with one of the others running in that same space.
This can happen between 16-bit Windows applications
under Windows 3.0 and 3.1 in the form of UAEs and GPFs,
respectively, and can continue to happen under Windows
NT.
Microsoft Claim : "IBM claims that Windows 3.x applications are better
protected in OS/2, but this is not the default
configuration and can't be enabled without sacrificing
application integration."
IBM Response : By "sacrificing integration" Microsoft is again
implying that cut and paste and DDE don't work
across VDMs. Again, OS/2's public clipboard enables
DDE and cut and paste to work correctly between
applications in separate Windows VDMs (OLE works
correctly between applications in the same Windows
VDM which is equivalent to Windows NT OLE support).
Microsoft Claim : "LAN Server does not support RAID 5."
IBM Response : This is misleading. LAN Server does not provide
RAID 5 natively, but IBM offers an add-on product
called OASAS that provides RAID 5 with or without
LAN Server installed.
Microsoft Claim : "25% of [NT] applications are being ported from
UNIX, VMS and MVS, including IBM's own DB2
database."
IBM Response : This is a very misleading statement. IBM's MVS DB2
database is not being ported to Windows NT. In an
effort to support a wide variety of server platforms,
the DB2/2 product (currently available for the OS/2
environment) is being considered for porting to
additional operating environments.
Microsoft Claim : "IBM currently lists only 500 unique OS/2 applications."
IBM Response : This statement is incorrect. IBM currently lists
1196 unique OS/2 32-bit exploitive applications in
our OS/2 Applications Guide. In addition OS/2 2.1
runs existing DOS and Windows 3.X applications.
Microsoft Claim : "IBM's Strategy...[is to] .. Show that Windows NT
is broken"
IBM Response : This is not correct. IBM does not believe that
Windows NT is broken. It is late, still unavailable
and definitely unproven. We do, however, believe
that Microsoft's client server strategy and products
are not as good as ours, as we offer a more reliable,
comprehensive and available set of client server
solutions.
Microsoft Claim : "OS/2 does not have the mission-critical features of
Windows NT today."
IBM Response : Today, OS/2 has more mission critical features
available than Windows 3.1 and NT. When NT does
become generally available, it is planned to have
some additional features that are specific to
niche needs. These features are either available on
OS/2 via add-ons (such as fault tolerance and RAID 5)
or are planned for OS/2 or a future add-on. On the
other hand, even after NT is generally available,
Windows 3.1 will still have inadequate mission
critical features for the client such as pre-emptive
multitasking and crash protection, which OS/2 has
today.
Microsoft Claim : "Today, OS/2 is missing key mission-critical features
customers require, including true preemptive
multitasking (with asynchronous input queues...)."
IBM Response : This is a very misleading statement. OS/2 has true
preemptive multitasking (i.e. the system can interrupt,
or preempt, a running task and give control to another
task). Asynchronous input queues address a different
aspect of the system. An asynchronous input queue
gives a separate keyboard and mouse channel for each
application running on the screen. This feature does
make the system feel more responsive to the end user,
but has no value on an unattended server, which is
Windows NT's main target area market. IBM has publicly
stated that asynchronous input queue support for OS/2
is in development. Also note that 16-bit Windows
applications running under Windows 3.1 under
Windows NT are lacking both features (preemptive
multitasking and asynchronous input queues).
Microsoft Claim : "IBM has promised these features and others that
Windows NT has today for the future, but equivalent
functionality is still one to three years out"
IBM Response : Windows NT is not generally available today, and
Microsoft 's statements do not reflect IBM's
priorities or product plans. OS/2 has a 15 month
lead as an available 32-bit operating system and
has features Microsoft does not plan to ship in
Windows NT 3.1 such as an object-oriented Workplace
Shell user interface and our System Object Model (SOM)
which incorporates object technology directly into
the operating system to allow object reuse between
different object languages. In addition we have
announced for 3rd quarter '93 delivery and are beta
testing Distributed SOM (DSOM) which allows object
communication and reuse over networks, between
different languages, and potentially even different
operating systems (e.g. AIX and OS/2). In addition,
IBM has recently stated its intent to use OpenDoc
technology from Apple for compound document
integration that will support SOM and DSOM providing
application integration across multiple operating
systems, including UNIX, and across networks (both of
which are features that are lacking in OLE 2.0 from
Microsoft). OpenDoc is vendor independent and has
growing industry support from major players including
IBM, Apple, Novell, WordPerfect and Borland.
[In the July version of the Microsoft document the
phrase "but equivalent functionality is still one to
three years out" was changed to "but can't deliver
them today". The 'functionality' Microsoft refers to
includes 'built-in systems management tools' (Hermes)
which is not available from Microsoft today. IBM's LAN
NetView family of systems management products all
entered beta testing with customers in June 1993
and LAN NetView Start is generally available.
Microsoft Claim : "Windows NT is compatible with Windows 16-bit and
MS-DOS applications."
IBM Response : We believe NT will be compatible with the high volume
applications but Microsoft will not focus on
compatibility for lower volume or home grown
applications. Also, DOS and Windows applications
that ship with and use a DOS device driver will not
run under NT without modification unless a new device
driver is supplied (per a presentation from Microsoft
called "A Technical Overview of Microsoft Window
NT 3.1.").
Microsoft Claim : "Windows NT's 16-bit application protection model
provides error trapping between applications and
more importantly provides full integration between
applications. OS/2's model breaks application
integration."
IBM Response : The error trapping mechanism in Windows 3.1
(and NT) for 16-bit applications is not the
same thing as the true protection that OS/2
provides for all applications by running them
under separate processes. Error trapping just
notifies the user once the damage has been done
and recommends the user reboots (Windows 3.1) or
restarts the Windows subsystem (Windows NT).
Also, as stated earlier, Microsoft is incorrect
about OS/2's ability to support DDE and cut and
paste between Windows applications in separate
VDMs and OLE works correctly between applications
in the same Windows VDM which is equivalent to
Windows NT OLE support. Also IBM has announced
our intention to support OpenDoc, which will
provide compound document integration across
multiple operating system types, including UNIX,
and over networks which are features that OLE 2.0
does not support.
Microsoft Claim : "Neither OS/2 or Windows NT run on [Intel 386 systems
with 4Mb of RAM]."
IBM Response : This is incorrect. OS/2 does run on 4Mb Intel 386
systems (although 6 to 8Mb are recommended.)
Windows NT does not.
Microsoft Claim : "OS/2's model forces customers to choose between
integration or task switching with protection."
IBM Response : Microsoft is again implying that cut and paste and
DDE do not work between separate Windows VDMs in
OS/2. With the public clipboard enabled, DDE and
cut and paste work correctly between applications
in separate Windows VDMs (OLE works correctly
between applications in the same Windows VDM which
is equivalent to Windows NT OLE support).
Microsoft Claim : "IBM Asserts: OS/2 2.1 runs Windows applications
faster than Windows NT on identical hardware....
Windows NT performance is equivalent to OS/2 2.1"
IBM Response : Some independent performance tests on Windows NT and
OS/2 have been described on public bulletin boards
that have drawn the conclusion that DOS and Windows
applications run faster on OS/2 than on Windows NT,
however IBM hasn't and won't "assert" anything
officially until the Windows NT code is made
generally available. [July version of the Microsoft
document changes this claim to "Windows NT performance,
given a certain level of hardware (e.g. Windows NT
does not support 6 MB RAM configurations) is equivalent
to OS/2 2.1"].
Microsoft Claim : "Windows NT is better optimized for performance-critical
applications."
IBM Response : The three reasons listed are the implementation of
asynchronous input queues, use of asynchronous I/O,
and the ability to preempt a running time slice.
OS/2 supports the last two features today and have
publicly stated we intend to support asynchronous
input queues in a future release. Asynchronous
input queues affect only the responsiveness of the
client and not of an unattended server. Also, as
stated above, some independent performance tests
have indicated that OS/2 is probably a better choice
if performance is a concern, although we plan to wait
for NT to ship to draw that conclusion.
Microsoft Claim : ".... in IBM's OS/2 applications catalog, only 500
are unique, of which only 15 are general desktop
applications."
IBM Response : This statement is incorrect. IBM currently lists
1196 unique OS/2 32-bit exploitive applications in
our OS/2 Applications Guide.
Microsoft Claim : "Microsoft has met every development milestone with
Windows NT and plans to deliver it as promised in
Q2 1993."
IBM Response : The following would seem to suggest otherwise:
MacWeek, July 13th 1992: "NT (New Technology) is on
track to ship by the end of the year [1992] and is
expected to cost less than $500, Gates said"
Computer Reseller News, September 28th, 1992: "Walker
says that Windows NT will ship during the first few
months of 1993."
Newsbytes, September 28th, 1992: "The new date is now
'early 1993,' with Microsoft officials saying that
it 'needs more time to respond to customer suggestions
for improvements in the Windows NT system'."
Software Magazine, December 1992: "At the ITAA
conference...Mike Maples, Microsoft's executive vice
president, said NT would ship in April."
InfoWorld, March 15th, 1993: "NT could ship to
customers later than the promised date of June 30,
but no more than 30 days late, Walker said."
Windows World Spring 1993: Gates said in his keynote
Windows NT would ship within 60 days [by July 22nd]
and that Windows NT Advanced Server would ship within
30 days of Windows NT [by August 21st].
PCWeek, July 5th, 1993: "Gates also said Microsoft
will ship Windows NT by the end of the month [July]...".
[In the July version of the Microsoft document, this
claim was removed].
Microsoft Claim : "OS/2 requires add-on products (costly products) ...
and they are not well integrated with OS/2."
IBM Response : Maintaining only the necessary functions on desktop
machines is a significant benefit of Client-Server
systems and it is what "Rightsizing" is all about.
Unnecessarily upgrading hardware and forcing unused
functionality into every machine is what can be costly.
Our customers have told us that they need flexibility...
so we are providing a robust and stable base for both
client and server systems with optionally available
features to customize each system as necessary. We
also provide LAN mechanisms to manage this process
centrally via remote electronic software configuration,
installation and distribution. Microsoft's assertion
that networking features need to be built-in to be
well integrated is simply not true.
[In the July version of the Microsoft document, the
"(costly products)" phrase was removed]
Microsoft Claim : "By using the Windows NT microkernel architecture
model, IBM claims OS/2 will..."
IBM Response : The IBM Microkernel is based on the Mach 3.0
architecture, not the Windows NT architecture model.
IBM has since made significant enhancements to this
microkernel and are now in the process of licensing
this technology to other vendors making it an open
architecture. Windows NT's kernel technology is not
considered a true microkernel since device driver and
file system functions were allowed to reside in the
kernel itself. Windows NT's kernel is also proprietary.
[In the July version of the Microsoft document the phase
"By using the Windows NT microkernel architecture model"
was changed to "By using the Mach microkernel architecture
model"].
Microsoft Claim : "IBM's development cycle is one to three years behind
Microsoft's. Windows NT will have been on the market
for several years before IBM ships its first microkernel
based version of OS/2."
IBM Response : In the paragraph preceding this statement, Microsoft
also states that IBM plans to have microkernel based
version of OS/2 available by mid-1994. Putting these
two statements together implies that Windows NT has
been "on the market" for several years before mid-1994.
Obviously, IBM is not behind Microsoft in any sense.
OS/2 is at least 15 months ahead of Windows NT in
making mission-critical features available to customers.
IBM is also years ahead of Microsoft in object
technology - we shipped an object-oriented operating
system shell called Workplace Shell with OS/2 2.0 in
March of 1992 and have delivered beta versions of our
Distributed Systems Object Model in February 1993.
On June 15th 1993, IBM announced the SOMobjects
Developer Tool kit Version 2.0, the first professional
programming tool kit to incorporate IBM's System Object
Model (SOM) and Distributed System Object Model (DSOM)
technologies and announced a scheduled availability
data of 3Q '93. Microsoft doesn't plan to deliver
an object oriented interface or support distributed
objects on Windows NT until release 2 (Cairo).
Microsoft has made no formal commitment for these
object features on Windows 4.0 (Chicago) that IBM is
aware of.
[In the July version of the Microsoft document, the
claim above was changed to "IBM PSP group plans to
ship a full beta release of its first microkernel-
based version of OS/2 by the end of the 1993...].
For more information on the competitive advantages of OS/2 2.1 in a
client server environment, please read Why OS/2? (updated version
available August 1993), which can be obtained from your IBM marketing
representative or systems engineer.
Disclaimer
Some of the information in this paper concerns future products, or
future releases of current, commercially available products. Discussion
of Windows is based on information which the Microsoft Corporation has
made publicly available as of June 28th 1993, or information in the
public trade press, and is subject to change. IBM's future products
and their performance, functions and availability are based upon IBM's
current intent, and are subject to change.
Special Notices
References in this publication to IBM's current and future products,
programs or services do not imply that IBM intends to make these
generally available in all countries in which IBM operates. IBM may
have patents or pending patent applications covering subject matter
in this document. This document does not grant anyone a license to
those patents, patent applications or to any other IBM intellectual
property. IBM and OS/2 are registered trademarks and NetView and
SOMobjects are trademarks of the IBM Corporation. Microsoft is a
registered trademark and Windows and Windows NT are trademarks of
Microsoft Corporation. NetWare is a registered trademark of Novell.
UNIX is a registered trademark of UNIX Systems Laboratory.