NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/8575

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!nestroy.wu-wien.ac.at!awiwuw11!rony
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Wednesday, 18 Nov 1992 19:05:58 CET
From: FLATSCHER Rony <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: MS-FUD (was Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]>
Lines: 63


See, I usually do not care whether Windows is an operating system or not. I
care about its inherent instabilities and the nice apps running under it.

Now, it is Microsoft itself which started to tout Windows as an operating
system with the release of Windows 3.1. Until that release it was undisputed
that Windows is nothing else than a DOS-enhancer, like e.g. GEM was one.

Seeing all these discussions in this area filling the bandwidth and MS-people
participating it one must wonder, whether Microsoft just wants to test the
arguments which speak for Windows being an operating system or not.

This makes sense in the case that the FTC-probe splits Microsoft into an
operating-system-company and in an application-company (likely, unlikely,
who knows ?).

In that worst-case scenario the worst case would be, if the splitting of
Microsoft would be such that Windows would be moved to the application
company (where it belongs). In that case, every ISV and user would see
that Microsoft is controlling an application market for Windows simply
because Microsoft owns that application itself; hence end-users would be
"officially" presented with such a view. ISV know, because inherently end-
users prefer to buy MS-apps, *because* Windows is from MS, *not* necessarily
because of better MS-apps (if MS succeeds in its strategy, five years from
today there would be MS-apps only on all platforms Windows is installed, no
ISV-apps anymore...). Now, ISV probably would cease to develop apps, if it
was official that Windows belongs to the MS-app-company which produces
additionally apps for it (presently, they seem to know it, but not under-
standing it).

Now, the worst-case scenario would be a little more improved, *if* Windows
would be put into the operating system company. In that case MS could say,
that all ISV-players and the MS-app-company are playing on the same ground-
field, hence camouflaging the interdependencies. The MS-app-company would not
be regarded as having an unfair advantage, ISV would continue to produce
apps for Windows ... The starting point for the MS-app-company would be
a market in which the MS-company has virtually more than 50% market share, so
that dominance would be carried forward, almost impossible for ISV to catchup.

By the way, some indicators, whether Windows is an app or an operating system:

- DDE was implemented first in MS-Excel; this development was introduced into
  Windows at a later time,

- OLE was implemented by MS-products first and was introduced into Windows at
  a later time,

- X-Windows on Unix is not an operating system, it is an application,

- Presentation Manager of OS/2 is not an operating system, it is an add-on-
  app (remember OS/2 1.0 had no presentation manager or the like ?),

- Windows NT 3.1 is an operating system with a graphical user-interface-app
  add-on called Win 32, actually MS just dumped presentation manager in favor
  for Windows in a 32bit-form.

- Gem and other graphical apps for DOS were no operating systems either but
  plain apps, allowing other apps to run under its control ...

Just because an app allows another app to run under its control cooperatively
does not make that app an operating system.

---rony