Indulge me in a bit of history for a moment, will you?

The site you are reading today is the latest generation of a publishing process I started in the early 1990s. I had always been a fan of computers and knew I wanted to make it my career, yet I also enjoyed writing. In the beginning I started publishing shareware reviews via email and BBS downloads. As the 1990s marched on I moved to electronic publishing via Windows help files. It wasn't pretty and the software package used, RoboHelp, stunk up the joint.

Originally published on August 5, 1995.

The interview this week is with me! I have tried in the last few issues to provide fairly balanced coverage of IBM's OS/2 and Microsoft's products. No matter what I do I get flamed by OS/2 users for laying down at Microsoft's feet or getting toasted by Microsoft users who think I am a mouthpiece for IBM. The flames from the last week were horrid.

Here is the truth with me and IBM/Microsoft. I own six computers. Here is the breakdown:

MY WORKSTATION: Windows 3.1 (I'll move over soon)

MY SECOND WORKSTATION (Read Wife's and Kid's): Windows 95

MY PRIMARY SERVER: NetWare 3.12 5 User

MY SECONDARY SERVER: Windows NT 3.5

MY BBS RUNNING TWO HIGH SPEED LINES: OS/2 Warp

MY LAPTOP (OR WHATEVER I AM BORROWING): Windows 3.1

Gee, let's see ... I do use Microsoft on most of my machines, but look at the BBS where great DOS multitasking is needed ... hmmm, OS/2.

Let's look at the software I use:

Primary Business Software: Lotus SmartSuite for Windows - OS/2 Version available with old apps! (Of which I use AmiPro and Organizer 80% of the time)

Accounting Software: QuickBooks for Windows

Graphics Software: Visio by Shapeware

Mail Reader: CMPQWK for BBS, WinCIM for CompuServe OS/2 Version available!, AOL for AOL

Internet Browser: Netscape Latest 32 Bit

BBS: PCBoard 15.21 DOS, OS/2 Version available!

Hmmm, absolutley no Microsoft software. Gee, and look, only three of the packages I use are available in OS/2. Of those only two have been updated to take advantage of Warp!

Let's face it folks, life is too short to bitch and moan about competing operating systems. Back when the world wasn't dominated by Windows from Microsoft I could have actually believed that OS/2 could have achieved some large scale market penetration, but come on. Logically, let's look at this ... OS/2 hands down is a much more stable, reliable operating system for mission critical applications. I know I feel secure that my ATM runs OS/2 instead of Windows 95. I also feel secure my BBS won't crap out on vacation due to an operating system error. On the other hand I just got back from CompUSA. I counted twelve native OS/2 applications that I would consider mainstream. There were absolutley NO GAMES, EDUCATIONAL or HOME software specifically designed for WARP.

Ok, that should address how I feel about OS/2 vs. Windows. In case I didn't make it clear enough I think that Windows is the operating system that will survive in the consumer marketplace. If you aren't doing Windows 95 a year from now you won't have applications. Period. If you are a business, lab or technical company looking for a rock solid operating system to develop a mission critical application look towards OS/2 first and then Windows NT. If you need networking with that mission critical application grab Windows NT.

Going forward I will present timely OS/2 and Windows information from reliable sources, but I won't publish the taunting items I was passed this week. I will post the following from Microsoft in response to the OS/2 PR I posted last week. It was my mistake to publish the crud from IBM without checking the dates, etc. You just can't trust email these days . . .

This one comes from 1996 or so and features a take on how to use the internet without being too commercial.

What if there was a guaranteed method of developing qualified prospects to your business? OK. What if there was a guaranteed method of developing qualified prospects to your business without costing your marketing budget its annual slice of revenue?

Rather than labor over these technical details, it is probably more relevant to evaluate how an operating system addresses customer requirements such as: Performance on mainstream hardware; the number of native applications developed for the operating system; compatibility with the applications, and hardware customers already own; ease of use (beyond the few technical details IBM discusses here), and the future prospects of the operating system.  See "Key customer requirements for a PC Operating System" at the end of this document for a more thorough discussion of these issues.

This was originally published on August 5, 1995. This is a fascinating response to IBM's Windows 95 Hype Article. IBM did a good job knocking Windows 95 down in the technical game, but look at how Microsoft handles it.

About Windows 95 and Multitasking

Q: Can Windows 95 preemptively multitask Win16 applications?

A: No.  Because Win16 applications were written for a cooperative multitasking environment, they cannot handle the stress of being  "preempted" during execution.  Therefore Windows 95 must handle these applications in the same way that Windows 3.1 does: by giving them exclusive control of the CPU for as long as they are executing.  When, and only when, the application makes a specific API call - one of the few such calls that constitute safe points at which Windows can wrest control away from the program - are other programs allowed to execute.  This is "cooperative" multitasking, and has proven to be ineffectual when running more than a handful of programs simultaneously or when running CPU-intensive programs such as communications, print and/or fax programs. BOTTOM LINE:  WINDOWS 95 ADDS LITTLE VALUE FOR THE LARGE BASE OF LEGACY WIN16 APPLICATIONS.

This was an article published out to the internet by someone in IBM in 1995. We published it on July 29, 1995. It was part of the process to differniate Windows 95 from OS/2. It's a very good read about Windows 95 internals. Curiously, the IBM email address was still on this. I've dropped an email to the address to see if that person is still with IBM.

Can Windows 95 live up to the hype that Microsoft has generated for it? These questions, which are based upon published information about the final beta product in the "Windows 95 Resource Kit" and "Windows 95 Reviewer's Guide," might help you decide.

About Reliability

Q: What happens to 32-bit applications when a Win16 application crashes under Windows 95.

A: They can stop executing. Because Microsoft built Windows 95 using the same System Virtual Machine (VM) model found in Windows 3.1, the operating system is at the mercy of legacy 16-bit applications. If a Win16 program hangs, it can tie up critical 16-bit code modules located in the" System VM. All other processing is halted. BOTTOM LINE: WINDOWS 95 IS NOT A RELIABLE PLATFORM FOR MISSION CRITICAL LINE-OF-BUSINESS APPLICATIONS.

Q: Does Windows 95 protect the contents of its system cache against intrusion by Win32 programs?"

A: No. As with the aforementioned system structures, Windows 95 also fails to protect the contents of its system cache - disk cache, network cache, and CD-ROM cache. As a result, an errant Win32 application can write to memory in use by the cache. The potential results: inaccurate data, corrupted file system entries, etc. BOTTOM LINE: DATA INTEGRITY IS A QUESTIONS MARK WITH WINDOWS 95.

Windows 95 welcome logoQ: How is Microsoft dealing with the issue of Virtual Device Driver (VxD) instability?

A: They aren't. In fact, Windows 95 itself makes heavy use of VxDs to supplement and, in many cases, replace DOS functionality. VxDs are extremely powerful programs that can literally go anywhere and do anything in the operating system. They have free reign to address system memory directly, manipulate hardware, and even replace portions of Windows 95 itself at runtime. This give the creative VxD programmer unlimited flexibility when designing applications that need to modify Windows 95's operation. Microsoft has itself often promoted the VxD interface as a mechanism for gaining good performance with time-critical Windows applications. Unfortunately, the power of the VxD can also be a curse. As more developers begin to exploit this interface - an interface that has only limited controls and almost zero inter-process isolation - a programming free-for-all may result where multiple third party VxDs modify the system in similar ways with unpredictable results. The failure of a single VxD can undermine the stability of the entire Windows 95 environment. BOTTOM LINE: VxDs ARE POTENTIAL DISASTERS WAITING TO HAPPEN IN CORPORATIONS WORLDWIDE.

Q: Is it true that Windows 95 doesn't fully protect its own operating system code against Win32 application failures?

A: Yes. Win32 applications can write to regions of the extreme lower and upper address spaces in the System VM that are critical to the environment's operation. As a result, an errant memory operation can undermine system stability and potentially crash the entire operating system. BOTTOM LINE: WINDOWS 95 MAY BE ONE ERRANT MEMORY OPERATION AWAY FROM TOTAL FAILURE.

Q: When running DOS applications, does Windows 95 fully virtualize the PC's hardware to protect against buggy applications?

A: No. Windows 95 fails to virtualize critical hardware components like the interrupt flag. This, in turn, can lead to a system crash if an errant DOS program becomes unresponsive while interrupts are disabled. BOTTOM LINE: LEGACY APPS ARE THE ACHILLES HEEL OF WINDOWS 95 MEMORY MANAGEMENT.

About Usability

Q: Does Windows 95 track objects dynamically?

A: No. Windows 95 uses a series of static DOS pathnames and .INI files to track the relationship between icons on the desktop and files on disk. For example, the shortcut mechanism of the Windows 95 interface relies on a stored copy of the original's path information when locating and invoking it. If the file is moved within the directory structure, Windows 95 must search the hard disk for it based on file size and date stamp. Although this technique works most of the time, it is limited to searching a single volume - if you move the file to another disk volume, the link is broken completely. And, because Windows 95 will search your entire network if attached, it may take forever if it is connected to, say, five gigabytes of storage. BOTTOM LINE: HELP DESK CALLS WILL BE ON THE RISE AS USERS EXPERIMENT WITH SHORTCUTS AND LONG FILENAMES.

Q: Does Windows 95 make consistent use of drag & drop?

A: No. Windows 95's drag & drop features are applicable to some objects, like files and folders, but not to others. You cannot, for example, drag a dial-up networking connection to the Windows 95 Recycler; nor can you drag objects to the My Computer folder - both are "special" objects in the Windows 95 interface and aren't subject to the normal Windows 95 drag & drop rules. This introduces a level of inconsistency to the interface and a possible stumbling block for new users trying to take advantage of drag & drop. BOTTOM LINE: THE WINDOWS 95 INTERFACE IS INCONSISTENT FROM "FUNCTION TO FUNCTION."

Q: Is the Windows 95 interface consistent and object-oriented?

A: No. For example, while you can invoke the right mouse button pop-up menu on most objects, entries in the Start menu and its submenus are not included. This makes manipulating Start menu entries an awkward process involving the Taskbar properties dialog box and several layers of menus and windows. Since the right mouse button works in most other areas of the interface, the Start button's deviation from this norm exposes Windows 95's object-oriented support as incomplete. BOTTOM LINE: WINDOWS 95 DOES NOT FULLY EXPLOIT O-O TECHNOLOGY

This was originally published on July 8, 1995.

It's always great to look at older articles, and this one is pretty cool. This is a list of shareware award winners 12 years ago. I've gone ahead and checked to see if the companies are still selling software. I appended it to the list.

This was originally published on July 1, 1995. By Craig W. Boyrsowich.

It certainly has not been a secret that International Business Machines has never had any faith in the personal computer. Even when it was first released in 1981, IBM felt that these machines would never overshadow the mainstream mainframe operations that IBM has always dominated. This would be only their first mistake.

The most basic PC in ‘81 would cost an average consumer $5000.00, which certainly didn't make Commodore and Apple nervous of loosing any market share.

Even though it was touted as being the revolution business was waiting for, IBM itself didn't buy in. It was created with old technology from Intel on the 8088/8086 processor, and a cryptic operating system produced by a then small basement operation known as Microsoft, although Bill Gates has not been seen sending any big thank you cards in IBM's direction. If IBM believed that the PC would become such a commodity then, as it is today, the industry would sure look different.

Abandoning the specifications of ISA to the public domain, IBM went on their merry way to release the AT computer among many sprouting competitors. The AT, based now on an Intel 80286 processor, was a service nightmare for IBM. Thousands of crashed CMS brand Hard Drives were dumped in the bay offshore from IBM's Boca Raton research centre by disgruntled customers.

The decline would continue with the release of IBM's PCjr. A novel concept in computing technology - design a hamstrung machine that expands like an AS/400. IBM would soon learn that their midrange concepts did not apply too well to the PC world (as infantile as it was). The concept of a cordless infra red keyboard was exciting enough if you liked to type at the proper angle to have the holes line up with the infra red receiver. This got harder as you moved further away from the machine. IBM's MCGA standard which was supported by maybe 3 or 4 software products and even found it's way into the windows operating system later on, never got recognized as an achievement. A full blown system would see the size of the box almost triple!  You could add side cars, top cars, even an undercar module. Of course, some could only be used if other modules were present, and even had to be stacked in a certain order which never seemed to get mentioned in the instructions or the advertising.

Now IBM had a surge of brilliance to redeem it's market from the Clones by releasing a brand new architecture know as MicroChannel. Again IBM applied it's mainframe background to design a more advanced architecture and forced us to look at the ugly blobs known and marketed as PS/2. But this architecture was closed and patented. The Cloners could not create a duplicate without paying licencing fees to Big Blue. Even third party add on manufacturers had to pay to produce upgrade cards for the MicroChannel architecture. This was a wonderful Idea other than they never took advantage of half of the great and exciting benefits in the MicroChannel architecture (not even with the OS/2 operating system!!). They also chose to use ESDI hard disk technology. This is after IDE was practically chosen as an industry standard for PC machines. With IDE on the Market, who wants a revamped MFM/RLL based hard disk?  The least they could have done if they were scrounging around for expensive non-standard equipment to justify charging the ridiculous prices, was to go with SCSI. SCSI was barely known to Macintosh users at this time. Even today the enormous benefits of MCA, and it's load balancing, and it's superior bandwidth continue to go untapped. The cloners were still smarter. They combated MCA with a new public standard which was EISA. That record didn't get much play either, though they proved time again that EISA could beat MCA hands down performing day to day tasks.

IBM gave the breath of life to the Monolith we call Microsoft today (sometimes Microsquish, Muckrosift, Microslop, etc.). Even when they had a chance to build a partnership to give IBM a share of the PC operating system market with OS/2, IBM blew that opportunity apart. They did however keep the rights to OS/2 and have managed to create more marketing literature, advertisements, brochures, and presentations than any other product marketed in history to achieve only a nominal amount of sales. And now IBM has it on the books to cancel the OS/2 operating system if major improvements in its market share are not seen soon. They are also trying to produce the Taligent operating system jointly with Apple Computer to run on the PowerPC Platform (but we won't see any of that until the end of ‘96). IBM originally released the PowerPC workstations in summer of ‘94 (as part of the Risc6000 family). In November of ‘94, it was said that they would hold back the release of their PC level PowerPCs until the availability of the PowerPC version of OS/2, which was called for Q1 ‘95. IBM really had egg on their faces when in late Q1, early Q2 ‘95, they released the higher end PC level PowerPC machines with no OS/2. The PowerPC version of OS/2 is now expected sometime in Q1 of ‘96. Apple ran away with the PowerPC market after moving close to 400,000 units in Q4 of ‘94. That is great for any PC manufacturer.
 

Written By: Patrick Grote
Date: July 20, 2003 (Previously Published)
Section: Viewpoints

I've held off writing another installment in the ongoing Cyberwings drama for lack of information. Dates have now come and gone and it looks like the Cyberwings drama is coming to an end. A Titanic type of end.

When we last left you Cyberwings was on life support sucking cyber air from a dead tank. Since then they have made a blip on the monitor and have a web site up. From what can be verified there are two servers online at this time. One for billing/help desk and another for user accounts.