
Subject: OS/2 VERSUS WINDOWS:  IBM's rebuttal to Microsoft [long!]
Message-ID: <CApnsM.4Ip@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Sender: news@news.Hawaii.Edu
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 08:05:10 GMT
Lines: 983

Submitted by:   pspinfo@vnet.ibm.com
Source:         ASCII version of file downloaded from software.watson.ibm.com
Date received:  1993 July 23
Date posted:    1993 July 24
Note:           a few spelling errors were corrected, and three comments
                have been inserted, enclosed in {}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             +----------------------------------------+
             | IBM PSP Rebuttal to Microsoft Document |
             |   Comparing Windows NT and OS/2 2.1    |
             +----------------------------------------+
 
This document is IBM Personal Software Products' 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, and 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 from 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 three 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 previous 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.     {Moderator's note:  some readers may misinterpret this to mean
that the July version was approved by IBM; I believe it would make more
sense if the word "endorse" is replaced by "regard".}     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 are 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 available separately, 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 (R) from IBM, a third-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 solutions
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 actual Windows 3.1 code 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 pre-emptive 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 is it certainly
  designed to be powerful (with a 32-bit data model, multithreading, and
  pre-emptive 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/2 features.
 
  o 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 COMDEX/Spring '93 in Atlanta
    and at PC Expo 1993 in New York.
 
  o 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.
 
  o 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."
 
  o 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.
 
  The following table is a corrected version of the table in the
  Microsoft document, and includes a column for Windows 3.1:
 
    Windows NT Versus OS/2 2.1 and Windows 3.1 Summary
 
                                Windows NT (1)  OS/2 2.1     Windows 3.1
                                ----------      --------     -----------
    Leverages Windows family       Yes             Yes           Yes
      benefits
 
    Meets high-end operating       Most            Most          No
      system requirements
 
    (1) = when generally available
 
Page 2
------
 
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
  percent 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 or above class machines with 32-bit architectures.
  While Windows 3.1 runs on more existing machine configurations, it
  does not 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 that run on
  OS/2 2.1, since it runs DOS, Windows 3.1, 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."

{Moderator's note:  This claim is ridiculous.  It implies that users
are dumping OS/2 in favor of an operating system that isn't generally
available yet.  What are these mission critical users doing in the
meantime, using no operating system at all?  The word "addresses" is
used in the present tense.  More properly, Microsoft should have said
"will address", because Windows NT is not generally available yet.}

 
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. [The phrase "Usage of OS/2 has
  dwindled" was removed from the July version of the 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 19 April issue 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 percent to 5
  percent).
 
Page 3
------
 
The following table is a corrected version of the table in the Microsoft
document, and includes a column for Windows 3.1:

  How Windows NT, OS/2, and Windows 3.1 Address These Customer
  Requirements
 
                                Windows NT (1)  OS/2 2.1     Windows 3.1
                                ----------      --------     -----------
 
  Powerful:
 
    Capacity                       High           High           Low
 
    Symmetric multiprocessing      Yes            Yes (2)        No
 
    Supports RISC architectures    Yes            No (3)         No
 
    Built-in networking /          Yes          Available     Available
      workgroup services                        option (4)    option
 
    Powerful development platform  TBD            Yes            No
      for client/server solutions
 
    32-bit pre-emptive             Yes (5)        Yes            No
      multitasking
 
  Reliable:
 
    Tightly integrated security    Yes          Available        No
                                                option
 
    Built-in fault tolerance       Yes          Available        No
      services                                  option
 
    Integrated system and network  Yes          Available        No
      management services                       option
 
    Application and system         Some (5)       Yes            No
      integrity
 
  Open:
 
    Broad hardware and peripheral  Yes            Yes            Yes
      support
 
    Application compatibility and  Some (6)       Yes            Yes
      availability
 
    Built-in support for standard  Some (7)     Available     Available
      protocols                                 option        option
 
    Built-in support for           Yes          Available     Available
      industry-standard network                 option        option
      management environments
 
  (1) = when generally available
 
  (2) = IBM demonstrated SMP on OS/2 2.x on a variety of hardware
        configurations at COMDEX/Spring '93.
 
  (3) = IBM plans to support RISC via our IBM Microkernel-based OS
        family (which includes support for DOS, Windows, and OS/2
        applications). Also, IBM offers AIX/6000, a UNIX-based operating
        system for our RISC System/6000 RISC workstations.
 
  (4) = IBM chooses to offer options on selected features, which enables
        our customers to configure options most appropriate to their
        needs.
 
  (5) = Windows NT runs all Windows 16-bit applications in a single
        address space, and does not provide protection or pre-emptive
        multitasking between these applications (per the Microsoft
        presentation "A Technical Overview of Microsoft Windows NT
        3.1").
 
  (6) = 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 the same Microsoft presentation).
 
  (7) = Microsoft has made no commitment that we know of to support the
        full DCE standard, except for RPC. IBM has, in beta for OS/2,
        support for DCE's RPC and DCE's network time management,
        security, and distributed directory services.
 
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:
  "Windows NT is the most powerful, reliable and open operating system
  for client-server computing."
 
IBM Response:
  This statement is subjective and unsupported. See Introduction.
 
Microsoft Claim:
  "NT runs on all Intel 386/486 and compatible CPUs and will take full
  advantage of Intel's Pentium processor."
 
IBM Response:
  This is not correct. The recommended minimum environment for NT is
  either a very fast (25 MHz+) 386 or 486 processor with 12 to 16 MB of
  memory. International Data Corporation (IDC) estimates this to be only
  20 percent of the installed base of PCs. OS/2, on the other hand, runs
  on 386SX or above processors, and requires less memory (6 to 8 MB
  recommended).
 
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 that works 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 system functions that are not available in
  the DOS/Windows environment, such as multitasking, multi-threading,
  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 do not need to "create" the Mach microkernel,
  which is an established code base developed by Carnegie Mellon
  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.
 
Page 4
------
 
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
  COMDEX/Spring '93 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 (TM) (OSF), introduces the potential for
  additional compatibilities.     {Moderator's note:  I think IBM meant
  incompatibilities here.}     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 cuts and
  pastes, and that DDEs are not reliable between separate VDMs. Our
  internal testing and customer feedback indicate that we met our design
  goal, which was to support all cuts and pastes and DDEs between
  Windows applications in separate VDMs that perform correctly under DOS
  with Windows 3.1.]
 
Page 5
------
 
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 vary 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 of
  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 COMDEX/Fall '92.
 
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 additional product called OASAS that provides RAID 5,
  with or without LAN Server installed.
 
Page 6
------
 
The following table is a corrected version of the table in the Microsoft
document:
 
  Windows NT Has Broad Hardware and Peripheral Coverage
 
                                            Windows NT (1)   OS/2 2.x
                                            ----------       --------

  Intel-based uniprocessor systems          1000+            760+
 
  Symmetric multiprocessor systems          21               2 (2)
 
  RISC systems                              6 MIPs,          0 (3)
                                            2 DEC Alpha
 
  Printers                                  649              329
 
  SCSI adapters                             49               67
 
  Network adapters                          26               87
 
  Display adapters (with 10 chip sets)      26               30
 
  (1) = when generally available
 
  (2) = IBM demonstrated the OS/2 2.x base running on two different
        symmetrical multiprocessor configurations at COMDEX/Spring '93
        and PC Expo '93. Internally, IBM has tested six configurations,
        and plans to support many more when SMP support for OS/2 becomes
        generally available.
 
  (3) = IBM plans to support RISC machines via our IBM Microkernel-based
        OS family with an OS/2 personality.
 
The format of this chart can be very misleading. For example, even
though Windows NT may have more PC models and printers listed as
"certified", Microsoft has not tested all configurations of those
machines, per their compatibility document dated March 1993. Likewise,
the number of PCs and printers tested by IBM is a subset of the machines
that we support, given that we support all 386SX machines and above. Due
to the system disk and memory requirements, it is likely that OS/2 can
run on more installed PCs than Windows NT will be able to run on when it
is generally available.
 
Microsoft Claim:
  "25 percent 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.
 
Page 7
------
 
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 in 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 pre-emptive multitasking (with asynchronous
  input queues) ..."
 
IBM Response:
  This is a very misleading statement. OS/2 has true pre-emptive
  multitasking (i.e., the system can interrupt, or pre-empt, 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
  response to the end user, but has no value on an unattended server,
  which is Windows NT's main targeted 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
  or under Windows NT are lacking both features (pre-emptive
  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 (TM) 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 delivery for the third
  quarter of 1993, and are beta-testing Distributed SOM (DSOM), which
  allows object communication and re-use 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 (R),
  WordPerfect (R), 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.]
 
Page 8
------
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
  Windows 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 reboot (Windows 3.1) or restart 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 its 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 nor Windows NT runs on [Intel 386 systems with 4 MB of
  RAM]."
 
IBM Response:
  This is incorrect. OS/2 does run on 4MB Intel 386 systems (although 6
  to 8 MB 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 has not and will not "assert" anything officially
  until the Windows NT code is made generally available. [The 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 configuration), 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 pre-empt a running
  time slice. OS/2 supports the last two features today, and we 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.
 
Page 9 (start of sentence on page 8)
------
 
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. They
  break down into the following categories:
 
  Category                             Number of Shipping Applications
  --------                             -------------------------------
 
  Productivity / business              509
  Communications                       139
  Development tools                    219
  Multimedia                           102
  Utilities                             98
  Other                                130
  TOTAL                               1196
 
  In addition, OS/2 2.1 runs existing DOS and Windows applications.
 
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, 13 July 1992: "NT (New Technology) is on track to ship by the
  end of the year [1992] and is expected to cost less than 500 USD,
  Gates said."
 
  Computer Reseller News, 28 September 1992: "Walker says that Windows
  NT will ship during the first few months of 1993."
 
  Newsbytes, 28 September 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, 15 March 1993: "NT could ship to customers later than the
  promised date of 30 June, but no more than 30 days late, Walker said."
 
  Windows World, Spring 1993: Gates said in his keynote address that
  Windows NT would ship within 60 days [by 22 July] and that Windows
  NT Advanced Server would ship within 30 days of Windows NT [by 21
  August].
 
  PC Week, 5 July 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.]
 
Page 10
-------
 
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.]
 
Page 11 (Appendix 1)
--------------------
 
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 in this microkernel, and is 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. The Windows NT kernel is also
  proprietary.
 
  [In the July version of the Microsoft document, the phrase "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 a 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 1992, and have
  delivered beta versions of our Distributed Systems Object Model in
  February 1993.  On 15 June 1993, IBM announced the SOMobjects (TM)
  Developer Toolkit Version 2.0, the first professional programming
  toolkit to incorporate IBM's System Object Model (SOM) and Distributed
  System Object Model (DSOM) technologies, and announced a scheduled
  availability date 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 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) and the article titled "IBM Personal Software
Products: Product Line Update" from the April 1993 edition of IBM
Personal Systems Technical Solutions magazine. Both documents 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 16 July 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 document 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 Personal Software Products, 11400 Burnet Road, Austin TX 78758 USA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

