gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: consider the facts of the Stac case..


From: Hadron
Subject: Re: consider the facts of the Stac case..
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:12:04 +0100
User-agent: GNU Emacs 23.0.60.11 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.12.11) of 2008-11-19 on Linux development 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP

Vincent Fritters <address@hidden> writes:

> On 2009-03-03, amicus_curious <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Stick with the bologna and goetta, Vince, you are likely to be better at 
>> that than you are at remembering the chronological order of things. 
>> Microsoft had their falling out with IBM over Windows 3.0, not NT. 
>
> Microsoft were actively developing NT at the time which is why I said
> posioning the marketplace with FUD. It was a "wait until NT comes out
> rather than OS/2 because NT is going to kill OS/2". They kept companies
> from comitting to OS/2 while at the same time smiling and helping
> IBM develop OS/2.
>
>
>> NT came 
>> much later, after OS/2 and Win95 were locking horns.
>
> Yes.
> That was version 2.0
> I was speaking as far back as 1.3 which is as far as I go.
> That was direct competition in the marketplace to see who got released first
> and who was better.
> IBM blew that one big time for reasons you state below.
>
>>  IBM didn't want a 
>> cheap GUI based platform like Windows as competition for their rather pricey 
>> OS/2 with its Presentation Manager.  Gates saw the future differently, of 
>> course, and was able to gain the upper hand.  If IBM would have had its way 
>> and managed to kill Windows at an early age, we would all be using OS/2 on 
>> IBM's PS/2 or maybe by now it would be OS/5 on the PS/5, but there would be 
>> no massive competition for Wintel PCs, that much is certain.  IBM was unable 
>> to recapture the PC market in the early 90s because they were opposed by 
>> Microsoft and the cloners like Compaq and Dell and many others.  Would you 
>> rather IBM had the monopoly in hardware and software?  Silly boy.
>
> That was true for the 1.x versions, but IBM opened up for the 2.x version.
> The problem was it was too late and Microsoft was holding developers hands
> to write drivers. IBM was charging for the privilage.
>
> Presentation manager was in OS/2 1.x not OS/2 2.x

Wrong. Presentation manager was indeed in OS/2 2.x And Warp.

http://www.firstandsecond.com/store/books/info/bookinfo.asp?txtSearch=237799

>
> 2.x had the workplace shell, although technically it was built on PM.

It had the WPS but this does not mean the PM was not used.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]