Re: consider the facts of the Stac case..

[Hadron]

Vincent Fritters <Vince@nowhere.invalid> writes:

> On 2009-03-03, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Vincent Fritters <Vince@nowhere.invalid> writes:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> You're splitting hairs. WPS was built from PM code, so technically
> both were "included" however the default shell in 2.x was WPS not PM like
> it was in 1.x.

Not everything was built using the WPS: this is my point. The PM Api was
alive and kicking. The WPS was, while nicely designed, slow and a
hog. But they had differing APIs. You seem to be confused.

> The point is Microsoft played dirty with IBM, Stac, Digital Research and
> many others and they continue to behave the same way with Novell.
> IBM was able to sustain the damage. Others were not as lucky.

And IBM never played dirty? The reason IBM failed was that ALL they did
was play dirty. How? By charging and arm and a leg for anyone wanting to
use their APIs and OSen.