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: Peter Köhlmann
Subject: Re: consider the facts of the Stac case..
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:07:27 +0100
User-agent: KNode/0.99.01

Hadron wrote:

> Vincent Fritters <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> On 2009-03-03, Hadron <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Vincent Fritters <address@hidden> 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. 

Yet it ran well on a 486/100. It ran everything as fast as any NT4 of that 
time

> But they had differing APIs. You seem to be confused.

A OS/2 user (starting from version 2.0 and up) saw never anything else 
than the WPS. Any underlying  code was not visible to the user. PM, while 
technically still present, did not appear visually

And anyone writing GUI apps for OS/2 certainly would not confine himself 
to the limited set PM provided. That was, after all, just what he got with 
WinNT

>> 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.

No. That is not playing dirty. It was dumb.

Dumb was also to do Visual Age the way IBM did. It needed way too much 
resources, and (apart from its price) it did nearly everything differently 
from all other IDEs of that time
-- 
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
                -- Henry Spencer




reply via email to

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