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: Doctor Smith
Subject: Re: consider the facts of the Stac case..
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 15:52:51 -0500
User-agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:30:39 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 19:53:21 +0000 (UTC), Vincent Fritters wrote:
> 
>> On 2009-03-02, Doug Mentohl <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>>> They were a company involved in data compression, before they got fucked 
>>> over by MS ..
>> 
>> And they are not the only ones.
>> Even IBM got burned while playing nice with Microsoft.
>> While Microsoft was developing OS/2 with IBM, they
>> were secretly and not so secretly poisoning the 
>> marketplace with Windows NT FUD. IBM were fools to
>> believe Microsoft ever had any real interest in OS/2 and
>> they got burned for being foolish.
>> Small companies get screwed over totally by Microsoft because
>> they don't have the resources that IBM has.
> 
> You really have no clue about what really happened, do you?

It's High Plains Thumper or Roy Culley.
Neither has a clue so it's a moot point.

> First, NT was originally OS/2 3.0, and the early development was intended
> to be "Portable OS/2", that is until the falling out with IBM.  This did
> not happen over NT at all, nor was there any "NT FUD".

That is correct.

> In fact, After IBM took over development of OS/2, Microsoft was supposed to
> focus on OS/2 3.0 development, but about a year later the final falling out
> occured.

> This was largely because IBM and Microsoft had different visions of the way
> the OS should be designed.  IBM wanted tight intgration with their
> mainframe products with various hooks for things like their 370 on a card
> project to put a full ibm mainframe inside a PC.

The 370 card was a miserable fialure much like the Integrated Windows
Server card that IBM tried/tries to sell with their AS/400 machines.
Nobody bought it.
 
> If anything, the fight with IBM was the result of Windows 3.0/3.1.  When
> this proved to be so successful, Microsoft saw this as their opportunity
> split and make things go the way they wanted.

The in-fighting began with 3.0 but escalated when 3.1 came out.

Windows 95 was where the Microsoft FUD machine came into play and IBM was
gone by then, but in retrospect Microsoft did things right and IBM was
still focusing on OS/2 and doing a poor job of cultivating the developer
community.
They also pissed off the end users with their arrogance.

Microsoft gave away their development kits.
IBM charged big bucks for them, that's when they were finally completed and
released.
By then, Microsoft had already won.


reply via email to

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