[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: consider the facts of the Stac case..

From: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: consider the facts of the Stac case..
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 22:05:26 -0500

"Vincent Fritters" <Vince@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:gohdfh$aas$
On 2009-03-02, Doug Mentohl <> 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.

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. NT came much later, after OS/2 and Win95 were locking horns. 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.

r Vincent's Smoked Meats.
"Meat's Meat and Man's Gotta Eat"

reply via email to

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