[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: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:44:56 -0500

"Vincent Fritters" <Vince@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:gojolo$fv0$
On 2009-03-03, amicus_curious <> 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.

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.

OS/2 with PM was released well before Win3.0 as I remember, but it was pricey, over $1000 as I remember. OS/2 needed 4 mb of memory, too, and Win3.0, when it first came out, worked in the old 640K. Back then memory was almost $1 per K and moving to OS/2 cost a lot of money compared to the advantages it had for most people.

 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.

I remember that time. The OS/2 dev kits were $2000 and you had to go to a week-long course in Boca Raton. At that time I worked for a company that was an IBM Industrial Computer partner and we had a factory floor data distribution and collection system that was base on their industrial PC hardware. We started playing around with a Windows version of our stuff and IBM's sales guy reacted by sending us 20 or so sets of the OS/2 SDK gratis. Microsoft virtually gave away their SDK for free, including it with a copy of Windows for a total of $50 for anyone who owned a Microsoft C compiler package. It cost more than $50 to ship the huge box of manuals that came with the SDK.

Presentation manager was in OS/2 1.x not OS/2 2.x


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

OS/2 2.0 was not tied to the PS/2, it's not PS/5 BTW.
That was OS/2 1.x.

Well, the war was over by the time 2.0 came out. "A better Windows than Windows...". What I was saying was that without Microsoft to beat up IBM, IBM would have been the guy beating up on everyone and I believe that they would have held onto the hardware business, too. They certainly tried with the PS/2 and MCA patents.

As for us using OS/2 compared to Windows, OS/2 was light years ahead of
anything Microsoft had at the time.
IBM was arrogant, Microsoft were very good a product promotion and we
got stuck with Windows.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Microsoft is always crappy and they always win due to promotions even though they constantly abuse their customers. That is the COLA mantra and you can say it from dawn to dusk. It still makes no sense. You can say that Microsoft goes to extremes to bribe customers to use their stuff, and that might be somewhat true, but at the end of the day, the customer has not gone elsewhere and Microsoft is still in charge.

reply via email to

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