[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: consider the facts of the Stac case..
From: |
Hadron |
Subject: |
Re: consider the facts of the Stac case.. |
Date: |
Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:12:04 +0100 |
User-agent: |
GNU Emacs 23.0.60.11 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.12.11) of 2008-11-19 on Linux development 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP |
Vincent Fritters <Vince@nowhere.invalid> writes:
> On 2009-03-03, amicus_curious <ACDC@sti.net> 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.
>
> Yes.
> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> Presentation manager was in OS/2 1.x not OS/2 2.x
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.
- Re: analyzing Microsoft's Linux lawsuit .., (continued)
Re: analyzing Microsoft's Linux lawsuit .., Vincent, 2009/03/01
- Re: analyzing Microsoft's Linux lawsuit .., Roy Schestowitz, 2009/03/01
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: consider the facts of the Stac case.., Doug Mentohl, 2009/03/02
- Re: consider the facts of the Stac case.., Vincent Fritters, 2009/03/02
- Re: consider the facts of the Stac case.., amicus_curious, 2009/03/02
- Re: consider the facts of the Stac case.., Vincent Fritters, 2009/03/04
- Re: consider the facts of the Stac case..,
Hadron <=
- Re: consider the facts of the Stac case.., Vincent Fritters, 2009/03/04
- Re: consider the facts of the Stac case.., Hadron, 2009/03/03
- Re: consider the facts of the Stac case.., Peter Köhlmann, 2009/03/03
- Re: consider the facts of the Stac case.., Erik Funkenbusch, 2009/03/05
Re: consider the facts of the Stac case.., amicus_curious, 2009/03/03
Re: atn ..Vincent Fritters, Doug Mentohl, 2009/03/03
Re: consider the facts of the Stac case.., Erik Funkenbusch, 2009/03/05
Re: consider the facts of the Stac case.., Doctor Smith, 2009/03/05
Re: consider the facts of the Stac case.., amicus_curious, 2009/03/02
Re: consider the facts of the Stac case.., Doug Mentohl, 2009/03/03