From: Mark Grant (mark@unicorn.com)
Date: Fri Jan 03 1997 - 13:26:50 MST
On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Michael Lorrey wrote:
> The death of OS/2 had a lot more to do with predatory fear at IBM over
> being dominated by its onetime subcontractor.
And the fact that although the design of OS/2 1.x was technically better
than Windows 3.x, the early versions were no better in reality (e.g. OS/2
1.2 (AFAIR) which was unable to print anything) and didn't even come with
the few minor applications that Windows provided, like Write and
Solitaire. It also required more RAM at a time when RAM was extremely
expensive.
Finally, as far as I'm aware, Windows NT grew out of the OS/2 NT project
to produce OS/2 2.0. Given the relative lack of success of NT as compared
to Windows 3.x and 95, that tends to imply that OS/2 NT would have done no
better.
So IMHO the blame for Windows' success rests at least as strongly on IBM
as Microsoft. Of course, if OS/2 had been more successful then people
would hate IBM rather than Microsoft.
Mark
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark@unicorn.com |
|WWW: http://www.c2.org/~mark MAILBOT: bot@unicorn.com |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:43:57 MST