2008/3/25, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> > My statement was not well worded. I did not mean to say that Microsoft
> > had no part in OS/2 development. If it didn't I wouldn't have spent so
> > much time in Redmond or in chasing down MS developers in Boca Raton bars
> > to fix bugs in order to keep on schedule. What I was disputing was the
> > notion that Microsoft conceived of OS/2 and pushed it as a means of
> > protecting a proprietary lock-in based on use of forward or reverse
> > slash in path names.
The documentation does not prove anything about OS/2, but about the
intended migration path to Xenix.
Who conceived OS/2 is of little moment — the thing is that MS
originally wanted a better DOS, then it wanted Xenix, and then,
because of proprietary lock-in, went back to the better DOS plan. And
the better DOS was OS/2, irrespective of who conceived it or gave it
its name.
> > I agree completely with Paul's first paragraph but don't agree that
> > early versions of OS/2 were severely crippled. There was plenty of
> > subterfuge on Microsoft's part (such as falsifying performance data on
> > the HPFS file system) but IBM made many decisions about OS/2 based on
> > support commitments to OS/2 customers... both internal and external.
>From the point of the view of PC users, OS/2 hadn't enough drivers,
its error messages were too cryptic, it needed very expensive
machines, and was too tied to the too-proprietary, ill-fated PS/2.
--
skype:leandro.gfc.dutra?chat Yahoo!: ymsgr:sendIM?lgcdutra
+55 (11) 3040 7300 r155 gTalk: xmpp:leandrod@xxxxxxxxxx
+55 (11) 9406 7191 ICQ/AIM: aim:GoIM?screenname=61287803
+55 (11) 5685 2219 MSN: msnim:chat?contact=leandro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|