Ask Michael Burke Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (47108)	2/14/1999 11:17:00 PM
From: gbh	Read Replies (1) of 132070

The means of sabotage was to deliberately develop Windows so as to make it incompatible with the current version that OS/2 could handle and refuse to allow IBM access to the new code. With no ongoing Windows future compatibility, OS/2 was dead as a doornail as a broadly accepted system. Don, you are referring to MSFTs not sharing the win32 API with IBM in 1994 which put the nail in the coffin for OS/2 when win95 was released a year later. I was referring to OS/2 development from its intro in 1987 with the intro of the PS/2 family of PCs, to the time when Win3.11 was released in 1993. During this almost six year period, all MSFT had to offer were a couple of early Windows releases that were bug ridden and even more clunky then win3.11. Most companies at this time still relied on DOS. Had IBM truly rammed OS/2 into the market, the way MSFT eventually did with win3.1, I suspect the ultimate outcome would have been quite different. But, IBM never really believed in the PC revolution, and the rest is history. MSFT won in the marketplace because they had conviction.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next