Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Walt Corey who wrote (40777)	5/7/1998 11:24:00 AM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Walt - I was referring to the year-long wrangle (during the 1.2 rev) between IBM and MSFT over the memory footprint requirements and feature set for 'OS/2 on a diet' which eventually became 1.3. IBM could not get their own management lined up (whether they wanted to break with MSFT) and IMO this was the main reason that the MS and IBM code lines split over 1.3. Either of the 1.3 variants would have worked, especially if IBM engineers had continued to control overall design guidelines, and if IBM had maintained the MS alliance there would have been much less internal pressure for the Win 3.1 development (which is where the MS OS/2 resources went). This was one of the watershed events that defined the software landscape as we see it today.