OS2 is the operating system of the future. It will replace everything.
Lol, remember those dumbasses?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
IBM partnered with Microsoft on OS2 Warp. Once Microsoft figured out what IBM was doing, they stole the intellectual property, terminated their partnership and went on their own.
Microsoft did the same thing to SQL Server. Now we have Microsoft SQL Server and SQL Server has almost disappeared.
Microsoft did the same thing to SQL Server. Now we have Microsoft SQL Server and SQL Server has almost disappeared.
MethDozer · M
@HoraceGreenley It was a shitty AF OS. I remember using it after biting on the hype. It made great demos though .
That's not quite how it goes though. IBM and Microsoft were partnered. IBM benefited greatly from being able to borrow and piggyback off of Microsoft's 2.1. That laid much if the groundwork for OS2. When Microsoft released Windows 3.1 and it took of in the PC compatible market they logically severed ties with IBM and the OS2 project as bloatware that didn't give any real support to non-IBM hardware and peripherals. There was very little benefit in the project cooperation for Microsoft. IBM needed then way more.
IBM.got greedy while Microsoft was allowing their window 3.1 to.come packaged with hardware.
That's not quite how it goes though. IBM and Microsoft were partnered. IBM benefited greatly from being able to borrow and piggyback off of Microsoft's 2.1. That laid much if the groundwork for OS2. When Microsoft released Windows 3.1 and it took of in the PC compatible market they logically severed ties with IBM and the OS2 project as bloatware that didn't give any real support to non-IBM hardware and peripherals. There was very little benefit in the project cooperation for Microsoft. IBM needed then way more.
IBM.got greedy while Microsoft was allowing their window 3.1 to.come packaged with hardware.
SteelHands · 61-69, M
@MethDozer That's because IBM dos was very different from MS dos.
IBM dos ran io and config tsrs at the bootstrap in preloaded hmem above 640.
MS needed a special add on in msdos.sys to do that. So loop ordering was highly relevant.
Not that many batch file makers had that figured out.
Oh and another thing. Allowed them. Ms actually strong armed them to place it on ALL hardware or be blacklisted on any.
There was a lawsuit ms lost on that one. Lol
IBM dos ran io and config tsrs at the bootstrap in preloaded hmem above 640.
MS needed a special add on in msdos.sys to do that. So loop ordering was highly relevant.
Not that many batch file makers had that figured out.
Oh and another thing. Allowed them. Ms actually strong armed them to place it on ALL hardware or be blacklisted on any.
There was a lawsuit ms lost on that one. Lol
MethDozer · M
@SteelHands what was the most commonly used DOS system in the home.computer market at the time? Huh, huh, huh?
SteelHands · 61-69, M
@MethDozer My two personal favorites were Msdos 5.0 for light work and IBMDos 7.0
Higher numbers don't indicate quality. It only indicates ease of access and low cost.
It would be lying to say standard quality vs price balance applied in operating systems. 80% of buyers barely knew how to use most of the line syntax effectively.
Higher numbers don't indicate quality. It only indicates ease of access and low cost.
It would be lying to say standard quality vs price balance applied in operating systems. 80% of buyers barely knew how to use most of the line syntax effectively.
MethDozer · M
@SteelHands No, but higher numbers and compatability with the dominant software is important and a key to success. If your smart and want to make a good system and also sell it. You go with what is market dominate. What people have and are using.
SteelHands · 61-69, M
@MethDozer You must know something about something now.
Got that marketing piggy marketing thinking thingy going. I bet you used to add snap ins and build macros for the sub version 4.1 lotus kits back in 94 even.
Walp!
I sure lost this argument. Thanks for teaching me all bout the Katz supposition acquisition buddy. Ya know round these parts all we got are black heart plunger lipspst and good ol boy cumfedrit flaskshsg.
Hhhhaaaaahahaha..
S33 u53
Got that marketing piggy marketing thinking thingy going. I bet you used to add snap ins and build macros for the sub version 4.1 lotus kits back in 94 even.
Walp!
I sure lost this argument. Thanks for teaching me all bout the Katz supposition acquisition buddy. Ya know round these parts all we got are black heart plunger lipspst and good ol boy cumfedrit flaskshsg.
Hhhhaaaaahahaha..
S33 u53
MethDozer · M