Xref: utzoo comp.os.minix:7772 comp.sys.ibm.pc:37355 comp.unix.xenix:8341
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!apple.com!desnoyer
From: desnoyer@apple.com (Peter Desnoyers)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: IBM and Apple Operating Systems (Re: dosread.c again)
Message-ID: <4992@internal.Apple.COM>
Date: 1 Nov 89 00:44:09 GMT
Sender: usenet@Apple.COM
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Lines: 18
References:<6724@ficc.uu.net> <1774@naucse.UUCP>

In article <1774@naucse.UUCP> wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) writes:
> From article <6724@ficc.uu.net>, by peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva):
>> No, we'd have something based on Concurrent CP/M, OS/9, SOS, or some 
>> other decent DOS of that period. We'd have something better.
>> IBM didn't create the PC indusry. It doesn't do that any more. It looked 
>> and it saw a thriving industry, and said "I want that". So it took it.
>> 
> What thriving industry?  At the point that the IBM PC came out there
> was little going on in the Home/Desktop PC market.  Yes there were
> CP/M based machines that could be purchased for a small fortune, but
> I would not call it a thriving industry.  IBM went out on a limb 
> and the gamble paid off.

Hmm. I'm not sure everyone would agree absolutely with that statement.

                                      Peter Desnoyers
                                      Apple ATG
                                      (408) 974-4469