Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!udel!sbcs!csserv2.ic.sunysb.edu!jwohl
From: jwohl@csserv2.ic.sunysb.edu (Jeremy Wohl)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Flames on UNIX/OS/2/Microsoft
Message-ID: <1991Feb9.225751.21736@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Date: 9 Feb 91 22:57:51 GMT
References: <451@nec-gw.nec.com> <1991Feb8.142945.14944@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Sender: usenet@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Usenet poster)
Distribution: na
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Lines: 40

In article <1991Feb8.142945.14944@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>> Now, all three have a chance to atone for their sins.  Intel has introduced 
>> a decent chip, the 80386, and IBM/Microsoft have introduced a *real* 
>> operating system, OS/2.  So who's stinking up the works?  Microsoft!
>
>Here is where you go completely off track.  Microsoft has been offering OS/2
>for, what, about three years now, with steadily improving versions (1.0, 1.1
>and 1.2).  However, there have been few major applications written, and the
>market has responded by not buying OS/2.  On the other hand, when Windows 3.0
>was introduced in May (with much hoopla, yes, but no more than at the OS/2
>intro back in '87), hordes of developers and users rushed to Windows.  How
>can you say that it's Microsoft that's making us use Windows instead of OS/2?
>We certainly have a choice as consumers.  Microsoft is, like most succesful
>companies, a market driven company.

Here where I think you are wrong.  Microsoft decided their current strategy
some time ago.  They did *not* provide nearly the "hoopla" that was
provided with Windows.  In addition, there was an enormous behind-the-
scenes developer push with Windows that just wasn't there with OS/2.  They
left it to IBM, which already has a stereotype to large to shake off and
convert customers and most importantly: the press.

>Microsoft originally wanted to create OS/2 using the Windows API, but IBM
>refused, as they basically wanted to go proprietary.  Think about that ---
>what if all those Windows applications out there could just be recompiled
>to run on OS/2?  Might not OS/2 have been more succesful?
>
>Microsoft has not abandoned OS/2, and they are working on OS/2 3.0.  I can
>see it becoming a success, as it will run on a variety of platforms, and 
>provide Microsoft's original vision of a Windows API (alongside the PM API),
>thus allowing thousands of Windows applications to run on OS/2 natively.

Ick.  The Windows API at that time was disgusting (I think it is now,too).
And extentions (as will now take place) would not have done much except
kludge the system.  PM, although not perfect, provides sophisticated
and consistent graphics models.  Stick the Windows API on top of a real
OS?

-- 
Jeremy Wohl / wohl@max.physics.sunysb.edu / jwohl@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu