Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!ucsd!qualcom.qualcomm.com!cancun.qualcomm.com!rdippold
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS Wars
Message-ID: <1991May23.200831.19516@qualcomm.com>
Date: 23 May 91 20:08:31 GMT
References: <9105231120.AA92724@f170.n771.z3.fidonet.org>
Sender: news@qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 18
Nntp-Posting-Host: cancun.qualcomm.com

In article <9105231120.AA92724@f170.n771.z3.fidonet.org> David_Wright@p4.f905.n153.z1.fidonet.org (David Wright) writes:
>Like PC Rag, these guys can't wait to bury it.  Does anyone else get the 
>feeling that magazine editors are trying to kill OS/2 just to prove 
>something to IBM?  Have these guys got a chip on their shoulders or what?

They could still be attempting to distance themselves from the embarassing
hype when OS/2 was first announced and had the magazines falling all over
themselves trying to say how great it was.  Wasn't it by 1990 or 1991 that
OS/2 was the dominant operating system from all their initial predictions?
Plus all the stories about how OS/2 was bad news for Apple, yeah boy.

They got suckered by a classic MicroSoft vaporware tactic big time and they're
probably still upset about that.  Here we are five years later and we're
about to finally have an OS/2 that lives up to the promises made back then
(although I consider 1.3 a big improvement). 

-- 
Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks.     |     Ron Dippold