Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!husc6!bu-cs!madd
From: madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Microsoft, OS/2, and UNIX
Message-ID: <29180@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 1 Apr 89 21:07:09 GMT
References: <12878@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: madd@buit4.bu.edu (Jim Frost)
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Distribution: comp
Organization: Associative Design Technology
Lines: 29

In article <12878@watdragon.waterloo.edu> afscian@violet.waterloo.edu (Anthony Scian) writes:
|Microsoft claims that OS/2 is "priority one, two, and three" for them.
|After reading that recent issues of various PC magazines, I can't
|help but wonder.

|- Microsoft bought a percentage (20%?) of Santa Cruz Operations (largest
|  supplier of UNIX for PCs, 386 version of UNIX almost completed)

There are several UNIX's out for generic 80386 machines, so long as
you want System V.  Xenix is the best performer amongst them according
to recent comparisons by UNIX World, although Interactive's UNIX has a
much better price/performance ratio.

|Some may say that diversification is good, but how can people choose 
|OS/2 over UNIX when Microsoft won't?

Several of the trade rags have been asking the same question.  Even
though Microsoft keeps claiming that OS/2 is it, they're buying in on
a UNIX operation that they'd decided to get out of before.  Most
people take this as handwriting on the wall.  Additionally a lot of
historically PC-oriented applications developers have been advertising
in UNIX rags recently, and Pheonix Technologies seems to be going
full-tilt into UNIX.

Time will tell, but I'm not putting my cash on OS/2.

jim frost
Associative Design Technology
madd@bu-it.bu.edu