Re: Does Microsoft lie about the Linux features?

From: Erik Funkenbusch (erik_at_despam-funkenbusch.com)
Date: 09/15/03 

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 06:00:05 GMT

James Knott wrote:

> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>>First, MS had a "true multitasking OS" in 1980 with Xenix.
>
> Xenix was a Unix, which already had mutlitasking. Before DOS even existed,
> back when MS had only BASIC, CP/M was already mulitasking

Do you really think Microsoft could port Xenix without fully
understanding that multitasking in order to implement it on the 386?

>>Second, MS and IBM had a joint agreement that MS would sell the "clone"
>>versions of OS/2 and IBM the PS/2 versions. IBM didn't get "pissed off"
>>over it, it was part of the plan.
>
> The plan was that MS would market OS/2 to other companies.

Well, thanks for at least agreeing with that part. The message I was
responding to claimed that Microsoft "pissed off" IBM by selling OS/2
for clones.

> MS took IBMs money and used it to pay for Windows development.

First, why would IBM have any say as to what Microsoft did with the
money they were paid by IBM for their services?

Second, Microsoft developed Windows 3.0 as part of a migration plan with
IBM to help users migrate from DOS to OS/2, which is why Windows 3.0 had
a very similar API set; to make porting apps from Windows to OS/2 much
easier.

> This was revealed in a court case that MS lost.

No, Microsoft and IBM never went to court.

> MS has a history of stabbing its "partners" in
> the back. Part of the cause of the split over OS/2, was IBMs insistance on
> supporting customers who'd bought 286 hardware with the promise of a
> multitasking OS, instead of abandoning them, the way MS wanted to do.

It's true that Microsoft pushed to make OS/2 32 bit from the outset, but
that was because the 286 sucked and severely hobbled the design of the OS.

> Also, OS/2 didn't become a reliable OS, until v1.3, after IBM took over
> development from MS. One might think the poor performance in the earlier
> versions may have been deliberate, on the part of MS.

Could it be that having 1 brain, rather than 2 working on an OS makes it
less psychotic? No, that couldn't be it.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How did Microsoft break away from OS/2 and IBM?
    ... What was the nature of the agreement and how did Microsoft ... Were both IBM and Microsoft planning to release OS/2? ... OS, a product called Windows was developed and made blatantly similiar, in ...
    (comp.os.os2.misc)
  • Re: New Mac user here
    ... Microsoft teamed up with IBM during those years to develop OS/2 ... came out and come out with their own product called Windows 3.0. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Ebay, the ANA, and greedy dealers are destroying the hobby
    ... in New Mexico and proceeded to refine it for IBM. ... feeling at HP that the PC market would not overtake the Multitasker ... Microsoft retained rights to the original ... run Microsoft's DOS and stuck with their own basic O/S. ...
    (rec.collecting.coins)
  • Re: Evil Designers Guide to Copying Patents
    ... Microsoft has a history of dishonesty and ruthlessness ... IBM reamed the banking industry for decades. ... Bill killed DR-DOS by outputting a bogus Windows error message. ... Same trick neutralized OS/2. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: MS Java Virtual Machine Removal
    ... Yup, understood, I have dealt with System commander ... IBM DOS and OS/2, on some client's computers, gee, that's more than 10 years ... > version of MS-DOS and Microsoft has saved money, time and effort by going the ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
Loading