B
Bob Eager
Flightless Bird
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:426 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
> I started learning this truth during the OS/2 switchover from Microsoft
> code over to IBM code. As many recall OS/2 v1.xx was all Microsoft code.
> OS/2 v2 was almost all Microsoft code too. Then Microsoft and IBM parted
> company. And IBM was left with OS/2 v1 and v2 code and Microsoft's OS/2
> v3 code stayed with Microsoft.
> And Microsoft's OS/2 v3 code turned into
> Microsoft's Windows NT.
Well, no. They started again...with a new architect.
> IBM tried to make their own OS/2 v3 and it was a real disaster. They
> really tried to rewrite OS/2 with all of their own code.
No, they never trioed to rewrite it. They added their own user interface
(which was good) and they tuned it to run on cheaper hardware. But there
was never a rewrite. Most of the code was the same model until the end.
> And every OS/2
> update that IBM put out was called fixpacs.
There were equal number of fixpacks for version 1.
> And every fixpac just made
> things worse and worse and at some point they had to plug in the
> Microsoft code back in to make it work again. What a mess!
Complete fabrication.
> I gave up with OS/2 and IBM after OS/2 v3 ordeal and the dozens of
> fixpacs that didn't work right.
v3 always worked smoothly for me, on varied hardware. v2 was iffy until
they got the Microsoft bugs out.
> I hear tell that IBM did finally got it
> right later with v4 and I think there was a v5 too.
There was no version 5. It stopped at 4.5.
> But IBM had lost a
> majority of OS/2 users by this point that most left for something else
> that worked.
Nothing at all to do with the fact that Microsoft told every hardware
manufacturer that, if they bundled OS/2 with just one machine, they'd
have to pay much more for Windows?
I don't have problem with Windows updates. They just work. When I have to
use Windows, which I admit isn't a lot.
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
> I started learning this truth during the OS/2 switchover from Microsoft
> code over to IBM code. As many recall OS/2 v1.xx was all Microsoft code.
> OS/2 v2 was almost all Microsoft code too. Then Microsoft and IBM parted
> company. And IBM was left with OS/2 v1 and v2 code and Microsoft's OS/2
> v3 code stayed with Microsoft.
> And Microsoft's OS/2 v3 code turned into
> Microsoft's Windows NT.
Well, no. They started again...with a new architect.
> IBM tried to make their own OS/2 v3 and it was a real disaster. They
> really tried to rewrite OS/2 with all of their own code.
No, they never trioed to rewrite it. They added their own user interface
(which was good) and they tuned it to run on cheaper hardware. But there
was never a rewrite. Most of the code was the same model until the end.
> And every OS/2
> update that IBM put out was called fixpacs.
There were equal number of fixpacks for version 1.
> And every fixpac just made
> things worse and worse and at some point they had to plug in the
> Microsoft code back in to make it work again. What a mess!
Complete fabrication.
> I gave up with OS/2 and IBM after OS/2 v3 ordeal and the dozens of
> fixpacs that didn't work right.
v3 always worked smoothly for me, on varied hardware. v2 was iffy until
they got the Microsoft bugs out.
> I hear tell that IBM did finally got it
> right later with v4 and I think there was a v5 too.
There was no version 5. It stopped at 4.5.
> But IBM had lost a
> majority of OS/2 users by this point that most left for something else
> that worked.
Nothing at all to do with the fact that Microsoft told every hardware
manufacturer that, if they bundled OS/2 with just one machine, they'd
have to pay much more for Windows?
I don't have problem with Windows updates. They just work. When I have to
use Windows, which I admit isn't a lot.
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org