| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft set to respond to Google OS next Monday? | |
|
||
| Time: 10:02 EST/15:02 GMT | News Source: Neowin | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Blogger Robert Scoble has posted a message on his FriendFeed account, hinting at a Microsoft announcement next Monday, related to Google's OS.
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 322 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:28:17 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (72.196.201.130) at 7/9/2009 8:37:15 AM |
|
A lot of good OS's have fallen to the Microsoft Dragon.
The most memorable one being BeOS, which was really quite amazing. |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/9/2009 8:56:33 AM |
| OS/2 had a pretty bright future until MS knifed IBM in the back. |
| #3 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 7/9/2009 10:22:47 AM |
|
That's the beauty of the market; it will pick the winners. If consumers really don't want an OS, it will disappear soon enough.
#2: With respect to OS/2, I think it was more like MS saw opportunity and seized it. Windows was already the most popular OS. If MS kept the status quo of its arrangement with IBM and allowed OS/2 to usurp Windows' popularity then it would view it as one of the biggest blunders in corporate history. This post was edited by rxcall on Thursday, July 09, 2009 at 10:23. |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/9/2009 10:35:06 AM |
| #3: I don't think you're remembering things quite right. At the time, DOS was the most popular OS. Windows at that time was at v2.0 and was essentially a toy. MS left IBM hanging when they abandoned their partnership in OS/2 to produce Windows 3.0. OS/2 had preemptive multitasking and better resource management, but it was a pig for the hardware of the day. |
| #5 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 7/9/2009 10:47:32 AM |
|
From Wikipedia:
The collaboration between IBM and Microsoft unraveled in 1990, between the releases of Windows 3.0 and OS/2 1.3. Initially, at least publicly, Microsoft continued to insist the future belonged to OS/2. Steve Ballmer of Microsoft even took to calling OS/2 "Windows Plus".[9] However, during this time, Windows 3.0 became a tremendous success, selling millions of copies in its first year.[10] Much of its success was because Windows 3.0 (along with MS-DOS) was bundled with most new computers.[11] OS/2, on the other hand, was only available as an expensive stand-alone software package. In addition, OS/2 lacked device drivers for many common devices such as printers, particularly non-IBM hardware.[12] Windows, on the other hand, supported a much larger variety of hardware. The increasing popularity of Windows prompted Microsoft to shift its development focus from cooperating on OS/2 with IBM to building a franchise based on Windows.[13] Several technical and practical reasons contributed to this breakup: Windows at that time may have been a toy but it was still the most widely used desktop OS. Correction GUI OS This post was edited by rxcall on Thursday, July 09, 2009 at 11:11. |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/9/2009 11:35:07 AM |
| #5: I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but that doesn't refute what I said. IIRC, Windows 2.0 was out when MS started working with IBM on OS/2. Behind the scenes, MS started making Windows 3.0 while still working with IBM on OS/2. MS made a tactical decision to put all its eggs in the Win3 basket and told IBM to take a hike. IBM continued to develop OS/2. OS/2 w/GUI was released in 1988. Windows 3.0 didn't come out until 1990. |
| #7 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 7/9/2009 12:20:34 PM |
|
Forget versions. The bottom line - MS was having success with DOS/Windows and it no longer saw a benefit in continuing the arrangement with IBM. It was a business decision. If you were running a business and saw a similar opportunity, I assume you would take it and if you didn't, I assume you would tender your resignation.
It was a business opportunity. I hardly think Bill Gates was was rubbing his hands while giving an evil laugh 'hahahahaha... take that IBM" |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/9/2009 12:48:39 PM |
| #7: I was in PC retail back in the late 80's building and selling IBM XT clones, and I can tell you from my experience that DOS was king and nobody was using Windows 2.0. Back then, GEM (look it up) was more popular than Win2 as a GUI due to it being the foundation of several mainstream applications, the major one being Ventura Publisher. End-users didn't really get on the Windows bandwagon until 3.0 shipped. And, yes, it was a business decision, but I still don't like their ethics of partnering with another company on a project, creating a secret copy of the same project and then flipping off their partner. |
| #9 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 7/9/2009 1:12:17 PM |
|
#8: If you're anything like me, your memory is shot (especially from 20 years ago).
Regardless, would you have made the same business choice? |
| #10 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/9/2009 1:24:45 PM |
|
#9: Of course I wouldn't have. If I had a problem with IBM, I would have taken the code that was mine and gone off to do my own thing. I would not have kept working with IBM under false pretenses and then whammied them when I told them I was no longer a partner but a competitor with a product bearing the fruit of the seeds planted by both companies.
Posted with Google Chrome 2.0.172.33 - Not bad, but different. And fast. |
| #11 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 7/9/2009 1:50:27 PM |
| We will accept your resignation by EOD! |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/9/2009 2:21:54 PM |
| #11: Fortunately, I do not work for Microsoft. |
| #13 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 7/9/2009 2:40:07 PM |
|
"Until release 2.0 in April 1992, OS/2 ran in 16-bit protected mode and therefore could not benefit from the Intel 80386's much simpler 32-bit flat memory model and virtual 8086 mode features. This was especially painful in providing support for DOS applications.
While, in 1988, Windows/386 2.1 could run several preemptively multitasked DOS applications, including expanded memory (EMS) emulation, OS/2 1.3, released in 1991, was still limited to one 640KB "DOS box". " IBM screwed OS/2 all by itself. |
| #14 By 8556 (173.27.242.53) at 7/9/2009 3:46:54 PM |
|
#13: I agree with your comment "IBM screwed OS/2 all by itself." When I contacted IBM's tech support for OS/2 the recording said they only worked 8 hours per day. Any issues you had with OS/2 on Friday night had to wait until Monday. When I finally spoke with an IBM rep, they implied that I installed OS/2 wrong or that some Windows programs that they advertised would work, simply would not do so. The poor support hours, misleading information on compatibility and arrogance drove me to Microsoft who had exceptionally good support with better hours than IBM. In spite of what some people may think, Microsoft today is nowhere near as arrogant as IBM was in the early 90's. In fact, they are still helpful in spite of being many times larger and more complex a firm.
Chrome OS? I'll play with it as many others will. Then I'll get back to work. |
| #15 By 143 (96.28.64.244) at 7/11/2009 4:32:26 AM |
| I always thought my old TRS-80 with basic had a chance. |
| #16 By 9589 (76.6.27.110) at 7/12/2009 12:05:39 AM |
|
I worked for the one of the largest financial firms in the US at the time of the Windows vs OS/2 period. Unfortunately, we were talked into using OS/2 as our main PC OS (our largest check each month went to IBM because of the number of mainframes that we employed). Big mistake!
It got so bad, that after awhile we would scrounge older PCs and install Windows and Office on them side by side with our worker's OS/2 computers so that they could actually get their work done. This was during a transition period when the majority of workers had IBM green screens on their desks. So, having a PC that could run a spreadsheet or a word processor that was not tied to the mainframe was a more precious resource than you can imagine. We ran Novell 3.11 and later 4.1 during that same timeframe for file and print. Another "shoot yourself in the foot" move was using IBM's e-mail product at the time. I don't know which gave us more headaches OS/2 or their friggin mainframe based e-mail system. Fortunately, the "CIO" (I don't think the term had been invented yet) saw the folly of his ways and we bought brand new computers - from NCR and installed Windows 3.1 and Novell 4.1 along with Microsoft Office (NCR of all vendors - what a pile of crap they were). Suffice to say we made a lot of mistakes in those days caused in large part by believing in some of the crap that vendors "sold" us. Google ought to stick to what they do best, search. They have thrown more money down a rat hole on their "let's beat Microsoft" projects than even they care to admit. This appears to be just one more. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 322 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:28:17 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
