__/ [ Doug Mentohl ] on Tuesday 17 April 2007 20:47 \__
> Date 14 Sep 1989 9:49 est
> Via: vax
> To: fking, ebelove, bjohnston, cyoung
> Subject: (Forwarded) Notes from MS visit re OS/2, Windows, Excel.
>
> See the discussion of Windows vs. OS/2, and the point about Excel
> working OK on a 2Meg OS/2 machine. I don't understand this either,
> since the Windows guys are selling IBM and Compaq on the story that the
> equivalence between Windows and OS/2 is that Windows requires somewhere
> between 1 and 2 meg, and OS/2 requires 4 to run a reasonable app. Forked
> tongues???
>
> Forwarded message
>
> via: mailbox vax, dreed/nocommand on VAX at Lotus (LDC) ** Message
> Received OK
>
> From: LDBVAX::RSTURTEVANT "Reed Sturtevant" x4752"
> Date: 13-Sep-1989 14:22:20
> To: "ml:chagallmgrs
> To: LDBVAX:: jbooth
> To: LDBVAX:: emcnierney
> To: LDBVAX:: dreed
> To: LDBVAX:: jmorris
> Subject: Nothe from MS visit re. OS/2 fonts, etc.
>
> (Jeff, please correct me where I'm wrong - Reed)
>
> **** Lotus Confidential ****
>
> Attending from Microsoft: Peter Neuberg, Cameron Myrhvold. (I believe
> Peter has overall responsibility for OS/2 marketing, and some
> development - Reed)
> From: Lotus: RSTURTEVANT, MFAHEY, FGERMANO, MROTH, ARNYEPSTEIN,
> JIMWILSON, JMORRIS
>
> ..
>
> Excel performance: benchmarks on a system with only 2MB RAM showed PM
> Excel running under OS/2 1.2 w/o Compatibility Box to *match* speed of
> Windows Excel under Windows 3.0. (Lotus: "we find that hard to believe"
> Neuberg: "we did too, IBM ran same benchmarks and confirmed results")
>
> Windows 3.0 vs. OS/2 discussions, paraphrased (remember we were talking
> to OS/2 folks):
>
> Lotus: why are you letting your own company bury OS/2, with all this
> Windows 3.0 hype, before it has a chance to grow. ?
>
> MS: it's a PR problem (i.e. Bill Gates - Reed), we're trying to fix it.
> Internally Microsoft is more committed to OS/2 than to Windows, as
> marketing staff & budget is larger for OS/2 and the development staff is
> 5 times larger for OS/2. Currently drafting a positioning statement to
> explain the differences.
>
> Lotus: why will anyone buy OS/2 instead of Windows ?
>
> MS: Products have different design points: Windows 3.0 designed for 2MB
> system w. Windows, 2 "professional" apps (e.g. Pagemaker & Excel)
> whereas OS/2 is designed for 4 MB system w. OS, LAN code, 3 apps.
>
> OS/2 will be the long term functionality leader (e.g., fonts)
>
> OS/2 will support more applications (?!) and the applications will be
> more full-featured.
>
> ...
>
> http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/4000/PX04182.pdf
What is the great sin here? Can anyone explain? Please?
--
~~ With kind regards
Roy S. Schestowitz | Windows: slippery when dry. You have been warned.
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.94 0.81 0.85 1/123 16819
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
|
|
