After takin' a swig o' grog, unionpenny@xxxxxxxxx belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Jan 14, 10:02 am, Doug Mentohl <doug_ment...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> To: Steve Ballmer
>> From: Adrian King
>> Cc:c Bill Gates; MArk MAckaman; Mike Maples; Cameron; Myrthvold; Gabe
>> Newwell; Russ Werner
>> Date: August 22nd, 1988
>>
>> ..
>>
>> OS/2 is going to take longer to succeed than expected
>
> [...]
>
>> I think we need to think very carefully about how much we want Windows
>> to compete with OS/2 in the OEM channel and for the ISVs attention. The
>> strains that show in our strategy now are temporary, and should not
>> allow us to lose sight of the goal of making OS/2 the next generation
>> operating system as quickly as possible ..
>>
>> http://iowa.gotthefacts.org/011607/0000/PX00031.pdf
>
> Wow! This guy is really out of the loop, isn't he. Didn't BillG
> trust him with the "work on Windows with the money IBM gave us for OS/
> 2" program?
Hadron seems impressed with Microsoft's business acumen. How about that?
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/09/19/office-wars-4-microsofts-assault-on-lotus-and-ibm/
The release of Windows 3.0 made it clear that Microsoft was not going to
deliver its end of OS/2 3.0. It left its own developers stranded in a
dead-end alley for supporting OS/2 as Microsoft had encouraged them for
years to do. Microsoft had no problem delivering a version of Word and
Excel for both OS/2 and Windows, built using internal development tools.
It didn't share those tools with its partners because it wasn't
worried about getting 1-2-3 and WordPerfect running on Windows.
After leaving its own software application partners high centered atop
the a strangled corpse of OS/2, Microsoft then dropped its own OS/2
applications, leaving Word and Excel for Windows as the default
applications for PC users.
--
Hear about the young Chinese woman who just won the lottery?
One fortunate cookie...
|
|
