Have they given up?

[Steve Lamb]

Thursday, April 13, 2000, 6:25:47 AM, Kris wrote:
> So you downgraded to a inferior product.

    At least it was supported.

> IBM could have accomplished your stated desire except 1. Microsoft
> breached their alliance with IBM when they were not allowed to be in
> control  2. Microsoft changed the APIs to break compatibility and used
> their knowledge from the alliance to produce their own 32bit o/s. 3. IBM
> as well as third party companies had had the flexibility to support more
> than one o/s.

    You forgot #4: IBM never supported OS/2 and probably never will.  During
my time using OS/2 IBM did virtually /NOTHING/ to support OS/2.  Sure, they
would release bug fixes but a lot of the projects they announced which would
help the OS/2 community flourish where nixed.  OS/2 was never an option to be
installed on IBMs own personal and laptop computer.  IBM constantly blocked
things which would help OS/2.  The more paranoid OS/2 users would basically
say that IBM has done its damned best to kill OS/2.  On a bad day, I tend to
agree with them.

> Billy has never produced a innovative unique superior product.
> (Windows=Apple; IE=Netscape; Win97=OS2)

    Get it right.  Windows is a copy of Mac which is a copy of a product from
Xerox.  IE was an acquisition of another browser after Netscape became big.
Of course, Netscape came from... crap, NCSA?  I can't remember the name.
Win97?  No such beast.  WinNT came from OS/2 and, guess what, it is supported
about 10000% better than IBM supports OS/2.

-- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------