| Events |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Services |
|
|
|
|
| Interact |
|
|
| -
|
| -
|
|
|
|
|
| About Us |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [vox] OS/2 and Linux, why has IBM changed?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [vox] OS/2 and Linux, why has IBM changed?
--On Thursday, May 08, 2003 10:09:27 -0700 Kevin Hooke
<kevin@kevinhooke.com> wrote:
Why didn't OS/2 take off? In my opinion, lack of support from IBM
itself, and probably a screwed up relationship with Microsoft regarding
the OS/2 kernel which was co-written with Microsoft - incidently, the
same code that later became the NT kernel... :-) I bet there was some
legal pressure somewhere regarding this arrangement that prevented IBM
from fully pushing OS/2.
You may remember that when Win95 was first released, IBM was virtually
the last PC maker to sign a contract to sell PCs preloaded with Win95.
The negotiations lasted until something like 11:30 the night before the
day of the release.
During the MS antitrust trial, some information about these negotiations
came out. It seems OS/2 was the big sticking point. IBM wanted to sell
PCs preloaded with OS/2, but MS wasn't having any of that. MS absolutely
refused to let IBM sell PCs with Win95 unless IBM agreed not to sell PCs
with OS/2. Given the difference in market demand, IBM didn't have much of
a choice.
--
Kenneth Herron Kherron@newsguy.com 916-366-7338
_______________________________________________
vox mailing list
vox@lists.lugod.org
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox
|
|
