Stupid ABCNEWS.com (Microsoft and IBM Article)

[LikeLinus]

Article

"Steve Ballmer is behind these prices. He's a high-price maven. When Microsoft was developing OS/2, he was talking about these sorts of prices."

Shoot the editor
Shoot the ignorant writer

 

Haha!

 

[dpm]

Was that originally written for a highschool newspaper or something? That article has some of the worst writing I have ever seen published, opinion piece or not. Its so bad its *almost* funny. But not quite.

All the editors must have had a one day holiday, or something.

 

[XZeroII]

LOL, you guys think you're so smart, yet you're so stupid. OS/2 was a joint project between Microsoft and IBM. Basically, they had some creative differences and each took a copy of the source code. IBM finished OS/2, and Microsoft turned it into Windows NT.

Who's laughing now?

 

[XZeroII]

But the writer of the article is still a moron. The price of Windows has remained the same forever. I've never seen Windows XP upgrade for $185. That guy must have shopped around for the worst price ever. Either that or he is talking about Professional or something, in which case he is a moron anyway.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
LOL, you guys think you're so smart, yet you're so stupid. OS/2 was a joint project between Microsoft and IBM. Basically, they had some creative differences and each took a copy of the source code. IBM finished OS/2, and Microsoft turned it into Windows NT.

Who's laughing now?

LOL.

Regardless of that fact though, you have to admit it's a God awful piece of writing.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
LOL, you guys think you're so smart, yet you're so stupid. OS/2 was a joint project between Microsoft and IBM. Basically, they had some creative differences and each took a copy of the source code. IBM finished OS/2, and Microsoft turned it into Windows NT.

Who's laughing now?

Actually, Windows NT was under development independant of OS/2. While some OS/2 features may have made it into NT, Microsoft did not "turn [OS/2] into Windows NT".

ZV

 

[Jzero]

OS/2 History

 

[Jfrag Teh Foul]

Was that originally written for a highschool newspaper or something? That article has some of the worst writing I have ever seen published, opinion piece or not. Its so bad its *almost* funny. But not quite.

:beer:

 

[Jzero]

Commentary on John Dvorak

 

[kt]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: XZeroII
LOL, you guys think you're so smart, yet you're so stupid. OS/2 was a joint project between Microsoft and IBM. Basically, they had some creative differences and each took a copy of the source code. IBM finished OS/2, and Microsoft turned it into Windows NT.

Who's laughing now?

Actually, Windows NT was under development independant of OS/2. While some OS/2 features may have made it into NT, Microsoft did not "turn [OS/2] into Windows NT".

ZV

And I quote, "Microsoft would continue development on Windows and OS/2 3.00. Shortly after this split, Microsoft renamed OS/2 V3 to Windows NT."

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Jzero
Commentary on John Dvorak

simply awesome read, thanks for sharing that.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Article

"Steve Ballmer is behind these prices. He's a high-price maven. When Microsoft was developing OS/2, he was talking about these sorts of prices."

Shoot the editor
Shoot the ignorant writer

Microsoft WAS developing OS/2. It was contracted from IBM. At the time Windows was in development, and it only gained market share because of it's reverse compatibility with old DOS software.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: XZeroII
LOL, you guys think you're so smart, yet you're so stupid. OS/2 was a joint project between Microsoft and IBM. Basically, they had some creative differences and each took a copy of the source code. IBM finished OS/2, and Microsoft turned it into Windows NT.

Who's laughing now?

Actually, Windows NT was under development independant of OS/2. While some OS/2 features may have made it into NT, Microsoft did not "turn [OS/2] into Windows NT".

ZV

NT is very much OS/2-like. HPFS for example, was the precursor to NTFS. Much of the way the kernel handles processes, is similar to OS/2. I find XZeroII's statement to be mostly accurate.

 

[OutHouse]

is OS/2 still used? or produced?

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: Citrix
is OS/2 still used? or produced?

It's surprisingly still in use, much to the dismay of some hardware developers I know.

I have no idea if there's any active development on the OS itself, though.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw

Originally posted by: Citrix
is OS/2 still used? or produced?

It's surprisingly still in use, much to the dismay of some hardware developers I know.

I have no idea if there's any active development on the OS itself, though.

A lot of kiosk-type devices are using it. Like ATMs.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: XZeroII
LOL, you guys think you're so smart, yet you're so stupid. OS/2 was a joint project between Microsoft and IBM. Basically, they had some creative differences and each took a copy of the source code. IBM finished OS/2, and Microsoft turned it into Windows NT.

Who's laughing now?

Actually, Windows NT was under development independant of OS/2. While some OS/2 features may have made it into NT, Microsoft did not "turn [OS/2] into Windows NT".

ZV

NT is very much OS/2-like. HPFS for example, was the precursor to NTFS. Much of the way the kernel handles processes, is similar to OS/2. I find XZeroII's statement to be mostly accurate.

Not really. Its more VMS-like. And the fact that the person who wrote VMS left DEC for microsoft. OS/2 is no way related to NT. Other than the fact that the NT kernel was used in OS/2 but that was done entirely by MS anyway. Work on NT started before OS/2

Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story

From the intro:

I'll take you on a short tour of NT's lineage, which leads back to Digital and its VMS OS. Most of NT's lead developers, including VMS's chief architect, came from Digital, and their background heavily influenced NT's development. After I talk about NT's roots, I'll discuss the more-than-coincidental similarities between NT and VMS, and how Digital reacted to NT's release.

edit: To make things clear. "OS/2" was divided into two parts. The kernel which was done by MS, and the "API" which was headed by IBM. When Windows 3.0 was a big hit MS dropped the IBM OS/2 part for the Win32 API, and used the NT kernel which MS developed.

 

[ultimatebob]

Personally, I want to know what this "Blue Linux" crap is all about. IBM has stated about a million times in the past that it has no interest in making it's own version of Linux, and is instead modifying other distributions of Linux like Red Hat and SuSE for use on their servers and workstations.