3 ms·

Well, Microsoft did go with "NT OS/2" -- it just quickly replaced intended OS/2 compatablility with Windows compatibility. Otherwise, IBM claimed Workplace OS

by scholia 11y ago

Well, Microsoft did go with "NT OS/2" -- it just quickly replaced intended OS/2 compatablility with Windows compatibility. Otherwise, IBM claimed Workplace OS was new code. NT, of course, wasn't written for x86 in the first place. It was intended to be cross-platform. It was also sold on PCs with DEC Alpha chips.

yuhong 11y ago
Of course, the problems with this plan wasn't the WinNT part, it was the Win95/Chicago part. My favorite technical problem is how it's dependence on DOS led Caldera to continue their DR-DOS lawsuit. But it wasn't just the technical problems, there was also the tactics MS used to attack OS/2 2.x and later.
- scholia 11y ago
  Win95 was cheap, easy to install (no reformat needed), had masses of software support, and sold well. Microsoft would have preferred to sell NT but the market voted with its wallet. (By the way, Win95 mainly used DOS as a loader.) Otherwise, which tactics were unacceptable in the context of a small company being attacked by a giant monopolist that wanted to drive it out of business?
  - yuhong 11y ago
    I am comparing it with OS/2 2.x not NT.
    - scholia 11y ago
      As I pointed out above: "there were only three problems with it: (1) you couldn't sell PCs running OS/2 -- IBM tried; (2) you couldn't get software houses to write programs for OS/2 -- except maybe Lotus; and (3) you couldn't get end users to install it. You had to install a whole OS to run OS/2, but Windows installed just like any other DOS program, and you could delete it if you decided you didn't like it." Microsoft realized that you couldn't force people to buy something they (rightly or wrongly) didn't want, and decided to sell them something they did want. Small companies are like that. Being a global giant with a long history of monopoly power (going back to the 1930s), IBM didn't think like that.

by scholia 11y ago

yuhong 11y ago

Of course, the problems with this plan wasn't the WinNT part, it was the Win95/Chicago part. My favorite technical problem is how it's dependence on DOS led Caldera to continue their DR-DOS lawsuit. But it wasn't just the technical problems, there was also the tactics MS used to attack OS/2 2.x and later.

scholia 11y ago
Win95 was cheap, easy to install (no reformat needed), had masses of software support, and sold well. Microsoft would have preferred to sell NT but the market voted with its wallet. (By the way, Win95 mainly used DOS as a loader.) Otherwise, which tactics were unacceptable in the context of a small company being attacked by a giant monopolist that wanted to drive it out of business?
- yuhong 11y ago
  I am comparing it with OS/2 2.x not NT.
  - scholia 11y ago
    As I pointed out above: "there were only three problems with it: (1) you couldn't sell PCs running OS/2 -- IBM tried; (2) you couldn't get software houses to write programs for OS/2 -- except maybe Lotus; and (3) you couldn't get end users to install it. You had to install a whole OS to run OS/2, but Windows installed just like any other DOS program, and you could delete it if you decided you didn't like it." Microsoft realized that you couldn't force people to buy something they (rightly or wrongly) didn't want, and decided to sell them something they did want. Small companies are like that. Being a global giant with a long history of monopoly power (going back to the 1930s), IBM didn't think like that.