4 ms·
OS/2 was known to be rock-solid back in the day. It was the OS of choice for a lot of financials. Everyone moved to Windows NT when 4 came out, though, because
by manv1 4y ago
OS/2 was known to be rock-solid back in the day. It was the OS of choice for a lot of financials. Everyone moved to Windows NT when 4 came out, though, because of the way Microsoft did licensing.
- bogomipz 4y ago>"Everyone moved to Windows NT when 4 came out, though, because of the way Microsoft did licensing." Can you elaborate on what the difference was between how the licensing worked on OS/2 vs NT 4? What was the big innovation?
- giamma 4y agoMicrosoft in 1999 was not the same company it is today and did some very unethical things. For example: https://www.itprotoday.com/windows-78/ibm-microsoft-warned-pc-makers-against-using-os2 https://www.itprotoday.com/windows-78/ibm-microsoft-warned-p... Other articles report that computer producers were given Windows "for free" as long as they did not offer nor support OS/2 on their hardware. Microsoft applied this practice for a few years and indeed lost income by giving Windows for free, but it ensured that the regular user never heard of OS/2 and then when IBM gave up the situation changed. Besides, Microsoft would still make money from Office and other products.
- bogomipz 4y agoYour link is about Windows 95. My question about what was different about the licensing model of NT4 that prompted companies to switch. NT 4 also came out in the mid 90s.