[Author/submitter here] > Microsoft would have preferred having 100% control instead of sharing OS/2 with IBM. You seem to forget a few important points. 1.

[Author/submitter here] > Microsoft would have preferred having 100% control instead of sharing OS/2 with IBM. You seem to forget a few important points. 1. MS willingly entered into the OS/2 partnership with IBM. It even had its own multitasking MS-DOS, the original MS-DOS 4, which it never released. 2. MS wasn't always as rich and powerful as it became much later. 3. It was IBM's PC that made MS rich. That and the success of the PC clones. > Windows 3.0 was the technical foundation that allowed things to go the way they went I did not dispute that. The point of the article is that Microsoft's own version of 32-bit OS/2 was nearly ready when Windows 3.0 was released. > its technical capabilities were known, even if it needed time to prove itself in the market Hardly. Windows was a flop and an industry laughing stock before Windows 3.0. I used Windows 2 on my work PC. It was not good. I told my boss that Windows 3.0 was going to be a big hit and that he should get as many copies as he could, and allow me to train all the company's staff on what would very soon be the top-selling product. He laughed at me. A couple of months later, the company's 17 copies of Windows 3.0 sold before the office opened for the day, they were on back-order with a waiting time of weeks to months, all our customers wanted Windows 3.0 and he apologised to me saying that he had been wrong and I was right. It was too late.