4 ms·

I didn't spell Microsoft with a dollar sign and I didn't portray OS/2 as a folk hero of computing. So your responses don't seem to be addressing the issues I r

I didn't spell Microsoft with a dollar sign and I didn't portray OS/2 as a folk hero of computing. So your responses don't seem to be addressing the issues I raised.

wvenable 2y ago
"What actually happened is that..." Dismisses the entire article which, as far as I can tell, is pretty factual. Admittedly I used your comment as a jumping off point for that observation about recent OS/2 commentary even beyond this particular topic on HN.
- lproven 2y ago
  The article is factual but IMHO profoundly misguided because it's profoundly biased. I got a 2000 word editorial comment piece out of it. I'll share it when it's published next week.
  - wvenable 2y ago
    I have read a lot about that time and it doesn't seem particularly biased. Microsoft hated working with IBM and their horrifically old-school way doing software development (e.g. counting lines of code, etc). The bias, in my opinion, is the other way -- which is exactly what I said at the top.
    - lproven 2y ago
      I did try to explain the logic already, in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42338166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42338166 Letwin says what killed OS/2 was that it could run Windows apps. This is not true. That only applied to OS/2 2; OS/2 1 could not run Windows apps. It didn't matter; there weren't any. Windows apps followed Windows 3.0. Windows 3.0 followed the failure of OS/2 1.x. This is his bias: he was one of the project leads and was passionate about OS/2, which blinds him to the fact that it was OS/2 1.x that flopped and there was nothing OS/2 2.x could do to usefully come back from that. His assertion is that 32-bit OS/2 flopped, because it lacked native apps, because it could run Windows apps. This is not true. It flopped because Windows 3 was out, and Windows 3 was a hit because it did what 16-bit OS/2 failed to do: it ran DOS apps _well_ and it could do that because it took advantage of the 386 chip. His bias means he fails to identify the true cause although he named it. Secondarily, I think we can point to a 2nd, non-technical, personal reason: Letwin was not involved in Windows 3, which was essentially a 1-man skunkworks project. It was done by David Weise: https://news.microsoft.com/2000/09/10/i-found-a-cool-little-problem-that-i-just-couldnt-resist-solving/ https://news.microsoft.com/2000/09/10/i-found-a-cool-little-... Helped by Murray Sargent: https://www.landley.net/history/mirror/ms/davidweise.html https://www.landley.net/history/mirror/ms/davidweise.html
- CRConrad 2y ago
  > Dismisses the entire article which, as far as I can tell, is pretty factual. AFAICS it can be factual about IBM's incompetence, and Microsoft being a sleazy underhanded anti-competitor also be true.

I didn't spell Microsoft with a dollar sign and I didn't portray OS/2 as a folk hero of computing. So your responses don't seem to be addressing the issues I raised.

wvenable 2y ago

"What actually happened is that..." Dismisses the entire article which, as far as I can tell, is pretty factual. Admittedly I used your comment as a jumping off point for that observation about recent OS/2 commentary even beyond this particular topic on HN.

lproven 2y ago
The article is factual but IMHO profoundly misguided because it's profoundly biased. I got a 2000 word editorial comment piece out of it. I'll share it when it's published next week.
- wvenable 2y ago
  I have read a lot about that time and it doesn't seem particularly biased. Microsoft hated working with IBM and their horrifically old-school way doing software development (e.g. counting lines of code, etc). The bias, in my opinion, is the other way -- which is exactly what I said at the top.
  - lproven 2y ago
    I did try to explain the logic already, in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42338166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42338166 Letwin says what killed OS/2 was that it could run Windows apps. This is not true. That only applied to OS/2 2; OS/2 1 could not run Windows apps. It didn't matter; there weren't any. Windows apps followed Windows 3.0. Windows 3.0 followed the failure of OS/2 1.x. This is his bias: he was one of the project leads and was passionate about OS/2, which blinds him to the fact that it was OS/2 1.x that flopped and there was nothing OS/2 2.x could do to usefully come back from that. His assertion is that 32-bit OS/2 flopped, because it lacked native apps, because it could run Windows apps. This is not true. It flopped because Windows 3 was out, and Windows 3 was a hit because it did what 16-bit OS/2 failed to do: it ran DOS apps _well_ and it could do that because it took advantage of the 386 chip. His bias means he fails to identify the true cause although he named it. Secondarily, I think we can point to a 2nd, non-technical, personal reason: Letwin was not involved in Windows 3, which was essentially a 1-man skunkworks project. It was done by David Weise: https://news.microsoft.com/2000/09/10/i-found-a-cool-little-problem-that-i-just-couldnt-resist-solving/ https://news.microsoft.com/2000/09/10/i-found-a-cool-little-... Helped by Murray Sargent: https://www.landley.net/history/mirror/ms/davidweise.html https://www.landley.net/history/mirror/ms/davidweise.html
CRConrad 2y ago
> Dismisses the entire article which, as far as I can tell, is pretty factual. AFAICS it can be factual about IBM's incompetence, and Microsoft being a sleazy underhanded anti-competitor also be true.