I see no reason for editing the foregoing other than to fix the mis-spellings. The article is substantially correct in its analysis of Microsoft's game-plan.
sjc
I'm no MS fan either, but I don't like the sneering tone in which this article is written. The analysis is indeed correct, but could be described in a somewhat more neutral way
I don't know the origins of NT well enough to write even a good stub article. I simply neutralised the comments that existed before, and took out the
BSoD reference entirely --
Colin dellow
IBM didn't "produce" OS/2; Microsoft did. It was released as Microsoft OS/2 1.0, a complete operating system, entirely produced by Microsoft. IBM bought it, improved upon it, and released it under their name later. My impression at the time was that MS used it as something of a "testbed" for how to write an OS, then pawned it off to IBM and started over with NT. Internally, most of the MS team who produced OS/2 were the same folks who produced NT (For example, the OS/2 component test team directly became the NT component test team, which was where I spent my brief employment at MS). --
LDC
As I recall it, it was a joint venture between the two of them. I'm sure each side would
claim it did the lion's share. I recall that significant amounts of IBM code went
into OS/2, including in particular the graphics system. There was plenty of
disagreement, because IBM wanted it to fit into their SAA architecture, while
Microsoft wanted to keep compatibility with the Win16 GDI. In any case, I know
specifically that OS/2 versions 1.3 and 2.0 were released under both Microsoft
and IBM brands. That simply could not have happened if IBM just bought it later.
The schism happened after OS/2 2.0; IBM went on to release OS/2 3.0 and Microsoft
released NT 3.0. That's why there was no NT 1.0 or 2.0
--Alan Millar
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)