Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Apr 2007 21:11 UTC, submitted by judgen
Thread beginning with comment 228971
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-04-09
Dude, I don't know what you're smoking but if you really believe the above quote all you are doing is proving the author of the article's point - ie that most people don't have a *clue* how things really went down concerning OS/2, and in your case, also how MS came to power.
I'd explain to you how it really was. How MS bullied OEM's into taking DOS *and* Windows 3.x as a bundle using all the dirty tricks so well documented elsewhere, but I have a feeling you really don't want to know the truth. You got one point sort of correct - ie expensive. Yeah, OS/2 was costly; prior to Warp 3.
Oh, also OEM's couldn't care less about GUIs, etc. All they want to do is move boxes and make money.
Try not to take this the wrong way, but you really need to do some research before you go off on a subject you obviously know nothing about. It just makes you look stupid and ignorant.
chekmarx