Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Mar 2010 23:38 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Windows "Few people understand Microsoft better than Tandy Trower, who worked at the company from 1981-2009. Trower was the product manager who ultimately shipped Windows 1.0, an endeavor that some advised him was a path toward a ruined career. Four product managers had already tried and failed to ship Windows before him, and he initially thought that he was being assigned an impossible task. In this follow-up to yesterday's story on the future of Windows, Trower recounts the inside story of his experience in transforming Windows from vaporware into a product that has left an unmistakable imprint on the world, 25 years after it was first released."
Thread beginning with comment 413206
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: imprint indeed
by demetrioussharpe on Thu 11th Mar 2010 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: imprint indeed"
demetrioussharpe
Member since:
2009-01-09

"You fail to remember one key point. The OS that became Win NT was originally developed as OS/2 NT. The change happened during development after Win 3.0 began to take off. Had it stayed as OS/2 NT, then it probably would've still had the same features or even been a bit more advanced.


The only thing that really changed was the addition of the Win32 subsystem and its promotion to "primary" API status over the OS/2 API. The parts of NT I speak of when I claim it was technically superior are neither of those - it is the kernel, executive, and all the bits that go together to implement them. Those bits have virtually no resemblance in any way to either OS/2 or any MS code that came before them.
"

True enough, however, if things would've continued down that path, that would've been OS/2 & the OS/2 that we know of currently (from after the MS/IBM split) would not even exist. That architecture would be OS/2's current architecture.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: imprint indeed
by tylerdurden on Thu 11th Mar 2010 04:23 in reply to "RE[6]: imprint indeed"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Equating assumptions with facts is a dangerous path.

We don't know what would have happened, simply because it never happened. Assuming OS/2 would have been based on NT, even though they were two unrelated products... makes as much sense as assuming AIX would have eventually become OS/2 for example. In fact as ridiculous as that scenario is, it almost makes slightly more sense since at least those were two IBM products.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: imprint indeed
by fretinator on Thu 11th Mar 2010 15:46 in reply to "RE[7]: imprint indeed"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Welcome to the Dubya Dubyas (Copyright 2010, fretinator)

Reply Parent Score: 2