Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Apr 2012 13:54 UTC
Windows If you ever needed any proof it's anything but roses ans sunshine over at Microsoft's Windows Phone division, it's this. The next version of Windows Phone, WP8, will run on the NT kernel, which marks a pretty substantial departure from the current release. This raises the question: will current handsets be upgradeable to WP8? First, Microsoft indicated no. Then they said yes (interview retracted). And now, they're saying no again.
Thread beginning with comment 514800
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

I know you're trolling, but really, how do you figure? As much as I love the BeOS, it was dead in the water before it was a common name even among OS geeks. And OS/2 never stood a chance despite being technically superior to Windows.

Interestingly, both OSes died at Microsoft's hands. If anything, the (prematurely reported) death of Windows Phone is nothing more than well deserved Karma, though I wouldn't count them out just yet.

And lest you flame me as a Microsoft shill etc etc, yes I do like the WP7 OS but I hate the company (as is well known here). With a few tweaks and some openness, WP7 could be the OS that Android would only dream of being. Unfortunately Microsoft has once again crippled a product that could have been great if only they knew what they were doing with it. The same goes for Windows 8 on x86/x64, as far as I'm concerned.

Reply Parent Score: 2

steampoweredlawn Member since:
2006-09-27

Interestingly, both OSes died at Microsoft's hands.


I know I'm veering a litte off-topic here, but the blood of OS/2 is squarely on IBM's hands. From paying Microsoft by the KLOC (1000 lines of code) instead of by feature, to their insistence that the 1.x line run on the 80286, shipping the first version on time but missing a GUI, their bizarre advertising (Czech nuns anyone?) and charging developers $1000s for the development kits instead of giving them away to anyone and everyone, Microsoft needed only give IBM sufficient rope to hang themselves and their product.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

steampoweredlawn,

No doubt IBM royally screwed up. I still find it ironic, if not for IBM's cooperation with microsoft and essentially handing them an OS monopoly on the PC, the small company might have never become more than a blip on the radar. Of course the ties between Gate's mother and IBM executives was likely responsible for earlier lapses in judgment, however one has to wonder why these lapses continued for so long.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

The way I remember it (granted, I was a teenager back then), Microsoft was on board with IBM all the way, then when Windows sales started zooming, they said "why do we need to keep up this partnership with IBM" and dropped them on the spot.

I remember this because I was in a computer store and saw a clerk marking boxed copies of OS/2 down by about 60%, and I asked him about it. He said they were told to sell all remaining stock at a discount because nobody would want it anymore now that Microsoft wasn't backing it. I went home and got on Compuserve, and eventually found a group discussing the issue. The consensus was what I posted above.

Thank you for pointing out the details, and I wonder now why I never read up on it before.

Reply Parent Score: 2