Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Feb 2006 12:28 UTC, submitted by Cliffdaddy
Thread beginning with comment 97713
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
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
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-09-27
rcsteiner is quite right- OS/2 has way more of a future than BeOS because of all the legacy systems that use it. As a result, there is a lot more commercial viability for a company introducing an OS/2 successor than a BeOS one. Lots of companies are looking around for support of their old OS/2-based products, not wanting to have to do the work to move them to XP/NT/Windows/whatever else.