From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:45:41 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Sep29.001937.13093@fics.uucp> ekl@fics.uucp wrote:
> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >ekl@fics.uucp wrote:
> >>petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >>>AV@vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Also note that the *winner* NT was formerly called OS/2 3.0.
> >>>
> >>>The thing on the PDK disk was formerly called OS/2 3.0?  Can you point
> >>>out which code on the PDK has anything to do with OS/2 please.
> >>
> >> <quotes from Microsoft presentation, showing NT under the name OS/2 3.0>
> >>
> >> I dislike the split between IBM and Microsoft. I can live with that. I
> >> am pissed of that the support for my MS OS/2 tools are gone. I can live
> >> with that, too. But don't come round crying that NT was never called
> >> OS/2 3.0! Leave me out in the cold. BUT ADMIT IT!
> >
> >I never said NT wasn't called OS/2 3.0, All I wanted is some pointer
> >to where there is similarity between OS/2 and NT.  If all that is similar
> >is that they may have had a similar name at one time, well, that is
> >not useful.  What is useful are things like the following.
> 
> While you may not have *explicitly* said that NT wasn't called os/2 3.0,
> your original post definately made it sound like that's what you meant.
> My reply mainly showed that what is now NT was previously known as OS/2,
> with the version number 3. To me, that tells that *most* of the code
> on the PDK has anything to do with OS/2.

Well, You can believe what you want.  What, BTW, does that code have to do
with OS/2, besides the fact that they both run on x86 platforms.


> 
> >Did IBM write any of what is now called NT?
> >Was a considerable portion of the code for NT taken from OS/2?
> >Was any portion of the code for  NT taken from OS/2?
> 
> Whether IBM did write any of what is now called NT; I don't know. Why
> don't you look around and find out? You probably have the entire NT
> development team somewhere around. That said, in the same presentation
> I quoted in my last message, it was said that microsoft had 40 people
> + networking on the os/2 development teams (1.x and 2.0). I doubt that
> was a one way street, but don't know. (That is why I did not comment on
> that in my previous article)

So the people are the same, hmmm.  I wonder how many people on the VM
team are on the OS/2 team.  Maybe OS/2 is VM.


> 
> >Are there any other links between the two that are useful in makeing
> >business decisions?
> 
> "other links"? I quote from my now infamous presenation, a slide with
> the title "How os/2 3.0 maps to high-end requirements":
> 
>    * Distributed operating system platform
>    * Windows-support
>    * Security
>    * Multiprocessor support (Symmetric multiprocessor)
>    * Fault tolerance (recoverable file system, disk mirroring)
>    * Portability

Oh, so UNIX is OS/2 also.  Maybe we should take the /2 off and just make
it OS.

> 
> This sounds like quotes from the NT marketing stuff. When a product (os/2
> 3.0) disappears, and another appears which has pretty much the same
> qualities, that counts as "other links". If it walks like a duck, talks
> like a duck, looks like a duck, well, it's a fu**ing duck.

Okay, if OS is an operating system, then it is.  IF OS is OS/2, then it's not.
BTW, what links does OS/2 3.0(of then) have with OS/2 2.0(of now).  Besides
the name, of course.  2 different companies developed them.  The code
is different.  The markets are different.

> 
> >If the Name is the only thing, and you're willing to make a business
> >decision based on that, well, the advertising media must love you...
> 
> My being willing to make a business decision based on the name is taken 
> out of the blue. I merely (!?) jumped in on your article which smelled
> like "os/2 3.0 has nothing to do with NT",

Oh, sorry, the article smelled more of OS/2 has nothing to do with NT.
Can I get OS/2 3.0?  If not, then it doesn't exist ;)

> 
>    >>>The thing on the PDK disk was formerly called OS/2 3.0?  Can you point
>    >>>out which code on the PDK has anything to do with OS/2 please.
> 
> and tried to prove it wrong:
Unsuccessfully...

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...