From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:19:37 GMT

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.

>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)

>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

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.

>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",

   >>>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:


>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...

Eirik
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6612 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2253