I remember the history quite well. In the early-mid '90s I was a (younger and more foolish) fervent OS/2 user.
Well - I *thought* I remembered the history quite well. If you're right and I'm wrong, I'm not going to argue, I'm going to learn - I wasn't talking completely out of my ass.
My impetus was that the whole antitrust issue, as quoted from TFA in the summary, TFA itself, and in many statements in this topic (and elsewhere) - are all rife with revisionist history.
The last thing I want to introduce a different revisionist history.
So long as you're using arbitrary phrases...
Three things - 1 )I was trying to make a point by shortcut of a single example, and 2) I didn't think that that was an arbitrary phrase, but I know it is used that way, and 3) I agree that it's the complete package.
Look - all I'm saying now and was saying in my first reply is - don't cut me any slack if I fucked up, but cut me some slack about what corner I'm in until we're sure of each other. (Both of our initial statements were declaratory - this is the first insight I'm getting that you might be right and I can learn from you - that's all.) That said....
1. I remember Win3 as being exactly equivalent to a Mac - kinda useless - IMO - because it was all still catching up with what I could do in CP/M, MS-DOS and an Apple ][+. I was aware of some claims of theft and so forth already going on, and I have a good grasp of the history, but maybe less than yours, as I was pretty disgusted with it all. 2. The first Win I used and liked was NT. My memory is that it preceeded 95. My memory was that it was based on DEC due to something going around at the time that it was built by a now(then)-DEC team moved to MS. When I saw the thing in the wiki that it came from OS/2, I went with that. 3. I paid no attention to consumer vs. pro OS marketing at the time - maybe that's important and I missed something even then. 4. My memory - so whack me if I'm fucking up - is that with Win1 and Win2, you were in DOS and could choose some Win stuff. With Win3, you did everything in Win and opened a DOS window if needed. (Please, no pedantics about how to configure - I'm talking about my memory of out-of-the-box behavior.) Therefore, I identified Win3 as the first post-DOS "OS in its own right." 5. I remember a lot of hullabaloo about Win95 riding on DOS or as you vectored, riding on top of a DOS shell. I remember a lot of online controversy about it. The only opinion I had at the time was Microsoft's evil marketing claiming no DOS and lots of tech guys "proving" that DOS was at it's heart. If you're reading me with that prejudice, please don't. I couldn't have cared less. All of my graphical Unices were launching a shell then starting X. I never saw the point of the controversy or criticism - whatever works. If I touched on it, it was to attempt to be clear that I wasn't thinking that way when I said that Win3 was the first win OS from MS in its own right. 6. I, too, was a young(er) vociferous proponent of OS/2 Warp - but I was comparing to Win3. The blinkers left my eyes the first time that I tried to exercise the famous "run Win3 programs" feature - and got burned. And yes, I remember the SIQ problem. I was bitching them and now about Win95 being superior when it could have been as it came out later than Warp. My bitch is with the press then and people all along never using OS/2 but believing many features of Win95 were industry firsts - when they weren't. 7. I didn't run 95 or 98. I had to help two PHBs that did, because my Win machines - running NT and 2k - were just working. From that vantage point, I could never see the point of running 95 instead of Warp or NT or 98 instead of 2k. Spend a tiny bit more and get lots more. My only prejudices against 95 and 98 are as just stated here. Yes, that screws legacy and legacy-driven sales. Maybe I'm utopian. I'm OK with abandoning legacy for superiority. And I don't
Initially, the companies agreed that IBM would take over maintenance of OS/2 1.0 and development of OS/2 2.0, while Microsoft would continue development of OS/2 3.0. In the end, Microsoft decided to recast NT OS/2 3.0 as Windows NT, leaving all future OS/2 development to IBM.
Unless by launch point I mean - renamed a rev of OS/2 to WinNT.
As for OS/2 Warp not being a complete re-write, your objection to my language use may be correct - the re-write was complete and features such as true preemptive multi-tasking appeared in Warp. So, my comment stands - the hallmark of the completed re-write corresponded to the name change. BTW, the multi-tasking improvement in Win95, released LATER, didn't measure up. If you found Warp and 95 to be a toss-up, then YMMV. If you're comparing pre-Warp to Win95, you're unfair.
Original OS/2 was as much IBM as MS is true if and only if you weigh setting requirements as equal to code production.
I was flat wrong in my timeline on one thing - and as you say, it's important - OS/2 joint development was announced in 1987, and by 1988, the date of the above Computer Chronicles broadcast, OS/2 Presentation Manager, Windows 386 - Windows 2 - were all already in existence. Windows 1.0 was released in 1985. It was not a full OS by any means, and I am not splitting hairs or re-hashing the DOS/Win95 controversy. Windows 2 was Win1 with memory management.
Win3 did not appear until 1990. I would contend that that was an OS in its own right. OS/2 was already out by then.
So, I was not saying and did not say that MS didn't start any Windows anything until their engagement with IBM, but I worded what I said so poorly that I'll bow to the hits and criticisms.
The part about bundling browsers being ok and the EU about not allowing bundling of media players.
These guys have opened all sorts of cans of worms for us. We can holler about software patents, but the major players do not play fair on cross-use or cross-licensing of their products. We suffer.
I'm glad that Apple won't sell OS X separately - I predict they'd become an instant MS in terms of predatory practices. The Apple QT package takes care of Mac users, but seems to bone MS users in the installation.
And frankly, little in the way of legal decisions coming out of the EU are making any sense - I agree with you 100%.
In 1997, five years after the lawsuit was decided, all lingering infringement questions against Microsoft regarding the Lisa and Macintosh GUI as well as Apple's "QuickTime piracy" lawsuit against Microsoft were settled in direct negotiations. Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer their default browser, to the detriment of Netscape. Microsoft agreed to continue developing their Office and other software for the Mac for the next five years. Microsoft also purchased $150 million of non-voting Apple stock, helping Apple in its financial struggles at the time. Both parties entered into a patent cross-licensing agreement.
But I think you're right, I recall there being more to this than the wikipedia entry allows. At some point, the MS Mac Business Unit (MBU) stopped providing updates for IE on OS X, and I recall the MS web talking about it in relation to Office. Next surprise, an upgrade came along and then IE stopped working in OS X altogether and Microsoft continued to significantly upgrade Office for the Mac.
Yes I realize that my links are from 2002 - the andecent - for a reason.
Again - Microsoft agreed to an extension...... What do you think happened?
DOJ: Uh, Microsoft, can we please do our thing? Microsoft: Oh.... OK, because I like you, you big, whacky DOJ, you! Now get over here and give me some sugar!
Or:
1. Microsoft is compelled by court.... 2. Microsoft complies 3. Shills in the press say the new word for comply is agree
You're right - sorry. More ignorance than revisionist on Netscape.
As for Mosaic - I have a book somewhere with a disk included of its source code and makefiles - that was all available for free download. Did the appropriate mods myself, compiled it on my DEC ULTRIX machine, and later did same on my ISP's *nix machine in their/tmp area (can't recall the *nix). Found source for a server in Europe somewhere, DL'd that, ditto build on ULTRIX.
Downloading browser and server sources wasn't hard - I might have used ftp, but I might have even used gopher for all I remember.:)
I used Opera as ad-supported.
Even by then, my browser at choice at work was lynx - who had time and bandwidth?
Maybe you're right about me, but I don't think so. You're incorrect about the driving force to use Microsoft (kindly see Daengbo's and my follow-on comments, above).
I was trying to give the GP the benefit of the doubt - so I used PC as a generic term, and asked myself which PC-type machine was actually designed by IBM in those days rather than simply integrated - and as I recall, that was the PS/2. In those days, the only thing "protectable" or proprietary, really, about the IBM-PC was its BIOS - hence the ease of COMPAQ, Zenith and others developing the clone market. The PS/2 changed all of that for IBM - it used the proprietary microchannel architecture - http://www.cedmagic.com/history/ibm-ps2-1987.html
And as it turned out, they did end up having to develop the OS for the machine they ended up having to develop - the PS/2.
The IBM-PC wasn't related to typical IBM monopolistic actions - not everyone at IBM was evil and the Boca Raton crew was pretty ok - they were market-driven.
However, after success of the IBM-PC, IBM decided to get up to their old tricks with complete lock-out - hence, the PS/2, hence my response.
~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm sorry to sound like a big know-it-all - I'm really not. I am however an old fart (of the stay-and-play-on-lawn, that's-what-it's-there-for variety) whose memory hasn't given out (completely). I started writing code in 1972, and was rooting like hell for the DOJ in their anti-IBM actions back in the day. Pre-internet, best source of info for that was Datamation magazine. I've followed PC developments very closely since the Altair days - so I had no illusions about the history of the PC or how it came to be that IBM used Microsoft for the PC's OS. The PC was a thing of great wonder for the popular press of the day, but not for the focused press in that day or the many small-architecture computing newsletters that used to circulate about.
I am common of my age and group and was confused that there could be a question that IBM was driven to Microsoft by DOJ actions, which began in the 1960s and dragged on until 1983 - and accomplished nothing.
PC-DOS was licensed and vended by IBM - as the OS, it didn't fall under the antitrust rule-of-three. The first competing OS for the original 5150 was DR's CP/M-86 and later, MS-DOS, if memory doesn't fail me.
IBM's outsourcing, BIOS development for the 5150 and expectations for the Microsoft relationship to succeed were directed at extending their monopolistic practices. If things had gone their way, they'd have simply bought Microsoft - or so many of us feared at the time.
IBM had the political and legal juice to drag out the DOJ for decades - they had no fear and were thus not fear driven.
I think that they got the keyboard wrong - I recall that IBM bought out the company that came up with those beasts, as it was going nowhere with that monster.
Sorry - the flames come out of my ears on this subject, they weren't intended towards you personally.
You're right, kindly allow me to amplify. That Apple and others weren't capturing the market's heart at the time, giving Microsoft an effective monopoly was not Microsoft's problem - in both meanings of the phrase.
That they used that power to price-control others, was illegal.
It wasn't Apple that brought the suit. Apple was sitting back, and schizophrenically laughing at Microsoft while thanking their lucky stars that they were dodging that bullet while wishing that they had as much money so they could take that bullet, too. (OK, that last part I just made up for the hell of it.)
If IBM had not been subject to antitrust rulings, would it have developed its own OS for the PC?
You know, they might have. They might have even started by contracting Microsoft to write it for them. They might have even developed a special PC and collaboratively called the operating system OS2. They might have even discovered that Microsoft burned them with an excruciating POS. They might have watched in horror while Microsoft used OS2 as a launch point for an OS that had none of OS2's bugs. And they have gone berserk when Microsoft called their new product Windows.
And they might have decided to completely re-write the operating system on their own. And they might have succeeded. And they might have called it OS2 Warp. And they might have gotten lots of press FUD while their OS completely blew Windows 95 out of the water.
We only know that IBM was the target of an antitrust action and that they developed a great (in its day) PC OS. We don't know if they wouldn't have were it not for the antitrust action.
But they were on board with the idea of moving away from the command line - Apple's sales in those days were nothing to sneeze at. And we know that in those days, IBM was feeling the sting of being victimized by their own greed in the MS contract that allowed MS-DOS to support clones when they'd thought that had the market sewn up with PC-DOS and their machines.
So, they tried it again with the PS2/OS2 lock in. The PS2 gave us some great tech for its day. But the combo, frankly, sucked. OS2 Warp was fab - ran on clones - but you only get to screw the market so much before it moves on.
The market believed that it was IBM alone screwing them, Microsoft slipped in under the radar. Remember, in those days, Microsoft was quite the darling of the CP/M and Apple (pre-Mac and early Mac) communities. Apple and CP/M good, IBM bad. Looked like Microsoft would save us with MS-DOS.
See where that got us.
So the answer to your question seems to be what we all already know - antitrust rulings don't stifle technology, monopolies do.
(PS - Nothing personal about the sarcasm - I just get that way on this subject in general.)
At that time, however, she left the door open to continued monitoring, and Microsoft agreed that she could extend it for up to three more years, to Nov. 12, 2012.
and
Although Microsoft has consented to the extension -- and acknowledged that the regulators can later ask for another 18 months -- Kollar-Kotelly must approve the request.
Microsoft agreed and Microsoft consented - my ass.
She also eliminated a technical committee that would have enforced the settlement terms. In its place, a corporate committee - consisting of board members who aren't Microsoft employees - will make sure the company lives up to the deal. The judge also gave herself more oversight authority.
Kollar-Kotelly also modified the oversight of Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. Originally, the proposal included a technical committee and an internal compliance officer, both potentially influenced by Microsoft. In Friday's ruling, the judge combined the two into a compliance committee made up of Microsoft board members. In turn, the committee must hire a compliance officer, to report to the committee and to Microsoft's CEO. As corporate officers and non-Microsoft employees, the compliance committee in theory would be more likely to appropriately enforce the settlement in this era of renewed corporate responsibility.
How could the language in the computerworld.com article shill any harder? Answer - not much - not much at all.
No, I think that you're dead wrong on your history.
As I recall, I was downloading Netscape and other browsers for free at the time of the lawsuit - the issues were that Microsoft was either not allowing vendors such as HP and Dell to distribute Windows with non-IE browsers (loss of contract) or requiring a contract change that was basically punitive in the extreme.
MS then came out with the Active Desktop, showing that IE was just absolutely, completely technically required for the latest OS release - I recall dimly that it was Win2k.
And that's when the shit hit the fan, as far as the plaintiffs and the court was concerned.
True. I further congratulate you in advance for being the only person I've met who got or may have gotten exactly what was wrong with the rave literary reviews for Forest Gump - and if you read it and saw the movie, why the movie was superior in all of the ways that the book sucked donkey balls.
Tien - I point out the event where Rousseau was overwhelmed with Voltaire, and frustrated by him, that he sent ruffians to beat him senseless in a dark alley, admonishing them to not do too much damage to Voltaire's head, as some good may yet come from it.
And Rousseau did endlessly parrot the best of all possible worlds meme. Perhaps my classical education was erroneous, but I was taught that it was Rousseau's clever and beautiful defense of the best outcome of the Lisbon earthquake that finally drove Voltaire over the edge.
Given those things and given that Leibniz would have been the better programmer, and given the many hundreds of thousands of lines of FORTRAN II and IV code I've seen - I still contend that the FORTRAN / FORTRAN IV programmer of prolific note is that monkey-see, monkey-do philosopher, Rousseau. Perhaps Leibniz did write a few dozen decent lines of it for him to proliferate...
All FORTRANs up to and including FORTRAN IV WATFIV were concordant with their best-known programmer, Rousseau - it was, after all, the best of all possible worlds.
Voltaire pointed out the mind-numbing ridiculousness of that idea, salvaged what was the real essence, and formulated a framework of thought that influenced all others. His philosophy was direct, compact and completely elegant. Naturally, Voltaire is best read not in translated English, but in its original FORTRAN 77 form.
Microsoft point out that buying a PC with Windows is cheaper than buying a Mac
I think the idea is supposed to be that a PC with Windows is cheaper than buying a Mac, provided that each system has exactly the same hardware features and hardware quality.
If that's how you read that, I can only claim that over the past few years I've seen many, many cogent posts on/. supporting both sides of the issue.
My point is only this: whether one or the other is cheaper, or not and they're both the same - so what? I contend that it's a common phrase, "I want the best computer for the money" but that if we dig deeper, we find the phrase has no meaning. Lots of emotion, emotion is a component of some purchases, but again - no meaning.
This statement DOES have meaning: "I want the best computer for my personal needs and I want it to be within my budget."
The two statements are not identical. When I buy a Windows PC, I do not compare after the fact (or during the purchase) to an Apple price - it's a waste of time. During the purchase event, Apple is not on the radar, it doesn't fit my needs for that purchase. When I buy a Mac, I similarly do not look at PC prices, for exactly the same reason.
The statement about PC vs. Mac price advantage is successfully masquerading as some sort of relevant fact. It is not.
It is a VERY relevant emotional tool to push the buyer into an action he was going to take anyway - buy a PC. It is no different that Apple pushing the relevant emotional tool of cool to push the buyer into an action he was going to take anyway - buy a Mac.
I don't begrudge Apple their coolness sales tool, neither do I begrudge Microsoft their pricing sales tool. I simply and very vehemently object to either masquerading as a relevant fact when they are both nothing more that Madison Avenue, emotional slickery.
I will grant that many people buy on emotion and then use some "fact" to hide it. I wish everyone bought sensibly, like me - get the right tool for the job and get a dog to love and be loved instead of getting emotional satisfaction from a toaster (my name for all computers, pre-BSG). Why do I want this? So Apple wins? Because it proves something? Because it's just righteous? Because I'm smarter or more correct?
No.
I want this so my idiot friends will stop wasting my valuable time whenever then need to buy a toaster. I am sick of being asked if I'm ok if they buy a PC and is it as good as a Mac because they last saw me using a Mac. I am sick of being asked if they are being idiots for considering a Mac because they last saw me using a PC. I am sick of being argued with by them, which they will do no matter whether I give them advice or not. I want that to all go away. I do not believe that I am alone in this utopian dream.
I am sick of everyone's marketing because it is hiding a simple fact - no one sells a computer to the masses by filling out a simple configuration form - Do you edit documents? Do you play games? Do you do digital photography? Etc? And then spits out the "We STRONGLY recommend this computer at this price for your configured needs." No one does that. And - the storefront retailers used to do that - back in the day!!!!
Now, both sides make the user select kB, MB, GB, RAM, HD, etc, etc, and BOTH sides congratulate the victim for being so smart and also cool for being so smart.
I don't care who is claiming to be emperor - he has no clothes.
Your point is well made and taken. That being said....
But if Microsoft want to point out they are lower cost that competitors, what's wrong with that?
It's not even wrong.
I cannot buy a Microsoft computer, not mini, not laptop, not desktop. I cannot buy an Apple OS and install it on a third party computer (true if I constrain myself to the EULA).
If it is true that Linux is a Microsoft Windows competitor, Microsoft could never point out that they are lower cost. We can lament that Linux prepackaged on a Dell is more expensive than Windows prepackaged on a Dell - but that's not what I said. I can download Linux for free - I cannot do the same for Windows.
I can buy Microsoft Office for Windows or OS X. I can get Open Office for free.
So again - the quoted statement is not even wrong.
And although I think that my nit picking is valid, it is not a rebuttal, nor should it be.
Here is my rebuttal: if the issue is about what platform is best, as you say, then price has little - if anything - to do with it.
The decision over which platform is best is not subjective - it is however personal. I (that's the rhetorical as well as the literal "I") have my personal criteria based upon my personal needs that leads to my personal choice of the platform best for me - not a range of bests, not a choice of bests - a best.
The best platform for me (you) will self-define its own cost - the cost components will be hardware, software and my (your) time.
Once I (you) have made that assessment, the only decisions left are: 1) is it within my budget? and 2) if so, shall I purchase it?
If those criteria are met, I (you) make the purchase. If not, I (you) seek price-driven alternatives to the (personal) best.
All that marketing and peer pressure can do is to influence my awareness of choices when selecting my (your) personal best.
Sometimes, my personal best has been a system based on OS2 Warp. Sometimes, DOS. Sometimes, CP/M. Sometimes, AppleDOS. Sometimes, Windows. Sometimes, OS X. Sometimes, DESQviewX. Sometimes, BSD. Sometimes, HP-UX. Sometimes, Linux. Sometimes, FreeBSD. I have purchased all of the above in my time.
My decision for best has never been - and could never be - influenced by cost. But when I've had to choose next-best due to budget, then and only then has cost been the factor.
I submit that I have just proven the senselessness of pretending to be able to establish that any system is best, per se - in direct refutation of your point.
(And for the last time - this is way NOT directed at you, mdwh2 - could we PLEASE dispense with the "OS X users are lame because they are stupidly buying image" comments? That image-stupidity exists is a known constant, and no one vendor has cornered that market - and never will.)
I'm not going to flame you, but I am telling you that you're wrong by virtue of being only partially correct and that this has led to a misclassification on your part.
Humans work in their own self-interest. Unenlightened self-interest decisions very nearly always display as selfishness. Enlightened self-interest decisions nearly always display as win-win negotiations.
It's not the selfishness you want to attack. To do so is futile and always a bummer - I have found zero successes when trying. It's the lack of enlightenment that you want to attack - I have found greater than zero successes when trying.
IOW, selfishness cannot be cured because it is the aggregate of an enlightenment level and an innate inner drive for protection or attainment of self interests - the innate inner drive cannot go away, so selfishness cannot be cured. However, changing an enlightenment level is possible, and if effective, changes the aggregate away from selfishness.
There is a momentum term to enlightenment - positive and negative. I grant without reservation that you would be or you are fighting a large momentum for unenlightenment, both societal and individual. It's huge. It's depressingly, mind-numbingly huge. You're never a coward for giving up on some days or with some people - but you're never an idiot for trying to fix it.
Some people can never seem to learn the advantage of choosing long-term benefits over short-term gratification. But I can guarantee that they cannot learn if approached as selfish, and I suggest that they may be able to learn if approached otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember the history quite well. In the early-mid '90s I was a (younger and more foolish) fervent OS/2 user.
Well - I *thought* I remembered the history quite well. If you're right and I'm wrong, I'm not going to argue, I'm going to learn - I wasn't talking completely out of my ass.
My impetus was that the whole antitrust issue, as quoted from TFA in the summary, TFA itself, and in many statements in this topic (and elsewhere) - are all rife with revisionist history.
The last thing I want to introduce a different revisionist history.
So long as you're using arbitrary phrases...
Three things - 1 )I was trying to make a point by shortcut of a single example, and 2) I didn't think that that was an arbitrary phrase, but I know it is used that way, and 3) I agree that it's the complete package.
Look - all I'm saying now and was saying in my first reply is - don't cut me any slack if I fucked up, but cut me some slack about what corner I'm in until we're sure of each other. (Both of our initial statements were declaratory - this is the first insight I'm getting that you might be right and I can learn from you - that's all.) That said....
1. I remember Win3 as being exactly equivalent to a Mac - kinda useless - IMO - because it was all still catching up with what I could do in CP/M, MS-DOS and an Apple ][+. I was aware of some claims of theft and so forth already going on, and I have a good grasp of the history, but maybe less than yours, as I was pretty disgusted with it all.
2. The first Win I used and liked was NT. My memory is that it preceeded 95. My memory was that it was based on DEC due to something going around at the time that it was built by a now(then)-DEC team moved to MS. When I saw the thing in the wiki that it came from OS/2, I went with that.
3. I paid no attention to consumer vs. pro OS marketing at the time - maybe that's important and I missed something even then.
4. My memory - so whack me if I'm fucking up - is that with Win1 and Win2, you were in DOS and could choose some Win stuff. With Win3, you did everything in Win and opened a DOS window if needed. (Please, no pedantics about how to configure - I'm talking about my memory of out-of-the-box behavior.) Therefore, I identified Win3 as the first post-DOS "OS in its own right."
5. I remember a lot of hullabaloo about Win95 riding on DOS or as you vectored, riding on top of a DOS shell. I remember a lot of online controversy about it. The only opinion I had at the time was Microsoft's evil marketing claiming no DOS and lots of tech guys "proving" that DOS was at it's heart. If you're reading me with that prejudice, please don't. I couldn't have cared less. All of my graphical Unices were launching a shell then starting X. I never saw the point of the controversy or criticism - whatever works. If I touched on it, it was to attempt to be clear that I wasn't thinking that way when I said that Win3 was the first win OS from MS in its own right.
6. I, too, was a young(er) vociferous proponent of OS/2 Warp - but I was comparing to Win3. The blinkers left my eyes the first time that I tried to exercise the famous "run Win3 programs" feature - and got burned. And yes, I remember the SIQ problem. I was bitching them and now about Win95 being superior when it could have been as it came out later than Warp. My bitch is with the press then and people all along never using OS/2 but believing many features of Win95 were industry firsts - when they weren't.
7. I didn't run 95 or 98. I had to help two PHBs that did, because my Win machines - running NT and 2k - were just working. From that vantage point, I could never see the point of running 95 instead of Warp or NT or 98 instead of 2k. Spend a tiny bit more and get lots more. My only prejudices against 95 and 98 are as just stated here. Yes, that screws legacy and legacy-driven sales. Maybe I'm utopian. I'm OK with abandoning legacy for superiority. And I don't
In no way was OS/2 a "launch point" for Windows (either DOS-based or NT).
You and history disagree on this point - I have only (sadly) wikipedia at this point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2
Initially, the companies agreed that IBM would take over maintenance of OS/2 1.0 and development of OS/2 2.0, while Microsoft would continue development of OS/2 3.0. In the end, Microsoft decided to recast NT OS/2 3.0 as Windows NT, leaving all future OS/2 development to IBM.
Unless by launch point I mean - renamed a rev of OS/2 to WinNT.
As for OS/2 Warp not being a complete re-write, your objection to my language use may be correct - the re-write was complete and features such as true preemptive multi-tasking appeared in Warp. So, my comment stands - the hallmark of the completed re-write corresponded to the name change. BTW, the multi-tasking improvement in Win95, released LATER, didn't measure up. If you found Warp and 95 to be a toss-up, then YMMV. If you're comparing pre-Warp to Win95, you're unfair.
Original OS/2 was as much IBM as MS is true if and only if you weigh setting requirements as equal to code production.
In any case, you might enjoy this walk down memory lane - I did. http://www.archive.org/details/CC518_multitasking
I was flat wrong in my timeline on one thing - and as you say, it's important - OS/2 joint development was announced in 1987, and by 1988, the date of the above Computer Chronicles broadcast, OS/2 Presentation Manager, Windows 386 - Windows 2 - were all already in existence. Windows 1.0 was released in 1985. It was not a full OS by any means, and I am not splitting hairs or re-hashing the DOS/Win95 controversy. Windows 2 was Win1 with memory management.
Win3 did not appear until 1990. I would contend that that was an OS in its own right. OS/2 was already out by then.
So, I was not saying and did not say that MS didn't start any Windows anything until their engagement with IBM, but I worded what I said so poorly that I'll bow to the hits and criticisms.
My overall chronology and points against illegal and predatory activities stand as amended with rev numbers. As a footnote - http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Business-general/Microsoft-hampered-OS-2-IBM-official-tells-court-curbs-on-software-develvopers-are-faulted.html
The part about bundling browsers being ok and the EU about not allowing bundling of media players.
These guys have opened all sorts of cans of worms for us. We can holler about software patents, but the major players do not play fair on cross-use or cross-licensing of their products. We suffer.
I'm glad that Apple won't sell OS X separately - I predict they'd become an instant MS in terms of predatory practices. The Apple QT package takes care of Mac users, but seems to bone MS users in the installation.
And frankly, little in the way of legal decisions coming out of the EU are making any sense - I agree with you 100%.
You bring up interesting history not strictly related to the antitrust suit - but still terribly interesting.
All of the Apple / Microsoft dealings were so inbred in those days! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft
In 1997, five years after the lawsuit was decided, all lingering infringement questions against Microsoft regarding the Lisa and Macintosh GUI as well as Apple's "QuickTime piracy" lawsuit against Microsoft were settled in direct negotiations. Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer their default browser, to the detriment of Netscape. Microsoft agreed to continue developing their Office and other software for the Mac for the next five years. Microsoft also purchased $150 million of non-voting Apple stock, helping Apple in its financial struggles at the time. Both parties entered into a patent cross-licensing agreement.
But I think you're right, I recall there being more to this than the wikipedia entry allows. At some point, the MS Mac Business Unit (MBU) stopped providing updates for IE on OS X, and I recall the MS web talking about it in relation to Office. Next surprise, an upgrade came along and then IE stopped working in OS X altogether and Microsoft continued to significantly upgrade Office for the Mac.
The irony of that is that MS lost $560million in an infringement lawsuit for parts of IE - http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/08/12.4.shtml
And just in an attempt to keep a balanced view - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation
Yes I realize that my links are from 2002 - the andecent - for a reason.
Again - Microsoft agreed to an extension...... What do you think happened?
DOJ: Uh, Microsoft, can we please do our thing?
Microsoft: Oh.... OK, because I like you, you big, whacky DOJ, you! Now get over here and give me some sugar!
Or:
1. Microsoft is compelled by court....
2. Microsoft complies
3. Shills in the press say the new word for comply is agree
You're right - sorry. More ignorance than revisionist on Netscape.
As for Mosaic - I have a book somewhere with a disk included of its source code and makefiles - that was all available for free download. Did the appropriate mods myself, compiled it on my DEC ULTRIX machine, and later did same on my ISP's *nix machine in their /tmp area (can't recall the *nix). Found source for a server in Europe somewhere, DL'd that, ditto build on ULTRIX.
Downloading browser and server sources wasn't hard - I might have used ftp, but I might have even used gopher for all I remember. :)
I used Opera as ad-supported.
Even by then, my browser at choice at work was lynx - who had time and bandwidth?
http://www.earlyofficemuseum.com/copy_machines.htm
Scroll down to the Polygraphs paragraph.
I swear I saw in a very old movie the original-idea polygraph on a machine separated over a phone line. Cannot find a reference to it anywhere.
I love /. for what I learn while looking for other things - originally, a polygraph was a machine to copy signatures.
Props to the LongPen for its tech - but I think we have a history-recording gap between it and the polygraph.
Maybe you're right about me, but I don't think so. You're incorrect about the driving force to use Microsoft (kindly see Daengbo's and my follow-on comments, above).
I was trying to give the GP the benefit of the doubt - so I used PC as a generic term, and asked myself which PC-type machine was actually designed by IBM in those days rather than simply integrated - and as I recall, that was the PS/2. In those days, the only thing "protectable" or proprietary, really, about the IBM-PC was its BIOS - hence the ease of COMPAQ, Zenith and others developing the clone market. The PS/2 changed all of that for IBM - it used the proprietary microchannel architecture - http://www.cedmagic.com/history/ibm-ps2-1987.html
And as it turned out, they did end up having to develop the OS for the machine they ended up having to develop - the PS/2.
The IBM-PC wasn't related to typical IBM monopolistic actions - not everyone at IBM was evil and the Boca Raton crew was pretty ok - they were market-driven.
However, after success of the IBM-PC, IBM decided to get up to their old tricks with complete lock-out - hence, the PS/2, hence my response.
~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm sorry to sound like a big know-it-all - I'm really not. I am however an old fart (of the stay-and-play-on-lawn, that's-what-it's-there-for variety) whose memory hasn't given out (completely). I started writing code in 1972, and was rooting like hell for the DOJ in their anti-IBM actions back in the day. Pre-internet, best source of info for that was Datamation magazine. I've followed PC developments very closely since the Altair days - so I had no illusions about the history of the PC or how it came to be that IBM used Microsoft for the PC's OS. The PC was a thing of great wonder for the popular press of the day, but not for the focused press in that day or the many small-architecture computing newsletters that used to circulate about.
I am common of my age and group and was confused that there could be a question that IBM was driven to Microsoft by DOJ actions, which began in the 1960s and dragged on until 1983 - and accomplished nothing.
Use of outside software vendors applied to the sales force - not development - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_IBM
PC-DOS was licensed and vended by IBM - as the OS, it didn't fall under the antitrust rule-of-three. The first competing OS for the original 5150 was DR's CP/M-86 and later, MS-DOS, if memory doesn't fail me.
IBM's outsourcing, BIOS development for the 5150 and expectations for the Microsoft relationship to succeed were directed at extending their monopolistic practices. If things had gone their way, they'd have simply bought Microsoft - or so many of us feared at the time.
IBM had the political and legal juice to drag out the DOJ for decades - they had no fear and were thus not fear driven.
Well - that's my long-winded opinion.
You are correct - moreso, as basically, the entire 5150 was outsourced - see http://www.tmworld.com/article/CA187350.html
I think that they got the keyboard wrong - I recall that IBM bought out the company that came up with those beasts, as it was going nowhere with that monster.
The dig was a reply to the remark about ftp being hard to use. No soup for you! ;)
Never used 98, explains my error. Totally agree about twm, btw.
Sorry - the flames come out of my ears on this subject, they weren't intended towards you personally.
You're right, kindly allow me to amplify. That Apple and others weren't capturing the market's heart at the time, giving Microsoft an effective monopoly was not Microsoft's problem - in both meanings of the phrase.
That they used that power to price-control others, was illegal.
It wasn't Apple that brought the suit. Apple was sitting back, and schizophrenically laughing at Microsoft while thanking their lucky stars that they were dodging that bullet while wishing that they had as much money so they could take that bullet, too. (OK, that last part I just made up for the hell of it.)
If IBM had not been subject to antitrust rulings, would it have developed its own OS for the PC?
You know, they might have. They might have even started by contracting Microsoft to write it for them. They might have even developed a special PC and collaboratively called the operating system OS2. They might have even discovered that Microsoft burned them with an excruciating POS. They might have watched in horror while Microsoft used OS2 as a launch point for an OS that had none of OS2's bugs. And they have gone berserk when Microsoft called their new product Windows.
And they might have decided to completely re-write the operating system on their own. And they might have succeeded. And they might have called it OS2 Warp. And they might have gotten lots of press FUD while their OS completely blew Windows 95 out of the water.
We only know that IBM was the target of an antitrust action and that they developed a great (in its day) PC OS. We don't know if they wouldn't have were it not for the antitrust action.
But they were on board with the idea of moving away from the command line - Apple's sales in those days were nothing to sneeze at. And we know that in those days, IBM was feeling the sting of being victimized by their own greed in the MS contract that allowed MS-DOS to support clones when they'd thought that had the market sewn up with PC-DOS and their machines.
So, they tried it again with the PS2/OS2 lock in. The PS2 gave us some great tech for its day. But the combo, frankly, sucked. OS2 Warp was fab - ran on clones - but you only get to screw the market so much before it moves on.
The market believed that it was IBM alone screwing them, Microsoft slipped in under the radar. Remember, in those days, Microsoft was quite the darling of the CP/M and Apple (pre-Mac and early Mac) communities. Apple and CP/M good, IBM bad. Looked like Microsoft would save us with MS-DOS.
See where that got us.
So the answer to your question seems to be what we all already know - antitrust rulings don't stifle technology, monopolies do.
(PS - Nothing personal about the sarcasm - I just get that way on this subject in general.)
From TFA:
At that time, however, she left the door open to continued monitoring, and Microsoft agreed that she could extend it for up to three more years, to Nov. 12, 2012.
and
Although Microsoft has consented to the extension -- and acknowledged that the regulators can later ask for another 18 months -- Kollar-Kotelly must approve the request.
Microsoft agreed and Microsoft consented - my ass.
Good summary alert! This link is in the summary, kids - http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/01/2034207&tid=123
And I found this post - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=43989&cid=4582608 - by VivianC, who read and quoted the full text of the AP and news.com relevant articles:
She also eliminated a technical committee that would have enforced the settlement terms. In its place, a corporate committee - consisting of board members who aren't Microsoft employees - will make sure the company lives up to the deal. The judge also gave herself more oversight authority.
Kollar-Kotelly also modified the oversight of Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. Originally, the proposal included a technical committee and an internal compliance officer, both potentially influenced by Microsoft. In Friday's ruling, the judge combined the two into a compliance committee made up of Microsoft board members. In turn, the committee must hire a compliance officer, to report to the committee and to Microsoft's CEO. As corporate officers and non-Microsoft employees, the compliance committee in theory would be more likely to appropriately enforce the settlement in this era of renewed corporate responsibility.
How could the language in the computerworld.com article shill any harder? Answer - not much - not much at all.
No, I think that you're dead wrong on your history.
As I recall, I was downloading Netscape and other browsers for free at the time of the lawsuit - the issues were that Microsoft was either not allowing vendors such as HP and Dell to distribute Windows with non-IE browsers (loss of contract) or requiring a contract change that was basically punitive in the extreme.
MS then came out with the Active Desktop, showing that IE was just absolutely, completely technically required for the latest OS release - I recall dimly that it was Win2k.
And that's when the shit hit the fan, as far as the plaintiffs and the court was concerned.
I get that this is /. and there's no need to RTFA, but how about the other reference? http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/01/2034207&tid=123
This wasn't about browsers, it was about an illegal monopoly.
And, on a side note - you have got to be kidding me about ftp downloading, even back in the day. Seriously.
Surely America can aspire to build something world class rather than average.
Hi - you must be new here.
True. I further congratulate you in advance for being the only person I've met who got or may have gotten exactly what was wrong with the rave literary reviews for Forest Gump - and if you read it and saw the movie, why the movie was superior in all of the ways that the book sucked donkey balls.
Tien - I point out the event where Rousseau was overwhelmed with Voltaire, and frustrated by him, that he sent ruffians to beat him senseless in a dark alley, admonishing them to not do too much damage to Voltaire's head, as some good may yet come from it.
And Rousseau did endlessly parrot the best of all possible worlds meme. Perhaps my classical education was erroneous, but I was taught that it was Rousseau's clever and beautiful defense of the best outcome of the Lisbon earthquake that finally drove Voltaire over the edge.
Given those things and given that Leibniz would have been the better programmer, and given the many hundreds of thousands of lines of FORTRAN II and IV code I've seen - I still contend that the FORTRAN / FORTRAN IV programmer of prolific note is that monkey-see, monkey-do philosopher, Rousseau. Perhaps Leibniz did write a few dozen decent lines of it for him to proliferate...
Wtf is this guy smoking? ML had a provably sound parametric type system in the late 1970s!
Odd that you don't find it obvious - he's smoking a little thing called youth. From what little I remember, it was pretty good shit!
All FORTRANs up to and including FORTRAN IV WATFIV were concordant with their best-known programmer, Rousseau - it was, after all, the best of all possible worlds.
Voltaire pointed out the mind-numbing ridiculousness of that idea, salvaged what was the real essence, and formulated a framework of thought that influenced all others. His philosophy was direct, compact and completely elegant. Naturally, Voltaire is best read not in translated English, but in its original FORTRAN 77 form.
Your sarcasm is sublime.
Microsoft point out that buying a PC with Windows is cheaper than buying a Mac
I think the idea is supposed to be that a PC with Windows is cheaper than buying a Mac, provided that each system has exactly the same hardware features and hardware quality.
If that's how you read that, I can only claim that over the past few years I've seen many, many cogent posts on /. supporting both sides of the issue.
My point is only this: whether one or the other is cheaper, or not and they're both the same - so what? I contend that it's a common phrase, "I want the best computer for the money" but that if we dig deeper, we find the phrase has no meaning. Lots of emotion, emotion is a component of some purchases, but again - no meaning.
This statement DOES have meaning: "I want the best computer for my personal needs and I want it to be within my budget."
The two statements are not identical. When I buy a Windows PC, I do not compare after the fact (or during the purchase) to an Apple price - it's a waste of time. During the purchase event, Apple is not on the radar, it doesn't fit my needs for that purchase. When I buy a Mac, I similarly do not look at PC prices, for exactly the same reason.
The statement about PC vs. Mac price advantage is successfully masquerading as some sort of relevant fact. It is not.
It is a VERY relevant emotional tool to push the buyer into an action he was going to take anyway - buy a PC. It is no different that Apple pushing the relevant emotional tool of cool to push the buyer into an action he was going to take anyway - buy a Mac.
I don't begrudge Apple their coolness sales tool, neither do I begrudge Microsoft their pricing sales tool. I simply and very vehemently object to either masquerading as a relevant fact when they are both nothing more that Madison Avenue, emotional slickery.
I will grant that many people buy on emotion and then use some "fact" to hide it. I wish everyone bought sensibly, like me - get the right tool for the job and get a dog to love and be loved instead of getting emotional satisfaction from a toaster (my name for all computers, pre-BSG). Why do I want this? So Apple wins? Because it proves something? Because it's just righteous? Because I'm smarter or more correct?
No.
I want this so my idiot friends will stop wasting my valuable time whenever then need to buy a toaster. I am sick of being asked if I'm ok if they buy a PC and is it as good as a Mac because they last saw me using a Mac. I am sick of being asked if they are being idiots for considering a Mac because they last saw me using a PC. I am sick of being argued with by them, which they will do no matter whether I give them advice or not. I want that to all go away. I do not believe that I am alone in this utopian dream.
I am sick of everyone's marketing because it is hiding a simple fact - no one sells a computer to the masses by filling out a simple configuration form - Do you edit documents? Do you play games? Do you do digital photography? Etc? And then spits out the "We STRONGLY recommend this computer at this price for your configured needs." No one does that. And - the storefront retailers used to do that - back in the day!!!!
Now, both sides make the user select kB, MB, GB, RAM, HD, etc, etc, and BOTH sides congratulate the victim for being so smart and also cool for being so smart.
I don't care who is claiming to be emperor - he has no clothes.
I'm not saying we aren't.
Your point is well made and taken. That being said....
But if Microsoft want to point out they are lower cost that competitors, what's wrong with that?
It's not even wrong.
I cannot buy a Microsoft computer, not mini, not laptop, not desktop. I cannot buy an Apple OS and install it on a third party computer (true if I constrain myself to the EULA).
If it is true that Linux is a Microsoft Windows competitor, Microsoft could never point out that they are lower cost. We can lament that Linux prepackaged on a Dell is more expensive than Windows prepackaged on a Dell - but that's not what I said. I can download Linux for free - I cannot do the same for Windows.
I can buy Microsoft Office for Windows or OS X. I can get Open Office for free.
So again - the quoted statement is not even wrong.
And although I think that my nit picking is valid, it is not a rebuttal, nor should it be.
Here is my rebuttal: if the issue is about what platform is best, as you say, then price has little - if anything - to do with it.
The decision over which platform is best is not subjective - it is however personal. I (that's the rhetorical as well as the literal "I") have my personal criteria based upon my personal needs that leads to my personal choice of the platform best for me - not a range of bests, not a choice of bests - a best.
The best platform for me (you) will self-define its own cost - the cost components will be hardware, software and my (your) time.
Once I (you) have made that assessment, the only decisions left are: 1) is it within my budget? and 2) if so, shall I purchase it?
If those criteria are met, I (you) make the purchase. If not, I (you) seek price-driven alternatives to the (personal) best.
All that marketing and peer pressure can do is to influence my awareness of choices when selecting my (your) personal best.
Sometimes, my personal best has been a system based on OS2 Warp. Sometimes, DOS. Sometimes, CP/M. Sometimes, AppleDOS. Sometimes, Windows. Sometimes, OS X. Sometimes, DESQviewX. Sometimes, BSD. Sometimes, HP-UX. Sometimes, Linux. Sometimes, FreeBSD. I have purchased all of the above in my time.
My decision for best has never been - and could never be - influenced by cost. But when I've had to choose next-best due to budget, then and only then has cost been the factor.
I submit that I have just proven the senselessness of pretending to be able to establish that any system is best, per se - in direct refutation of your point.
(And for the last time - this is way NOT directed at you, mdwh2 - could we PLEASE dispense with the "OS X users are lame because they are stupidly buying image" comments? That image-stupidity exists is a known constant, and no one vendor has cornered that market - and never will.)
I'm not going to flame you, but I am telling you that you're wrong by virtue of being only partially correct and that this has led to a misclassification on your part.
Humans work in their own self-interest. Unenlightened self-interest decisions very nearly always display as selfishness. Enlightened self-interest decisions nearly always display as win-win negotiations.
It's not the selfishness you want to attack. To do so is futile and always a bummer - I have found zero successes when trying. It's the lack of enlightenment that you want to attack - I have found greater than zero successes when trying.
IOW, selfishness cannot be cured because it is the aggregate of an enlightenment level and an innate inner drive for protection or attainment of self interests - the innate inner drive cannot go away, so selfishness cannot be cured. However, changing an enlightenment level is possible, and if effective, changes the aggregate away from selfishness.
There is a momentum term to enlightenment - positive and negative. I grant without reservation that you would be or you are fighting a large momentum for unenlightenment, both societal and individual. It's huge. It's depressingly, mind-numbingly huge. You're never a coward for giving up on some days or with some people - but you're never an idiot for trying to fix it.
Some people can never seem to learn the advantage of choosing long-term benefits over short-term gratification. But I can guarantee that they cannot learn if approached as selfish, and I suggest that they may be able to learn if approached otherwise.
The thing is, no decision is made in a vacuum.
Two things are immediately obviously - you've never met my wife, nor have you worked at some of the places that I have.