DOS was, when we first wrote it, a one-time throw-away product
intended to keep IBM happy so that they'd buy our languages.
When Microsoft first wrote DOS?!? Ho ho ho, chuckle, chuckle, snort!
I think it is implicitly including consulting work and products they bought from their partners (i.e. Seattle Computer Products).
It is not uncommon in the industry. It has been practiced by Apple, Google and also including IBM.
Your entire post is filled with this kind of "revisionism". We can't
trust a word you say. Besides, who cares what you think about marketing
I think it was quite a good and well balanced post.
(Rather unusual for *.advocacy groups I would say.)
and strategy? Give us some *technical* reasons why we should go with
Microsoft's products instead of OS/2. You are a technical expert,
aren't you? Why didn't you fill your post with arguments about the
technical superiority of Microsoft's products?
I agree with Gordon Letwin here. As long a we live in a market economy, the success in the market (i.e. adoption by users) of a product is vital for it long term success.
This is especially important for software ecosystems we talk about here.
Oh, yeah. I remember. You *can't*.
--
Microsoft: "Where do you want to go today? Wait for us, we're the leader!"
I do not agree. I actually would guess that he actually very well could make some good argumentations for "OS/2 3/NT"(i.e. Win NT).
But it was not the focus of his post in this case. It was the market reality and long term prospect for OS/2 (or lack thereof).