Re: Hey Everyone: Here's how Gates REALLY beat Lotus

["Charles Kelly, NT*Pro" <ckelly@cpcug.org>]

  Hey Jeffrey--
  
  You are certainly entitled to your viewpoint. I would not presuppose any
  differently. However, I am glad that you are in the biz and not a historian. 
  
  I'd be interested if indeed any one can factually confirm your account. Not
  with an unsupported anecdote, as you did, but with hard facts. 
  
  Its no secret that Microsoft wanted OS/2PM to be its operating system of
  the future. Their split with IBM was over the future direction and
  ownership of OS/2PM. When they walked away they had to start Windows NT
  from scratch placing them way behind in the eventual OS/2 vs. Windows NT
  battle in the marketplace.
  
  How would you postulate that NT defeated OS/2 in the marketplace? How did
  they cheat to defeat a technically superior product? (OS/2 being a superior
  product, then and now, as I said in my original post).
  
  Charles
  
  At 02:51 PM 11/4/97 -0500, Jeffrey Fox wrote:
  >
  >
  >In response to Charles Kelly's remarks below...Microsoft did NOT beat Lotus,
  >WordPerfect, Borland, Etc. through superior products or stamina. In 1988,
  >this misled all developers including those companies into believing MS was
  >supporting IBM's new operating system, then known as OS/2-Presentation
  Manager.
  >I personally saw Bill Gates speak at a NYC school in '88, at which meeting
  >he promoted the value of the new OS.
  >
  >After they suckered their competitors into developing products for OS/2, MS
  >split with IBM and developed their own, Windows 3.0. In 1990, when Windows
  3.0
  >was forced upon all hardware manufacturers as a condition of bundling MS-DOS
  >(sound familiar, Netscape?), there was only one serious Windows word
  >processer and one serious spreadsheet: MS Word and Ms Excel. You couldn't
  >buy 1-2-3, WordPerfect, or DBASe for Windows.
  >
  >It was years before Lotus and WordPerfect were able to redirect their R&D,
  >during which time Microsoft captured the market share they
  >had never been able to capture in *FAIR* competition under MS-DOS. Only when
  >they tricked their competitiors, and double-crossed their
  >partner IBM, and threatened their hardware pals were they able to get the
  >market share.
  >
  >Yes, Mr. Kelly, that's the sad truth. I was in the software indsutry back
  >then and I know. (My company was called Fox & Geller).
  >Perhaps others who remember that period will confirm my account.
  >
  >The following account by Mr. Kelly is pure BS:
  >>
  >>Microsoft has faced stiff competition in every niche of the computer
  >industry. The list is long -- OS/2 was/is technically superior to
  >Windows/Windows NT, WordPerfect was vastly superior to Word, Lotus 1-2-3 was
  >vastly superior to Excel, dBase was huge before Access was even conceived,
  >and on and on...