[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hey Everyone: Here's how Gates REALLY beat Lotus
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).
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
>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
>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
>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...