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

[Tod Landis <landis@cruzio.com>]

  Making this a "tough rap to prove".  I agree.  It is hard
  to prove.
  
  Ok, I can add a little to this.  I attended a conference
  jointly sponsored by Microsoft and Aldus in Seattle.  At
  that conference I recall a Microsoft spokesman, was his
  name Gabe Newell?, saying that although it looked like
  OS2 was the way to go, the action was going to be in
  Windows.  Can't recall his exact words.  Paul Brainerd
  and other (younger) Aldus guys spoke at the same thing...
  maybe they'll remember more.
  
  Another hint:  Main conference themes were Windows 386 and
  the work the Aldus guys did on the Windows drivers,
  I think.
  
  Jeffery, I think I remember meeting you at one of these things.
  That one or a Future Computing Seminar on graphics  where
  Kevin Jenkins spoke?
  
  Tod Landis
  
  
  Charles Kelly, NT*Pro wrote:
  
  > 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...
  >
  > .-