Well, yeah. Isn't this what any company is supposed to try to do?

In Hawaii, the statute of limitations for a lawsuit over a written or oral contract appears to be 6 years. In California, where I'm guessing Luckey resides, it appears to be 4 years for a written contract, and 2 for an oral one. (Source: http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...)

My understanding is that NT had quite a bit of OS/2 in it.

It doesn't. They are completely different architecturally. NT was a 32-bit, multiuser, heavily multithreaded, built-for-SMP, portable, mostly-microkernel OS.

OS/2 was... Not.

Seeing that MS had rights to OS/2 and wanted a new OS in a hurry following the breakdown of their partnership with IBM, it would be suprising if they had not used parts of OS/2.

In a hurry ? It was five years between the start of NT's development ('88) and its first release ('93).

One average contributor.

You are even behind Italy, which is telling.

The most politically and economically aligned with USA country in the EU is UK.

UK even used several times its veto right - in matters it even didn't participate initially at all - because the regulations had threatened USA's business in EU (not even related to UK!).

It might seem different in the UK, but outside the bubble everyone knows that UK is the willing whore of the USA. You have established the fact with many actions over the past decades.

I wonder if UK has any friends at all. USA?

Otherwise, I have started that thread precisely because I think that removing people like you from the EU would make it a better place.

Seriously, the 8088/80286 and their addressing space limitations set back the DOS-based world by years, until Intel finally accepted that people wanted to use individual chunks of memory larger than 64K, and that they wanted to run their old real-mode DOS programs, too.

Intel wasn't the problem. The 386 was released in 1985.

Thanks for the sane perspective.

Though part of the problem is that even if UK decides to leave the EU, it would still have to stay in the common market. It would give up the political power, while still forced - by market - to adhere to most regulations. At least if comments here have any truth to them.

Win 3.0 was absolutely awful. It crashed and needed a reboot about twice an hour.

Rubbish.

It was soon replaced with the improved 3.1.

It was two years between Windows 3.0 and 3.1.

One major reason for the split was that IBM insisted on programming OS/2 in assembler - over Gates' objections - locking them onto the 386 platform.
At least that is the way I remember it.

I think you are remembering IBM's insistence that OS/2 ran on their shiny new "AT", with it's 286 processor when the 386 was already out on the market.

It was already working on the next version of OS/2, but split from IBM's path and re-branded the new product as Windows NT. IBM then started their own separate development path and produced OS/2 2.0.

Minor correction. Microsoft - Dave Cutler's team - were working on the OS that was going to replace OS/2 (OS/2 "New Technology") that was then turned into Windows NT 3.1 and successors after the (surprising) Windows 3.0 success.

IBM took the "old" OS/2 code (that both they and Microsoft had worked on) and tarted it up into OS/2 2.x and successors.

Windows NT and OS/2 have no common ancestor. They are completely different OSes from bottom to top.

Have you actually read past the headline?

Let me translate for you: about 40Bln€ of German tax payer's money didn't have to go into paying the interest on Germany's public debt.

IOW, Germany saved so much of tax payer's money over these years.

This are (in part) my money - not yours. Stop counting my money.

That explains why in the mid '80s to mid 90's IBM was busy in a joint venture with Microsoft first and alone afterwards... to produce a PC system with networking, multi-tasking and file permissions and even 32 bits (OS/2).

OS/2 (at least in that timeframe) was not multiuser. Neither was it 32-bit (IBM insisted it run on their brand-spanking new AT with its 16-bit 286 CPU).

And the Microsoft/IBM "divorce" was around 1990.

With that said I don't agree with GP. I don't think IBM had that much strategy.

The Sun and The Daily Mail I have excused a long time ago. But I have been reading them just for the cheap thrill of batshit crazy tabloid "news". Anyway, occasional overload of "nazi" jokes made sure that I will not read much of them anyway.

But then my "trusty" Financial Times also slowly turned sour. And when FT goes bad... I do not even want to think about it anymore.

You do realize that Germany pays the biggest amount of money into the EU budget?

You do know that Germany gets very very little in return?

Please educate yourself before whining.

And how do you think one make a continent without wars?

...

Imagine what would happen to EU, when all of its members started acting like UK.

That's pretty much the recipe how you start a war. And that is why UK has to go, IMO.

P.S. Beginning of the EU.