LAN Manager might have hacked something over the top, but OS/2 was fundamentally a single-user OS, no different to DOS or MacOS.
My guess is such companies hope to overcome any competitors by executing well and retaining a first-mover position in the market.
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).
Reuters is reporting that Ireland citizens voted overwhelmingly to legalize same-sex marriages. While it's also legal in 19 other countries, Ireland was the first to decide this by putting the question to the citizens.
"This has really touched a nerve in Ireland," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain said at the main count center in Dublin. "It's a very strong message to every LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) young person in Ireland and every LGBT young person in the world."
Observers say that the loss of moral authority of the Catholic church after a series of sex scandals was a strong contributing factor, with priests limiting their appeals to the people sitting in their pews. In contrast, the Yes side dominated social media.
What I can tell you is that the UK is special in the EU since it is a net contributor.
You are even behind Italy, which is telling.
This makes it easier for the US to control European objectives [...]
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.
The UK would be better to cut ties with the conquered and recognize who are not its friends.
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.
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.