Sure. But its more believable that IBM played the more significant role, not Microsoft.
It's funny you say this as I just read this article by one of the chief Windows developers:
Instead, I decided to talk about something that people could not read about in my book. This was a subject that interested me at the time, which was how Microsoft first developed Windows, and how Microsoft and IBM then got involved in the development of OS/2, how Microsoft had convinced IBM to go graphical in the windowing environment, and how IBM decided they wanted to develop an entirely new API, and then how the success of Windows led to the eventual split between Microsoft and IBM.
Hmmmmm....
So what if IBM wanted a new API for OS/2? Windows 1.0 was a program that ran on DOS, its success selling Windows 1.0 does not suggest anything about Microsoft's involvement with OS/2 development. And I'd like to remark, in light of Unix, the kernel and GUI are not related.
Again, and again and again, operating systems are not cheap to develop, IBM had the resources and the people to do it. Microsoft was relatively a new player...its not likely they could have funded the development of a system as advanced as OS/2 or NT by themselves. Based on their track record, it does not seem they were even capable of writing a full blown OS ... they bought QDOS and a license to AT&T UNIX, maybe this doesn't prove they couldn't write a DOS or UNIX, but it seems to act as evidence against them. Seeing as IBM had already written sophisticated and secure mainframe operating systems (many of which still run today, some haven't even rebooted since the '80s and '90s), it seems more likely they would have designed and implemented most of OS/2.
Not to offend, and only as constructive criticism, but you and Warrior are among the most narrow minded people I've ever seen. Not to involve Skywing, but in many years talking with Skywing, an advocate of Microsoft technologies, and an avid Windows developer, not even he behaves or talks like either of you. One difference lay in the fact that he's actually used and developed for other operating systems, including Linux ... when he remarks anything about another OS (particularly Linux), it isn't pure FUD. You simply cannot accept that, at one time, Microsoft was not the greatest computer corporation ever and you especially cannot accept, in spite of many very practical points, that IBM may have largely been responsible for NT. I've remarked again and again that, in the absense of numbers, its possible that Microsoft could have developed OS/2 largely, but in light of these points
- IBM was involved
- IBM was then the #1 and largest computer corporation in the world
- IBM had already written sophisticated and secure mainframe operating systems
- Microsoft was a startup
- Microsoft bought QDOS
- Microsoft purchased AT&T UNIX license
- Microsoft had never actually produced its own OS before
- And the very fact that operating system development is EXPENSIVE...especially something SOPHISTICATED
It's not a favorable possibility...
We keep having this circular discussion, in which I continually give you the same answer each time. Why are the above points so hard to accept? What makes you believe Microsoft was always some sort of world-class sophisticated computer corporation instead of, at one time, a startup with some excellent entrepeneurship? And finally, what do you care if IBM was largely responsible for OS/2 and NT? It shouldn't be hard to suggest that NT was derived from OS/2, considering Windows NT and 2000 both offered OS/2 API, support for HPFS, and many other things reminiscent to OS/2.
In all seriousness, and unrelated to our discussion, perhaps you both should be more open minded to other technologies and aware of their advantages and disadvantages. You both look like absolute fools, synanomous to those old men who only buy Ford because its American, or whatever...
And what now? Are we going to play quote wars?
