Article View: comp.os.os2.apps
Article #4289Re: News on 2.1 Release
From: Ned Bedinger
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:19
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:19
19 lines
1496 bytes
1496 bytes
In article <1993Jan26.141806.3252@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>And FINALLY, $50 is NO RIPOFF! WHERE DID YOU AND OTHERS GET THAT IDEA?
>
>Listen, for once: IBM IS NOT GOING TO SEE A PENNY OF THAT MONEY!
>It's all going to MicroSoft, who didn't do a stitch of work for OS/2
>2.1.
>--
Is this a foregone conclusion, then, that 2.1 will cost $$?
The overwhelming impression given during the GA promotional
offer was that IBM had the 3.1 thing in the bag, and it would
be forthcoming as soon as it was tested. Is it not true that
IBM licensed the 3.1 code from MS, and provided 3.0 in the GA
just to get the GA to market while 3.1 frogs were being stomped?
Please, no conjecture or "show me where it says" replies. I
just want to know some facts.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1k8q0sINN4ea@shelley.u.washington.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!ira.uka.de!scsing.switch.ch!univ-lyon1.fr!ghost.dsi.unimi.it!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!hardy.u.washington.edu!qwaReferences:
<1993Jan21.152712.15720@njitgw.njit.edu> <QfML7V200WCZ83LVEX@andrew.cmu.edu> <1993Jan26.141806.3252@njitgw.njit.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!ira.uka.de!scsing.switch.ch!univ-lyon1.fr!ghost.dsi.unimi.it!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!hardy.u.washington.edu!qwa From: qwa@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ned Bedinger) Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps Subject: Re: News on 2.1 Release Date: 28 Jan 1993 14:19:08 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Lines: 20 Message-ID: <1k8q0sINN4ea@shelley.u.washington.edu> References: <1993Jan21.152712.15720@njitgw.njit.edu> <QfML7V200WCZ83LVEX@andrew.cmu.edu> <1993Jan26.141806.3252@njitgw.njit.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu Summary: GA was a WINDOWS 3.1 license?