🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <adtDDu9z1.EtI@netcom.com>, adt@netcom.com says...
>
>Kazimir Kylheku (c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca) wrote:
>: How could anyone have said such a moronic statement is beyond me ...
>
>Maybe if you thought about it a little longer rather than reflexively 
>flaming based upon your first impression :-) you might have considered 
>the original poster was only talking about Intel x86 CPUs.
>
>: ... IBM
>: had 32-bit computers with 32-bit operating systems when Bill Gates was
>: just learning the three R's in gradeschool.
>
>Perhaps the original poster meant to say "32-bit Intel x86" and was not
>referring to 32-bit code in general. Microsoft MAY have been more
>enthusiastic about 32-bit x86 than IBM. The RUMORs (not proven) were that
>MS wanted OS/2 1.0 to require a 386 and have 32-bit capabilities, but IBM
>said no. IBM didn't want to abandon all the 286 AT users. If this RUMOR
>has some truth in it MS may have had more 32-bit x86 experience when IBM
>finally saw the light. 

I don't believe os/2 1.0 ran on 286s so that probably wasn't the issue.
They wanted to avoid creating a more competent operating system which MIGHT 
compete with their other systems.  IBM is a very large company with many 
product lines whose managers are each required to show a profit.  If one 
manager's line would kill another manager's line and that manager has a veto 
on the development of the killing line, what exactly do you think would 
happen??

Read Big Blues for some very interesting information on the internal structure
of IBM.


>
>Tony
>
>-- 
>------------------
>Tony Tribelli
>adtribelli@acm.org