🚀 go-pugleaf

In <42ddau$4...@stratus.skypoint.net>, syd...@skypoint.com (Scott Butler) writes:
>
>Hoop (ho...@magicnet.net) wrote:
>
>: I agree that OS2 is dead but I don't beleive that it's death came from 
>: any fault of IBM or an inferior product. It simply resulted from market 
>: share(or lack thereof) which resulted from anti competitive practices on 
>: the part of MS.
>
>This is a hilariously stupid statement. It's *ALL* IBM's fault that OS/2 
>is dead. Are you kidding? VOLUMES have been written about how badly IBM 
>has botched things up. I mean, Win95 is *how* late? And IBM utterly 
>FAILED to take advantage of that window of opportunity, that FREEBIE, 
>that Microsoft left for them. They totally screwed the pooch, from a 
>marketing standpoint.
>
>Scott

Point to me all these VOLUMES on how IBM screwed up. So IBM's is not
a marketing juggernaut like Microsoft. But inferior marketing does not equal
an inferior product.  I bought OS/2 because I got sick of waiting for Microsoft
to put out what was first CHICAGO and after many many many delays
turned into Win95, and finally released before it became Win96. So from my
POV they did take advantage of their opportunity. And if Win 95 wasnt delayed 
until long after OS/2 Warp, i doubt there'd be this discussion in the first place

 Steve