Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?

Writing an OS in assembly language is not necessarily a bad decision. OS code quality is a function of the people you hire to write the code and the way you manage the project, not the programming language you choose. Assembly language has the advantage of being extremely tight and fast; but it's not very portable.

OS/2 died for reasons independent of being written in any particular language, as you explain elsewhere.

-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ask the Navy. If you do not know what time it is you do not know where you are. So, does anybody really know where they are?

My boss does :-(

and pretty ladies

Actually it was the other way around. As IBM black mailed into writing OS/2. And IBM's master plan was to get everyone off of MS-DOS and on to OS/2. Then IBM would have OS/2 changed to run on only true IBM PCs. Thus killing off the clone market and MS as well. This was all documented and shown on PBS.

______________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)

-- written and edited within Word 2000

Supposedly better in design, but OS/2 sucked in real life for many of us! As only one OS/2 Win session had sound while the others was soundless. And a good number of Windows applications would routinely crashed under OS/2, but stable as a rock under Windows 3.1. Then the OS/2 GUI was unstable for at least a couple of years and crashed the whole system. Then the FixPaks often caused more problems than they fixed. IBM programmers are morons!

______________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)

-- written and edited within Word 2000

You mean hardly useful! And IBM dropped support a few months before they were saying they would never drop OS/2 support. IBM has never done anything except lie to me over and over again.

I did a search through OS/2 files for the Microsoft copyright in Warp a few years ago. And Warp was littered everywhere with Microsoft's code throughout OS/2.

______________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)

-- written and edited within Word 2000

Am I the only guy that was working with this crap back then? IBM contracted with M$ to write OS/2 for them in like 1987. M$ drug their feet on the release, while spending IBM's money, so that they could get Win 3.0 out before OS/2, by saying that OS/2 just wasn't stable enough for release yet. Yeah, no conflict of interest their. Finally IBM got fed up and took the project away from M$. There are very many suspicious similarities in "bugs" within the graphics system calls of Win 3.0 and OS/2.

IBM sounds a lot like Apple.

-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Nobody I've seen yet thanked you for recommending this fine program. Well I for one am very grateful! Although I usually set my computers clocks about 5 to 10 times per year because they were off about a minute. But now this is one task I don't have to worry about anymore.

______________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)

-- written and edited within Word 2000

Interesting interview with Bill Gates on the whole OS/2 debacle in PC Magazine, Nov 8, 2005 page 122-123.

Best regards.

Bob Masta dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom D A Q A R T A Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis

What I find most interesting is that November 8 is still over a week in the future.

-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Nope!

It might have been in '86 actually. And MS had been working on Windows since about '84. Although MS couldn't give the development time it deserved because those MS programmers were mostly working on OS/2. MS lost 3 years in Windows development because of OS/2.

IBM only paid MS for the lines of code MS produced. IBM didn't care if MS spent more time to make the code lean, mean and faster. As IBM would pay you less if you did so. IBM was cutting their own throats. IBM is full of a much of morons. Impossible to work with and to get paid fairly for. Hell I would work slowly and drag my feet as well for those morons.

Yeah, IBM got fed up alright! As Microsoft didn't want to be a slave to IBM (who always makes slaves or crushes anybody that gets in their way up to this point in time). And IBM wanted MS to create OS/2 which would be made to run on only true IBM PCs after they have the world hooked on OS/2.

Yeah that is a great plan for us, NOT! Bill Gates had taken the biggest risk in his career. As nobody ever bucked IBM and had survived. Although he did it! And thank goodness he did! As we all would be using real IBM machines and OS/2 by now.

Sure IBM was ticked that Bill Gates wasn't going to play along. So they parted ways. And IBM wouldn't sell any IBM computer with Windows installed for a short time. Until IBM realized that they couldn't sell IBM computers with either crappy PC-DOS or OS/2 on them. As people wanted Windows instead, plain and simple.

The same MS programmers wrote both OS/2 and Windows 3.0. So why should this be a surprise?

______________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)

-- written and edited within Word 2000

I suppose that's one way to look at the time that M$ spent sucking money from IBM and using it for their own gains.

would

I think IBM had visions of stability that M$ will never attain, ever.

fairly

morons.

Yeah, morons. They only own the mainframe market even though Honeywell made better hardware. IBM's only moronic move was to allow M$ to screw them for a second time. The first time being with MSDOS/IBMDOS games.

to

Too bad that isn't true since they would have done the world a great favor by crushing M$.

would

on

biggest

Although

IBM

Actually, if Gates wasn't so good at being greedy, we'd all be using something that actually worked. OS/2 was crap too. Too bad Xerox didn't have sense enough to stay in the game, they had the best product for the office in 1980. Apple didn't have anything that could come close for around 10 years. It took M$ almost another 5 years on top of that to catch up.

they

The only reason being that M$ delayed OS/2 was so that Win 3.0 could get the jump on it. If OS/2 would have shipped on time, it would have possibly eliminated windows.

It's not a surprise to me. I think it just goes to show that M$ had no qualms about directly lifting the code that they originally wrote for IBM using IBM's money and, AFAICT, IBM's design goals. I'm not saying that was illegal back then, but it certainly wouldn't happen in today's IP obsessed world without bringing about major court battles.

Here was a true visionary:

You obviously really like M$ so there probably isn't much point in continuing this until it becomes a real pissing contest. I run windos on some machines because I basically have to. When I need something that really works, I use Linux. :-)

excuse me, if memory serves IBM had MS write the first OS which i think was for the 286 and thought that it would be alive for a long time. then when 386 hit they tried to get MS to rewrite it for them and thus ms quoted such a high price just to get them to go away thus leading the way for MS to where they are now. mean while IBM then took over the development to carry it on with their own programmers. that is the way i remember it.

Hmm, D4 is an acronym for the once famous "Delphi 4", now since never versions exist they are in the order of D5,D6,D7 and now in the D2005 and soon D2006. maybe changing the name of the utility mite help.

IBM paid Microsoft by the K-line. Which means by the lines of code they produced. IBM got the lines and MS got paid. Anytime MS didn't produce code for OS/2, MS didn't get paid. So how could MS get paid for their own gains by IBM? That's impossible.

Who screwed whom again? IBM only paid MS $80,000 for everything (including DOS, Basic, etc.). And IBM paid no royalties to Microsoft no matter how many copies IBM sold.

Actually Bill Gates did the world a favor by saving all of us from IBM. As nobody else was willing to do it. Including Gary Kildall.

Gates being greedy? Since IBM only paid Gates $80,000 for millions of copies of DOS, Basic, Fortran, etc. So IBM *only* spent about a nickel for all of the MS software per computer. So if anybody got ripped off, it was Gates.

And since you mentioned Xerox, those foolish Xerox executives gave Steve Jobs all of Xerox's GUI secrets for nothing! That is right, NOTHING! Then Apple has the balls to turn around a sue Microsoft for stealing Apple's GUI, when Apple had stolen it from Xerox in the first place. Yup, Xerox could have had it all and they (bozos in management) didn't even know it.

Yes probably this is true. Although MS still would have gotten third parties to write applications for Windows instead of OS/2. Which did happen anyway. And IBM had the balls to threaten third parties to write applications for OS/2, but wasn't willing to pay them to do so. Well I wouldn't listen to big bully IBM either.

Yes I know all about Gary Kildall! I was a big supporter of his until he killed off CP/M without any warning! Then Gary had become a big creep to me and other developers. Later I learned he often screwed his other customers left and right as well. SCP was one company that he burned badly. Luckily it burned him in his ass, now didn't it?

And talk about being greedy, Gary almost invented the word. As you had to pay him big bucks to make him do anything. And it wouldn't be to your liking, but his. And while Gary Kildall and Bill Gates were playing around with DEC computers. I was working on the VTAS computer which got the US to the moon. So as far as I was concern, both were playing around with kids' stuff at the time.

Now having said the above, I do admit that Gary was nothing less than one great programmer without a doubt. Although everything had to be done his way, or forget it. And that is why Gary did well without any competitors, but failed once someone else was in the OS game.

Funny IBM also does well without competition, but also fails once competition arrives. And oddly enough, Microsoft only gets better when there are competitors. Otherwise they basically just sit on their butt doing nothing.

I actually use Windows because it does work. Linux has way too many lacks and wants to keep me happy. And did you know that Linus Torvalds also uses Windows? Yup he said so right in his own book.

______________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)

-- written and edited within Word 2000

Yes. Did you feel I would disagree with your memory?

______________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)

-- written and edited within Word 2000

design

applications

are

on

they

No, it's not impossible. M$ got paid by IBM to write code for IBM. They also were able to use much of the same exact code in Windows.

so

care

ever.

no

As far as I can remember, I've never heard that before so I need to see a link to back that statement up. M$ had to pay $50,000 to Seattle Computers just to buy the thing that they turned into DOS 1.0. How could they have possibly done the whole job for $80,000 with no royalty income? I'm sorry, I just can't buy that without some kind of proof.

IBM.

IMO Kildall was 100 times the human being that B.G. could ever hope to be. That's taking into consideration B.G.'s charity work.

world

Like I said, I'll have to see something backing that up. M$ got plenty for each and every copy of MS-DOS they FORCED onto OEMs.

Steve

They certainly had the right to intervene on the Apple vs. M$ battle for "look and feel".

Right, nothing like ludicrous binding legal agreements to crush free trade and capitalism.

Who's the greedy bully now?

he

to

And I thought DOS killed it with the "here have DOS free with your PC, or send us money and we will send you CPM". Well that, 8" diskette drive issue and the fact that CPM was limited to using 64K of RAM. I could be wrong though.

Given that you feel that way about the insignificant "damage" that Kildall did, how can you be so bubbly when talking about M$ and their "success"?

your

So what? He was good and he knew it. Are you saying that his efforts weren't worth big bucks?

got

around

I didn't start getting paid for tinkering with computers until 1980. Before then it was me and my COSMAC ELF and whatever else I could get my hands on. When the PC came along, I was already into mainframes so I really didn't pay the PC any mind until pretty much the end of the 80's. Once I had a mainframe to control, I could hardly treat any micro seriously.

BTW, I searched Google for VTAS computer and it seems that you are the only person in the USENET archive that ever mentioned it. I also can't find any links on the web either.

done

That's the problem with genius, it usually doesn't come with greed and "good business sense" attached.

They seemed to do ok against Burroughs, Honeywell and the rest.

windos