1 Jan
2008
1 Jan
'08
7:13 p.m.
> Isn't it amazing how several people who were,
in theory, working together,
> can come up with mutually incompatible versions of events that they all
> witnessed?
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008, madodel wrote:
David Both wrote the original documentation for the
IBM PC on the first PC
off the assembly line. Everyone has their own agenda, but I would think
that Letwin was far more invested in M4FT then Both was in IBM, though
David was from a time when IBM employees were said to bleed blue.
Yes, Letwin was part of the original dozen in 1978
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/images/exec/msft78.jpg
No but I believe a lot of people assume that Microsoft
took all the code
they had been working on and used it as the base for the initial cut of NT.
The Cutler story is a nice diversion to pretend that it was written from
scratch and was as bullet proof as VMS, but seriously considering the
actual results I really doubt it. Considering Microsoft's history of
stealing just about everything they had ever done, why would you think
otherwise in the case of NT?
I don't know how much of it was stolen from OS/2 (which IBM and MS both
had non-exclusive access to), and how much was stolen from DEC.
"Written from scratch"?? NO WAY.
A citation of
Wikipedia [even when correct] adds little credence to any
argument.
Fine with me, site a reference that lists a PDP-11 port of OS/2. MICROS~1
doesn't seem to have EVER cared about confusion over their
product names.
You mean like releasing the first version of NT as Windows NT 3.1
when
there was never a 1.0 or 2.0 or even a 3.0 release? Of course a name can't
make up for it still being beta level code. But then IBM did the same with
its PPC release of OS/2 and the OS/2 1.0 release had some serious issues as
well.