Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

You've got it backwards.....IBM wanted to buy the code.........Gates
insisted on the license and the ability to sell to third party PC
manufacturers (he declined a multi-million dollar offer from IBM). IBM as
well tried to keep the PC market propriety but between Intel owning the
chip, Microsoft owning the OS and third parties (Compaq I think) cracking
the hardware they could not. For DOS both IBM and Microsoft had separate
support /development teams (Microsoft's much smaller, leaner and more
effective).

It's a cartel. Intel owns the chips, MS owns the OS, and IBM owns the
hardware and service end. Every time everyone has enough hardware and
chip power to run his screwed up OS, MS comes out with a bigger, more
bloated, slower system. He provides no backwards support and INTEL
sells more chips, IBM gets more royalties and sells more service as
nothing Gates has done has ever worked quite right. It's the same old
**** over and over. Probably why J. Clark is tired of hearing it.

PC DOS was supported by IBM and MSDOS was supported by
Microsoft. Various DOS version releases flip flopped between the teams. IBM
fully expected OS/2 to render DOS obsolete long before its ultimate demise.
Microsoft's Window development was a bit of a sleeper with ver 3 setting the
stage for a WIN95 knockout.......Rod

Win95 was no knockout. It damn near killed Windows. IBM never wanted
anything to do with owning the OS that dominated everyones computers so
when OS2 was about to kill Windows dead as a doornail, IBM pulled the
plug when OS2 was reaching critical mass (million copies a month being
sold.)

OS2 was the only version of windows that actually worked. It was bullet
proof with a windows interface. Not as strong as UNIX but it had the
file system and memory protection required for an OS to work without
constant problems. IBM killed it because it didn't fit in with the
windows garbage plan that has kept the cartel very rich and famous.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com