On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 13:01:59 -0500, Stuart Krivis wrote: >>Chicago was announced in 1993, and it was expected to ship in late 1994. >>It slipped to August 1995. Windows 95 was not meant to compete with Unix. > > If I remember, some of the promised features never showed up either. > The same thing happened with Cairo, and also Longhorn.
Such as? I don't know of any promised feature of Chicago that didn't ship. >>took for OS/2. Windows 3.1 was designed as a gateway from DOS to OS/2, and >>probably would have been successful if IBM had not grown jealous of the >>success of Windows and sabotaged OS/2 at every turn. > > Your interpretation of events is as bizarre as Rex's. Where do you get > this stuff? >From the lead architect of OS/2 in his usenet posting on the subject. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
