home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18 / NN_1992_18.iso / spool / comp / os / mswindo / apps / 2007 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1992-08-16  |  1.1 KB  |  26 lines
  1. Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!torn!maccs!riehm
  3. From: riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm)
  4. Subject: Re: WP for Windows or Word?
  5. Message-ID: <1992Aug16.145125.29512@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
  6. Organization: McMaster University, Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
  7. References: <36889@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> <1992Aug16.054233.13324@sequent.com> <1992Aug16.064156.6313@news.nd.edu>
  8. Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 14:51:25 GMT
  9. Lines: 15
  10.  
  11. In article <1992Aug16.064156.6313@news.nd.edu> rwilliam@mozart.helios.nd.edu (richard williams) writes:
  12. ......
  13.  
  14. >I think WP underestimated the impact of WIndows and fell behind, but given
  15. >their past history I suspect they'll make a strong comeback.
  16. >
  17. They sure did, and they did precisely because MicroSoft told them (and a lot
  18. of other developers) that OS/2 was the way  to go.  They were well along in their
  19. development of the OS/2 version when MS saw the $$ that Windows represented,
  20. and (surprise) came up at the same time with a well-developed Word for
  21. Windows.  Was Wordperfect po'ed?  You bet they were!  
  22.  
  23.  
  24. Given their past record, I agree that they will make a strong comeback.
  25.  
  26.