From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:51:11 GMT

In <1992Oct6.022026.16559@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:


>Wayne Desmond's "Open letter to Gordon Letwin" post reminded me
>of a post I've been intending to make.  Too many people in c.o.o.a
>believe that Microsoft is responsible for the lag of the development
>of DOS, the early failures of OS/2, and also believe that Microsoft
>"abandoned" OS/2.

>Below are excerpts from several books that pertain to the IBM/Microsoft split.

>Robert Cringely's Accidental Empires: Page 287

Cringely is a notorious muckracker and rumor-monger.  Although I'm
inclined to believe the history herein portrayed, it would behoove all
readers to keep this fact in mind, and, when Cringely's story
contradicts the stories of the developers who were there at the time, I
would believe the developers.

>	OS/2 1.0 was designed to run on the 80286 processor. Bill Gates
>	urged IBM to go straight for the 80386 processor as the target

I believe this.  Gates never struck me as stupid (extreme
understatement).  Although I do have doubts about him at times, mostly
based on his continuing support for BASIC.  :-)

[ balance of excerpts elided ]

>When I put the above all together?
>IBM, afraid of competing with it's AS/400 lines, kept stalling the
>move to a 386-based OS.

Ah, but as the bard says, "that was then, this is now."  Now that we
finally have a 386-based OS which meets or exceeds most users
expectations of a DOS descendent, MS has abandoned their former
customers, and or told them to switch to an as-yet-unreleased new 32-bit
GRAPHICAL operating system.  Despite the fact that millions of
developers have no interest in developing graphical applications at all.

IBM has at least started to learn from their mistakes.  I can only hope
that MS will be able to learn from *their* mistakes as well.  I suggest
that anyone who thinks that MS is doing fine, and not making any
mistakes, go back and re-read the open letter to GL.  Many developers
are furious at MS with good reason, and the fact that MS had good
intentions, and better plans than IBM *many years ago* has no bearing on
the situation as it sits today.

IBM is now actively encouraging their departments to compete--this
should put an end to the worries that they will continue to cripple OS/2
so that it won't impact AS/400 sales.  MS, OTOH, seems to be boycotting
OS/2 development in the hopes that they can cripple OS/2 sales, and make
NT a more viable product.  Does this sound familiar?  Does anyone else
see the analogy between this and IBM's actions to protect their AS/400
systems?  Those who do not learn from the past....

>Reading Gates' statements from early 1990 above, I can now see
>why there are so many upset developers.  However if you read
>carefully it is clear that Gates was hedging his bets even then.
>I mean consider the tough spot Microsoft was in.

Oh gosh, what a tough spot.  Gee, we're the largest software corporation
in the world.  Poor, poor us.  :-)

>I don't see how people can view this as Microsoft "abandoning" OS/2.

Gee, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that MS used to offer
OS/2 compilers and software, but does no longer, could it?  :-)

And this in the face of the fact that OS/2 2.0 is the first version of
OS/2 to actually have any sales worth mentioning.  Back when OS/2 had
sold about 10 copies, MS was gung-ho for OS/2.  Now that it's actually
starting to go somewhere, and is finally free of the limitations that
kept it from marketplace success (e.g. it runs on a 386 and has MVDM's)
MS claims that it's not selling enough to be worth developing for.  What
a crock.

>In truth they were simply reverting to the path they had wanted all
>along.  They tried to bring IBM along, but Big Blue Bureaucracy was
>always in the way.  In the end it was switch or die.

A charming sentiment.  I would believe it if it weren't for the fact
that OS/2 2.0 is the 386-based 32-bit OS we've been waiting for for all
these years.  MS didn't abandon (or whatever you want to call it) OS/2
until it switched to the path that they had wanted all along.  This
simply makes no sense.

No one has publicly commented on the reasons that IBM and MS split.  (At
least not that I've seen.)  This is still the real question.  It's *not*
because OS/2 never gained market acceptance--though MS seems to be
trying to spread that rumor--OS/2 2.0 is what the market was waiting
for, and what MS originally *wanted* to produce.  Any arguments based on
the market resistance to OS/2 1.x are clearly specious.
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy