From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:08:23 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct7.012337.28592@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (B
rian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.235111.27463@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) w
rites:
>>In <1992Oct6.022026.16559@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.
edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>...
>>>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.
>
>But I think you miss the whole point of the chronology that I dug out.
>MS "abandoned" OS/2 BEFORE 2.0, and in fact largely because of IBM's
>resistance to 2.0.  Microsoft wanted to make the system right, but
>IBM kept clinging to its illusion that it was still in control of
>the computing market.  The decision on Microsoft's part to split
>probably occurred in late 1989 or early 1990.  Long before 2.0 was
>delivered, and even before the success of Windows 3.0.
>In fact the large advertising push given to 3.0 was likely in
>hopes of causing what happened... a succesful independent OX
>that would enable Microsoft to break with IBM.
>Microsoft's strategy was (and is) to deliver a small-end DOS
>extender that gave a GUI, and then to develop a real OS.
>OS/2 in it's design is filled with half measures.
>NT fills in those lacking features.
>Microsoft has not abandoned OS/2 1.X users.  They even went
>to the trouble to make special cross-development versions
>of their compilers for them.  And you can bet that all
>OS/2 users will get good upgrade offers to NT.
>
>In truth OS/2 users should thank Microsoft for their actions.
>If they had not left OS/2 development, IBM would not have been
>forced to give the inventive crowd inside IBM the free hand
>they had so long been denied.  Only when an embarrased IBM
>had OS/2 2.0 dumped back in their lap did they commit to a
>32-bit OS being THE platform of choice.
>The "new" IBM would not exist were it not for Microsoft.
>
Give me a break Brian.  You are using circular logic here.  You have several
facts from which you draw conclusions which point to each other, but none of
which are independently provable.  The fact that there is an OS/2 2.0 somewhat
flies right in the face of what you are claiming.  Also IBM is not just
changing their attitudes towards operating systems.  If that was their only
problem, then that would have been easy to fix.  IBM's problems go much deeper
and are much different than the superficial logic you apply to them here.  IBM
is not just software like MS is.  Their hardware sales have been lagging,
innovation in all areas has been lacking, and the company was being crushed by
a mammoth bureaucracy.  These problems are all more serious than any
competition from MicroSoft and none of them have anything to do with
MicroSoft.  IBM doesn't make their big money in software and they never have.
They always have been and continue to be primarily a hardware company.  THis
too shoots your arguement in the foot.  IBM has been reforming because they
have been having trouble competing in *all* areas, not just in operating
systems.  Microsoft really deserves a footnote in the story of how IBM has
been prodded to change.

>>Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
>
>Brian
>--
>C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
>University of Utah                             United We Stand
>Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------