From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Hard future for OS/2 2.0 ....
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:00:58 GMT

In <1992Sep14.005928.7838@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <1992Sep13.020420.20953@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>>In article <716296545snx@feki.toppoint.de>,
>>marten@feki.toppoint.de (Marten Feldtmann) writes:
>>>
>>> -- OS/2 2.0  not clear, what the long-term strategy of IBM is ..
>>
>>It's just as clear as anybosy elses strategy is!  And, because we
>>know that IBM doesn't just throw around ideas and FUD, we can
>>believe what they say a little more.  Come on, they stuck with the
>>original incarnations of OS/1 1.x didn't they?

>This is about the funniest thing I've EVER heard about IBM.  Anyone from the
>early seventies around hear?  Do you remember the fear and uncertainty that
>"It's a Big Mutha" tried to spread regarding the microcomputer?  Or the
>FUD they tried to spread about clone support in the eighties?  P-uh-lease
>don't tell me that IBM doesn't "throw around ideas and FUD."

Note the use of a present tense verb, "doesn't"?  The early 70's were
TWENTY YEARS AGO.  Might one, perhaps, come to the conclusion that
after 20 years IBM might have learned something/changed something?
After all, one could go back merely another 5 years or so and the
response to any question involving 'Microsoft' would be, "Who?".  That
hardly means they don't exist now, so maybe things HAVE changed in the
past 20-25 years.

>Back in the seventies, second and third party vendors would snidely point
>out that IBM tended to blaze a path, point the way--and then vanish while the
>masses plunged over the cliff hidden around the corner.  Look at what
>they *tried* to do with Microchannel--it wasn't until they noticed that the
>public wasn't buying it that they decided to say "oh, well, we'll support
>ISA again."

Yes, and one would hope that they've learned something from that
experience.  Now that even IBM can't rely on running the market,
perhaps they've figured out that the thing to do is to change their
ways?  Now if only Microsoft would figure that out.

>Sure, this was all in the "old days" when IBM had a mainframe mentality. And
>now they are reorganizing... but NOBODY is certain what this will mean.

Exactly right.  Judge by what is happening TODAY, with perhaps a short
memory into last week.  That's the only way for customers to get
vendors to be responsive to THEM rather than to what the vendors want
to do.

After all, back not that much before the early 70's, the answer to the
question "What is the most advanced operating system in the world?"
was "Whatever is running in Dennis Ritchie's desk THIS MORNING."
Brand loyalty and all that are all well and good, but judge by what's
going on THIS MORNING.  And THIS MORNING, OS/2 is the 'most advanced' OS
running on a desktop PC.  When Windows/NT or Cairo or anything else
ships, if it lets me do more without costing me an arm and a leg
replacing stuff, I'll probably switch.  But all the hype and FUD in
the world don't do anything to get one second of my work done.  All
they do is create the impression for the vendor THIS MORNING.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.