From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:59:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: njitgw.1992Oct8.205928.20293
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct7.012337.28592@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>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 only difference between MS's proposal and IBM's (at that time) was
that IBM wanted to keep the OS/2 1.x GPI graphics system and MS
insisted on using their GDI (Windows) graphic API.  IBM realized that
in order to use GDI, it would mean retraining all the OS/2 programmers
for the new paradigm, and it would mean having two complete API's
installed instead of one API with calls thunked from 16-bit up to
32-bit where necessary.

>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.

Oh yes.  The push for Win 3.0 was designed to force the companies
apart.  But they didn't say anything about it until early 1991.  In
other words, they (publicly) kept on supporting OS/2 until it had a
prayer of success.  Then they pulled the rug out from under those
developers that were conned into getting the pre-release SDK's.  They
offered a $69 NT kit instead of refunding their $2600.

Whether they were right or not to pull out has nothing to do with the
fact that they screwed over their developers who (until then) shared
MS's (outward) support for the forthcoming OS/2 2.0 product.

>Microsoft's strategy was (and is) to deliver a small-end DOS
>extender that gave a GUI, and then to develop a real OS.

But they didn't want to share any real profits with another company.
So when their partnership with IBM promised to produce their "real
OS", they immediately jumped out to develop something that they could
keep all they money to themselves.

>OS/2 in it's design is filled with half measures.
>NT fills in those lacking features.

And you pay for them.

>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.

How does that follow?  You mean to tell me that OS/2 1.x is being
supported because developers can port their apps to NT?  That's the
most humerous definition of support I've heard yet!

>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 specs for OS/2 2.0 were laid out three years ago.  I read about it
in MSJ when they were first anounced.  Long before MS decided to
leave.  They didn't cause anything here.

>The "new" IBM would not exist were it not for Microsoft.

No.  You can blame the recession on this one.  They had to change or
go under.  Or would you like to blame the recession of MS?  I might
even agree with you if you make the statement!  :-)
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy