From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 only on PS/2's? (Was: rift...)
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:04:04 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <BswDqy.Lwx@world.std.com>, dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smit
h) writes:
>Yes, OS/2 1.x ran on AT's and many other vendors' machines. However, in
>their product name, public statements, and advertising, _IBM_ tried
>_very_ hard to associate OS/2 with PS/2's.  Since marketer's talk tends
>to be a kind of projective test for the reader, the ads did not actually
>say anything untrue when read by a technically oriented user, but conveyed
>a strong impression to anyone else that OS/2 ran only on PS/2's. One
>series of ads tried to imply that because OS/2 was multitasking, it
>REQUIRED the Micro Channel bus ('cause ordernary busses, you see, well,
>hey, they're sorta like ... a one-lane dirt road ... while MICRO CHANNEL,
>well folks, it's a great big multilane superhighway with room for LOTSA
>cars at the SAME TIME to do different things at once, so ONLY with the
>Micro Channel can you get the benefits of OS/2, which, by golly, IT can
>do different things at once).
>
>Also, IBM was trying very hard to use straight OS/2 as bait-and-switch
>for OS/2 Extended Edition, which reportedly WAS buggy on non-IBM hardware.

This is all true, but this also is all history.  IBM seems to have learned its
lesson about this.

>
>Meanwhile: it is argued by Dustin R. Christmann that IBM, observing that
>OS/2 restricted to proprietary hardware didn't do very well, changed and
>decided to support it on clones. True. But for how long?  IBM's pattern
>in the past is that they only do things right for a short time, then they
>go back to their old ways. Take the original PC. They told Entry Systems
>to go do their own thing, just as long as it wasn't too good (don't use
>an 8086, it might cannibalize DisplayWriters and DataMasters).  Unimpeded
>by traditional IBM thinking, even with an 8088 in it, they produced
>something quite decent and very market-oriented.  And as soon as IBM
>realized they had a great big success on their hands ... not just a funny
>little we-better-have-one-too niche product ... they pulled in the reins,
>imposed corporate control, started changing the bus specifications to
>present a moving target to competition, etc.

Terrific, except that IBM is becoming a very different company.  They are
diversifying (sp.) into smaller more competitive units and/or companies such
as Lexmark.  Would you argue that the smaller units they are shifting into
will re-make some of IBM's bone-head hall of fame errors of the past?  Not
likely.  In the early to mid eighties and earlier, they could get away with
this nonsense.  However times have changed and the cut-throat competition,
simply will not allow it.  If IBM tries to act as they did in the past, they
will get bounced faster than you can say the word.  Look at Ashton-Tate.  They
made a truly boneheaded error, and the market rejected them, even though they
held all the cards.  Despite IBM's currently ponderous bulk, they appear to be
changing and becoming more competitive.
>
>If OS/2 2.0 is a success, I believe that OS/2 3.0 will revert back to
>being proprietary (to take full advantage of IBM's unique new line
>of PW/3 (Programmable Workstations, let's get rid of Personal altogether)
>products with the enormous advantages of the new Macro Channel bus, and
>ultra-high-capacity 4.32 megabyte four-inch floppies).
>
Not likely, and you have no evidence to back this claim up.  IBM will get
killed in the market if they do this and they know it.  Please stick to
arguements that have some facts behind them.
>
>--
>Daniel P. B. Smith
>dpbsmith@world.std.com
>
                                            Stacy John Behrens
                                            *===)-------------