From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 05:45:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.031401.19648@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.013136.16962@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>>>
>>>It sure sounds to me like David's right - IBM was behind 32-bit OS/2
>>>long before the split.
>
>>Then explain why there was an OS/2 1.3?  OS/2 1.3 is where the point
>>of contention between MS and IBM was.  The quote you're showing is
>>about OS/2 1.2.  Clearly IBM must have changed direction somewhere,
>>as shortly they would be developing an OS/2 1.3 independent of
>>Microsoft.
>
>IBM could've decided to make OS/2 1.3 for a variety of reasons.
>They could've had complaints from customers about major problems
>with OS/2 1.2 (you seem to complain about it a lot) and decided
>they had better patch it up first thing to keep their customers
>happy.  They could've decided an improved 286 OS was warranted -
>most of the computers in use back then were 286s.  Or you could
>be right and they were afraid OS/2 2.0 would cut into their main-
>frame and minicomputer market.
>
>The point is that you claim IBM didn't want a 32-bit OS/2.  David
>said IBM had been behind a 32-bit OS/2 long before the split.  And
>the documented quotes I found supported David's assertion.  Do you
>have any proof besides "IBM made OS/2 1.3 so they must not have
>wanted an OS/2 2.0"?  Anything not written after the fact?

I've already admitted in another post that the poster's theory
that the Microsoft/IBM fight was caused by MS being upset
that OS/2 1.3 might compete with Windows was quite plausible, probably
even more plausible than Cringely's explaination.

This misses the two points of my original post:
1) Microsoft was forced from OS/2 support by a fight over IBM
putting out 1.3 instead of diving right into 2.0.
2) Microsoft left OS/2 2.0 well before its delivery, and
thus did not "abandon" OS/2 2.0.
(Dietal and Kogan say the public announcement occurred September 1990.)

The remarks you found "don't" prove that IBM was behind OS/2 2.0
in a manner sufficient for the needs of Microsoft.
It is well know to all, including Cringley, that OS/2 2.0 was in
progress.  The question was with respect to timing.  Remember
that IBM entered the 386 market very late, and even then rather
half heartedly (their processor almost always had a much slower
clock-speed than the normal clone and sales therefore lagged.)
Thus in the timeframe under discussion IBM customers had a higher
percentage of 286 machines than the customers of clone-makers did.
I find it quite plausible that IBM wanted to delay 2.0's release.
This wouldn't hurt IBM, but it would Microsoft... they were the
ones that were to put OS/2 on non-IBM machines.

Note it doesn't necessarily make IBM "evil" to put out 1.3, but
it is clear that Microsoft had a fair number of good reasons to
be very unhappy about it.

>John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I

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! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy