From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 07:01:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.054524.17748@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
[...]
>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.

I don't understand what you mean about IBM being late during the
timeframe under discussion (~1990).  Here is a list of IBM 386
machines before 1990 that I can remember:
	1987 (Apr)	Model 80   (386 16MHz)
	1987 (Nov)	Model 80   (386 20MHz)
	1988 (Jun)	Model 70   (386 16,20MHz)
	1988 (Sep)	Model 70   (386 25MHz)
	1989 (Apr)	Model P70  (386 ??MHz)
	"    "		Model 55SX (386SX 16MHz)
This does not include enhancements to these models (like 70-486)
or models after 1989 (like 57, 90, 95).

As best as I can remember, the Model 70 and 55SX were among the
two bestsellers.  The 55SX was #1; the 70 was #2.  I read this a
few years ago in Infoworld, I forget the issue.  I seems to me
that IBM would sell even more 386-based computers if they could
get OS/2 2.0 out sooner.  Since OS/2 1.x was 286 based, there was
no *need* for 286 owners to get a 386 (until a 386 OS came out).
[Of course, many people *wanted* a 386 just to run DOS faster]

>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! :-))


-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151)    ::  .--.
::   for OS/2 software & information.  Get    :: (OS/2)
:::: the OS/2 FAQL in dir /pub/os2/all/faq :::::  ~--~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware