From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: Hard future for OS/2 2.0 ....
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:43:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.201514.735@nosc.mil>,
discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.200058.19970@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>>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.
>
>Oh, and the Microchannel fiasco was less than three years ago.  Granted, as
>I said earlier, IBM may have changed--but so FAR they have given no
>real indication that they have.  So the previous poster stating that IBM
>"doesn't throw around ideas and FUD" was making an unfounded statement.
>
  OK, what I meant to say was that IBM is much more careful about
what they say than many other companies, though they don't have a
perfect track record either.  They have many big corporations who
depend on what they report, and they try to keep them well informed
and happy.  This was one of the reasons the OS/2 2.0 Beta was
released to everyone... because they (IBM) told people that they
were *aiming* for a certain time, but realized later that they
weren't goping to make it.  They instead gave the Beta to anybody
who cared to download it.  People were counting on them, and they
tried hard to make good on their word.  This is *not* FUD.
  Also, what does MCA have to do with this?  MCA is a very good
design that IBM made difficult to license.  This is the reason it
hasn't cought on.  I don't see the connection with FUD.
>>
>>>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.
>>
>
>Again, how're you sure that IBM has changed?  Maybe they haven't maybe they
>have.  Judging from past experience, I wouldn't bet that they've changed--
>in fact, I'd wager that as NT draws close to shipping, IBM will spread as
>much FUD as it thinks it can get away with.
>
  My point is, IBM doesn't spread much FUD.  It can probably be seen
by this group that it has enough people doing that for them :-).
They can't afford it, and they know it.
  Also, isn't the fact that they went back to support ISA a sign
that they listen?
>>>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.
>>
>
>Ever heard the story about the little boy who cried "wolf"?  There is no
>other way (other than from past history) to judge how a company will
>react in any given instance.  This is true for the stock market, for
>crime prevention, for psychoanlysis, as it is for multimillion dollar
>corporations.  The post I'd responded to stated that IBM did not spread
>FUD--past experience decries otherwise.  If they've changed, the Future
>will tell.
>
>>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.
>
>Which is why most of the clients I have will not splurge money on OS/2:
>"...All the hype and FUD in the world don't do anything to get one
>second" other their work done.  There is no rush to the OS/2 bandwagon...
>
>>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
>
>-> My opinions -> Joe
  I can't say I blame them for not running to OS/2.  I got it out of
curiosity (early on, Windows mag. had an article about OS/2.  It
said it was pretty rusty, so I knew it would be good :-)  ).  Also,
what's the point of running a 16-bit OS on a 32-bit computer?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy