From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:44:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: fcom.1992Oct7.184429.10057
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Oct7.112213.10978@wsl.ie> jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen) writes:
>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 decision on Microsoft's part to split
>
>So Microsoft abandoned the system they wanted to build because IBM would
>not let them, and then went on to build something else. 
>
>Whereas after the split over IBM not wanting to build something that MS
>did, IBM built it.
>
>Your arguments are bordering on the insane.

Well first of all if they were only my arguments, then I could understand
you skepticism, but they're no just mine.  Cringley's book make this
argument almost explicitly.

Secondly, I think you see it as insane because it appear to be
a blatant reversal on IBM's part.  Blatant reversals inside companies
occur all the time.  I would be the greatest about of energy inside
IBM (especially in the time frame we're discussing) is spent tetering
back and forth between options.

The facts appear to be these:

In 1989 or early 1990, Microsoft and IBM had a falling out.
Robert Cringley seems to believe it was over the move to 32-bit OS/2 2.0.

In the early history of OS/2 the following seems to have occurred
(Cringely says this, but I've heard it before.)
Microsoft wanted to put what would be OS/2 on 32-bit platforms first.
IBM, fearing it would cut into it's ASA/400 line, suppressed
going to 386's.  Their weak presence in the 386 market spurred
Compaq and others to produce the now popular 386 "AT".

IBM is the one that pushed for OS/2 1.3, Microsoft apparently wanted
to abandon 286's and move to OS/2 2.0.  The two companies split.
The split (and I don't see how you can argue with this -- the
split was jointly announced in September 1990) occurred
formally in 1990, well over a year before OS/2 2.0 was shipped.
I don't understand how Microsoft can have "abandoned" an OS that
is a year and a half from completion, when you have IBM saying
formally that they will be doing the work from then on.
It is clear that MS and IBM simply had "irreconcilable differences"
and went their separate ways.

Now comes the part you called "insane". IBM employees that
inherited doing OS/2 2.0 after the split wanted to push the 386-
only version too.  I can certainly remember an IBM employee having a
tough time explaining to me in summer 1990 why OS/2 was being shipped
designed around the 286.  The inventive group that took over
OS/2 development, coupled with IBM's changing view of itself,
and fear that Microsoft might have been right is what caused the reversal.

The reasons behind the MS/IBM split are hard to prove, but Cringley's
version makes sense, given the companies respective personalities.
And the fact that IBM was so late to enter the 386 market.
(A 386-only version of OS/2 in 1989-90 would penalize their customers
and help the clone makers.)

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