Re: IBM iSeries Advertisements

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:00:31 -0500, Tom Liotta <qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> >   2. RE: IBM iSeries Advertisements (Dave Odom)
> >
> >You wrote with some editing by me to reduce lines:
> <snip>
> >> I wonder how many of us really have any idea at all what's 'happened'
> >to OS/2?
> 
> Dave:
> 
> Right there is the sole underlying premise to my comment. The editing I did 
> was specifically to focus on the pure idea that 'we all know what happened to 
> OS/2'. It struck me as an intriguing comment and I wondered how many of "us" 
> (Midrange_L listers) would have imagined that IBM still has OS/2 and would 
> have a web page leading into "OS/2 Strategy for 2005".
> 
> OS/2? Strategy? 2005??? Huh?
> 
> Anyone know how much IBM makes from OS/2 nowadays? Since OS/2 was pulled from 
> the desktop market a decade ago and focused on the server market, what has 
> happened? To tell the truth, I'm very much in the dark. Yet, we "all" know. 
> It's long dead. And still yet... "OS/2 Strategy for 2005". (I'm pretty sure 
> the strategy is little more than finding more ways to profit from replacing 
> OS/2 systems with ones that have better service revenues.)
> 
> 
> >  From my experience, the shame is that IBM never
> >really embraced OS/2 in any serious way but was only a "dip of the toe"
> >against Mickysoft.
> <snip>
> >As for an OS/2 comeback, I SERIOUSLY doubt it.
> <snip>
> >   The reason is philosophy of operating
> >system architectures.  They are fundamentally different between IBM and
> >Microsoft.   Even though Microsoft was involved with the development of
> >OS/2(and I think some of NT, etc., has some OS/2 in it), it appears that
> >OS/2 has more of an IBM mainframe(VM) and to some extent AS/400
> >operating system architecture that does anything of Microsoft design.
> 
> There we get into an aspect of OS/2 that's largely faded into dim memory... 
> that OS/2 was in big part a Microsoft product early on. That's a history that 
> I'd really love to know some details about. What really happened just before 
> OS/2 2.0? What was really going on inside of Microsoft? Was it really as much 
> of a corporate... hmmm... what word is appropriate here?... some accounts 
> seem to characterize it as a betrayal... as legend seems to indicate?

Tom,

check out what this Microsofter has to say on the subject:

http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2005/02/02/365635.aspx

"...And here was this little skunkworks project in building three that
was sitting on what was clearly the most explosive product Microsoft
had ever produced.  It was blindingly obvious, even at that early date
- Windows 3.0 ran multiple DOS applications in virtual x86 machines. 
It ran Windows applications in protected mode, breaking the 640K
memory barrier.  It had a device driver model that allowed for
development of true 32bit device drivers.  It supported modern
displays with color depths greater than had been available on PC
operating systems.  ..."

"... There was just no comparison between the two platforms - if they
had to compete head-to-head, Windows 3.0 would win hands down. ..."

-Steve