Re: OS/2 is FINALLY History (per IBM) :-( -- MIDRANGE-L

Joe Pluta wrote:

When will we learn?  It's like our mothers used to ask us: if everyone
jumped off a bridge, would you?  Evidently in IT the answer is "Yes".

Joe,

First, I want to say that the "you" I use in this post is the universal
you, Joe. Not the specific you.

Well, this particular issue was near and dear to me and I paid close
attention to the OS/2 battle. I would just like to point out (one more
time), that there were significant reasons why people did not have the
choice of OS/2. These same reasons were present in the failures of other
alternative desktop operating systems, and were a part of the
prosecution of Microsoft for their criminal anti-trust behavior.

I don't know that IBM would have done so, but it would have been nice if
they weren't restrained from bundling OS/2 by their consent decree. Of
course, seeing how minor the penalties turn out to be (from watching
MS), maybe IBM should have simply broken their agreement anyway.

The crux of the battle to replace Windows on desktops was 32 bit Windows
API compatibility. This was obvious in the few months prior to the
release of Windows 95. Although "Chicago" had been announced in late '91
for delivery in '92, Microsoft delayed shipment until October 95. Maybe
they really did have years of inability to ship a product (this is
Microsoft after all). But, I don't think it was just a coincidence that
IBM's cross license agreement requiring access to the API of Windows
expired in August of 95 and the Win32 spec changed radically with
several different announcements between August and October. You may
recall that at the release of Windows 95 there were zero native
applications available for it, even though all major vendors had been
preparing for the release since it was announced. That is because the 32
bit API was changed after the Microsoft/IBM agreement expired, and the
vendors needed time to catch up.

You cannot expect customers to buy an OS for which they cannot get
applications. You cannot expect customers to buy an OS for which they
will need to buy another application to let them (maybe) run applications.

IBM did a great job with OS/2. I find most important, they delivered on
their promises. Year after year their own customers would declare the OS
dead, and IBM would continue to support and enhance it.

IBM spent billions on this project. I know that I've heard a lot of,
"they should have..." but really, IBM _did_ a lot. They spent millions
in joint ventures developing applications for OS/2. They spent millions
in developing technology for porting to OS/2. They maintained the
Windows support and support for the Windows 32 bit API almost as fast as
MS would change it. They even spent millions advertising it. Oh, and I
forgot about all the support of OS/2 users groups and conventions. But
this was not a level playing field. The consumer was ripped off in a big
way here.

If you don't think that Microsoft took great pains and specific steps to
use their monopoly power to keep OS/2 from being successful, then I
don't think you were paying attention. (Universal "you", Joe)

The reason I tend to think of Bill Gates as only (perhaps) marginally
more honest than a Colombian drug lord (for example), is that it was Mr.
Gates who gave the sales pitch that sold me OS/2 in the first place.
Watching him and his company break the law in order to force out of the
market a product he sold me really didn't make me like the guy a lot.

Joe


--
Chris "Get Warped or Get Bent" Rehm
chris@javadisciple.com

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself.
Gal. 5: 14