Re: IBM iSeries Advertisements -- MIDRANGE-L

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:00:46 -0700, Dave Odom <Dave.Odom@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> You wrote with some editing by me to reduce lines:
> 
> "IBM is obviously dumping it (slowly), so it's the old supply and
> demand
> curve. I'm sure demand is low, but supply is low, so when that last
> remaining OS/2 shop's developer passes on, the demand will be high and
> supply low. That's the time to make a move to OS/2.
> 
> > I wonder how many of us really have any idea at all what's 'happened'
> to OS/2? I loved OS/2 back then and still think it's superior to WinXP
> in quite a few ways, so I keep an eye on it.
> >
> > http://www-306.ibm.com/software/os/warp/strategy/
> >
> > I wonder how much an experienced OS/2 developer can make these days?
> >
> > Tom Liotta"
> 
> IBM has been dumping OS/2 for many years now and if it still lingers it
> is no fault of IBM.  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.   IBM marketing reps were never really incented to
> sell OS/2 unless they could sell more than 300 copies to a customers.
> PC stuff was just a part of something bigger.
> 
> As for an OS/2 comeback, I SERIOUSLY doubt it.  Most of the folks from
> Boca or Austin are gone or have been moved on to other things.  IBM
> embraces Windoz because it doesn't want to fool with something like a PC
> operating system.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I wish it would come back and be enhanced as it has
> a much better base architecture when compared to Windoz anything.  I
> think it would be a better PC operating system for business, and most
> consumers for that matter.   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.
> Therefore, it handles tasks and activities better than Windoz without
> crashing and its more oriented to security and other things of a mission
> critical nature. (How many times in the last year did you have to reboot
> your iSeries or mainframe vs. Windoz.)  Windoz anything is basically a
> consumer oriented operating system.    The bottom line is a PC operating
> system didn't have enough margin for IBM to be seriously interested over
> the long haul.   Not to mention that PC operating systems were and are
> being driven by consumers interests and designs, not serious IT
> concerns.  And IBM is not a consumer company, Microsoft is.

What I think a lot of people miss on the subject of IBM vs Microsoft,
Windows vs OS/2 is that Microsoft puts a lot of effort into the
programming side of their products.  Microsoft makes great programming
languages.  Windows is a very programmer friendly OS, Win32 API is
very well done, COM was great in its day and .NET continues the
tradition.

Visual Basic and COM is what sold Windows. ( just like RPG sold the
AS400 )   IBM management never competed on this front by producing
comparable technologies in OS/2.

-Steve