Nobody has got the story quite right. IBM and Microsoft didn't really have a
falling out, Microsoft suckered IBM and others. Microsoft was pushing OS/2
to developers, while working on Windows 3.1. and 3.1 software. They had no
intention of ever getting behind OS/2. Microsoft promoted OS/2 hevily to
developers, while witholding information on Win 3.1. This put a number of
companies a year behind on development, notably Wordperfect, Borland, and
the company who did Harvard Graphics and a number of office products.
IBM is not exactly noted for good software, and OS/2 was no exception. IBM
is also not exactly known for mass marketing, so OS/2 was doomed from the
start. OS/2 was written in assembler, rather than C, so it was difficult to
adapt and upgrade for other processors.
Can you say monopoly abuse.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin L. Denyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: [newbie] AGH!! Linux not ready for prime time (OS/2 user)
>
>
> > Jeff Malka wrote:
> >
> > > > Well...maybe Linux isn't for everyone, but then no OS is for
> everyone,
> > > IMO. Choice is good...
> > >
> > > It is, but for an OS to survive it must attract and "keep" a
> sufficient
> > > audience, Otherwise it might have the same fate as OS/2 which is
> also an
> > > excellent multiuser stable OS. Do not ask why I am leaving OS/2,
> because I
> > > am not really, just learning a new OS and noting how it appears to a
> non
> > > programming guru.
> >
> > Well...that's a very different situation. OS/2 declined because IBM
> made a
> > corporate decision to stop developing and supporting it, not because
> of any
> > lack on its part.
>
> OS/2 was not as hot as it could have been. I seem to recall having to
> set up endless parameters in config settings for every application.
> This was WAY beyond the novice.
>
> As for the decline, I seem to recall that the next release (which would
> have been FAR better) was originally a joint IBM/Micro$oft project. The
> two had a problem seeing eye to eye and Micro$oft pulled out.
> (Micro$oft then proceeded to remove all IBM code from OS/3, replaced it
> with Micro$oft code, re-named it Win95 and the rest is history...).
>
> There never was much support for OS/2. Comparatively few applications
> were ever ported, and (compared to the competition at the time) was a
> real resource hog.
>
> Just my $0.02 (Florida residents add 6.5% Sales Tax)
>
> Regards,
> Ozz.
>
>
>
