> I wasn't going to contribute to this, but as a former IBMer I think I can say
> this: OS/2 was jointly developed by IBM and Microsoft until the diaster that
> was DOS 4.0, at which time they both took the code and went their separate
> ways.
Another one of Bill Gate's coups ... M$ was already working on NT while at the
same time taking money from IBM to develop OS/2. IBM was literally giving money
to their biggest competitor.
> Microsoft developed it into Window NT (and eventually 2000) and IBM
> brought out OS/2. In a bit of irony, IBM brought out OS/2 Warp 6 months ahead
> of Windows 95 and was everything MS claimed 95 was supposed to be.
Except for one great big item : it wouldn't run most DOS programs nor any
(AFAIK) Win 3.x programs. In order to go the Warp route, customers had to
replace every single piece of software they owned, with software that in many
cases didn't exist yet. By contrast, Win 95 would run 9/10 of existing software
(for a while at least). Warp also had problems running on many non-IBM
computers, while again Win 95 would run on 95% of machines (that met the minimum
requirements for processor, RAM and hard drive).
> Unfortunately, MS had already cornered the market for PS operating systems and
> Warp died and early death.
Right. Win 95 was an evolutionary product, M$ already owned the "windows" market
with Win 3.x, making Warp an automatic "also-ran". We actually evaluated both
of them and decided to stick with Win 3.x (WFW 3.11) then go direct to NT 4.01.
> IBM lost sight of the market(both hardware and software), and in trying to
> regain control drove themselves out of it.
They almost never were in control. All they ever had was the "No one ever got
fired for buying IBM" effect ... as soon as that was gone, they had nothing
left. Anyone remember Microchannel ? IBM's entire history with "personal
computers" is a perfect example of how not to succeed in business. Their early
financing of Microsoft is especially ironic.
Randall
|