ST> [...] and also, you wouldn't be able to call it OS/2.  

 JdeBP> Yes, but would one actually want to do so in the first place ?

 RW> I think OS/2000 sounds kinda kool   :}

True, but I think that any company wanting to name an operating system should
not make the mistake that Microsoft made of including the year number in the
release.  

For Microsoft it wasn't a mistake, because Microsoft actually *wanted* the
outcome that resulted.  Microsoft wanted its operating systems to date rapidly 
so that people would upgrade every couple of years or so.  Indeed, several
internal Microsoft documents that have been made public point to the fact that 
Microsoft wants to move to a subscription model, or at least as near to it as
possible, so that people effectively pay yearly for using Microsoft Windows. 
Although the plan for doing so directly was shelved, choosing to market
operating systems as "this year's model" is a way of doing so indirectly. 
When faced with buying "Windows '95" or "Windows 2000" in the year 2000, which 
one will the naive consumer buy ?

But one really does have to have the sort of monopoly power that Microsoft has 
in order to cause such a move not to be a mistake.  One also has to be careful 
with shipping schedules.  Microsoft very nearly slipped with Windows 95, and
"Windows 97" was hastily renamed "Windows 98" when it was realised that the
original two-year schedule wasn't going to be met.

Naming something "OS/2000" places two burdens on whomever develops it.  First, 
it has to be shipping in the year 2000.  Developing an operating system is a
colossal task, however, and one is likely to be embarrassed (and pilloried in
the advocacy echoes) if "OS/2000" didn't arrive until the final quarter of the 
year 2000 (for example).  Second, it means that in 2001 one has to start all
over again, both with marketing and with development.  Simple common sense
requires that after the year 2000, the 2000 portion of the name must change,
because otherwise sales will fall off as the name becomes dated.  But this
places a burden on development since it consequently requires that "OS/2001"
have new features that make the upgrade worthwhile, or else again one will be
pilloried in the advocacy echoes, this time for producing an upgrade that the
cynics would paint as nothing but a shallow ploy to get people to pay out all
over again.

 ¯ JdeBP ®

--- FleetStreet 1.22 NR
114/441