(Excerpts from a message dated 09-18-99, Jack Stein to Roy J. Tellason.
Original topic "File Managers"):
Hi Jack--
RJT> "The power" that those folks may hold, such as it is, is a
RJT> matter of economics, and of doing things within some fairly
RJT> narrowly defined commercial channels -- the home and
RJT> smaller-end business market for M$, the medium and larger
RJT> business market for IBM, etc. That's why OS/2 isn't being
RJT> agressively marketed by IBM, it crosses that boundary. The
RJT> whole philosophy behind Linux is outside that framework.
JS>I can't agree with you here Roy. Both the home, and
>business (large and small) is totally domonated by MS
>products. You would be hard pressed to locate a business that was
>not running MS OS's.
Check on what OS your bank ATM is running under. Most of them still
use OS/2 (some of them OS/2 1.3!). Banks that have changed to WinNT
have tended to regret it.
JS>When the computer was ready to burst on the home scene is when the
>fun, and market manipulation began. IBM was in charge, and they
>chose MS to run the software end of the business. That has not
>changed, and the result of course is the worlds worst OS dominating
>the home and business market.
IBM did not "choose" MS. IBM offered three operating systems with
the original PC. There was MS DOS, based on a purchased 16-bit
operating system cloned from DR CP/M; DR's CPM/86; and a useless OS that
could only run Pascal (UCSD). All were at extra cost; no software came
with the original PC's. Bill Gates was smart enough to price MS DOS at
$50, presumably since he was sure that sales would be very large. The
powers that be at DR wanted $200 for theirs and UCSD's system was
useless for anyone who wanted to do anything but write their own
programs in Pascal! It is not hard to figure out which operating system
won that battle :-). I have no love for Microsoft's business practices
(the only MS software I have on my system is BASIC PDS v 7.1, vintage
1991, that will produce 16-bit "native OS/2" programs), but Gates was
the smartest software artist (as far as seeing where PC's were going) at
the time. I give him credit for that, even if you don't.
JS>The problem with OS/2 is mainly that no one uses it, and IBM likes
>it that way. Hard to promote a product when the company that sells
>it doesn't want anyone to use it.
IBM gave up on trying to sell OS/2 to the AIHU years ago, as OS/2
became too complex for the couch-potato mentality to handle. It is now
a purely commercial system as far as IBM is concerned, and IBM will
continue to support it (not _market_ it aggressively) as long as an
appreciable number of IBM's major customers continue to use it.
I don't do, and never have done, Windows! Personally, I am very
pleased that none of my relatives nor friends run OS/2. I joyfully tell
them that I can't help them when they run into Windows trouble :-).
I, for one, expect to continue to use OS/2 for my home systems, even
if it is never updated! If new applications I may decide that I need
are not generally available for OS/2, I will write my own. It isn't any
problem for me to avoid using hardware that is not supported by OS/2
since I learned long ago never to be the first kid on the block with the
latest computer gadgets or software. I may never update my present
hardware unless it dies :-). If I last long enough, I may well be the
last noncommercial OS/2 user around! (Will Honea may outlast me!)
To find out what IBM is doing with OS/2, you should subscribe to the
IBM e-mail marketing newsletter "WARP FM" rather than continuing to rant
about what IBM is not doing for you. IBM is running a business, not a
religion. There is no reason for IBM not to support WinNT if that is
where money is to be made. But the big difference between IBM and MS
(which the commercial MS users will eventually learn to their
discomfort) is that IBM supports its legacy customers.
Regards,
--Murray
* Origin: OS/2 Shareware BBS, telnet://bbs.os2bbs.com (1:109/347)
|