Murray Lesser wrote in a message to Jack Stein:

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.

 ML>     Check on what OS your bank ATM is running under.  Most
 ML> of them still use OS/2 (some of them OS/2 1.3!).  Banks that
 ML> have changed to WinNT have tended to regret it.

Check out what they are running every where else in the bank, other than the
ATM machine.  They run almost 100% MS OS's.

JS>When the computer was ready to burst on the home scene is when 
JS>the fun, and market manipulation began.  IBM was in charge, 
JS>and they chose MS to run the software end of the business.  
JS>That has not changed, and the result of course is the worlds 
JS>worst OS dominating the home and business market.

 ML>     IBM did not "choose" MS.  IBM offered three operating
 ML> systems with the original PC.  There was MS DOS, based on a
 ML> purchased 16-bit operating system cloned from DR CP/M; DR's
 ML> CPM/86; and a useless OS that could only run Pascal (UCSD). 
 ML> All were at extra cost; no software came with the original
 ML> PC's.  Bill Gates was smart enough to price MS DOS at $50,
 ML> presumably since he was sure that sales would be very large.
 ML>  The powers that be at DR wanted $200 for theirs and UCSD's
 ML> system was useless for anyone who wanted to do anything but
 ML> write their own programs in Pascal!  It is not hard to
 ML> figure out which operating system won that battle :-).  

The way I understand it is IBM sold MSDOS for $50, but they sold DR's CP/M for 
$300.  DR was pissed about it, but nothing they could do about it.  IBM did
"choose" MS to do there OS, they contracted with Bill Gates, and he didn't
even own an OS.  He bought "DOS" after IBM (who had ties with Gates family)
signed the contract.  

 ML> I have no love for Microsoft's business practices (the only MS
 ML> software I have on my system is BASIC PDS v 7.1, vintage
 ML> 1991, that will produce 16-bit "native OS/2" programs), but
 ML> Gates was the smartest software artist (as far as seeing
 ML> where PC's were going) at the time.  I give him credit for
 ML> that, even if you don't.

Gates was not all that of an "artist".  He got a contract that no one else on
earth could have gotten with the only game in town.  No matter who got the
contract, they were going to dominate the market, whether they knew it or not.

JS>The problem with OS/2 is mainly that no one uses it, and IBM 
JS>likes it that way.  Hard to promote a product when the 
JS>company that sells it doesn't want anyone to use it.

 ML>     IBM gave up on trying to sell OS/2 to the AIHU years
 ML> ago, as OS/2 became too complex for the couch-potato
 ML> mentality to handle.  

OS/2 is no more "complex" to use than WIN, in fact, it's easier actually.

 ML> It is now a purely commercial system as far as IBM is 
 ML> concerned, and IBM will continue to support it (not _market_ it 
 ML> aggressively) as long as an appreciable number of IBM's major 
 ML> customers continue to use it. 

IBM never supported OS/2.  They developed it, but never attempted to get
anyone to actually use it.  When people used it anyway, they were miffed, and
when a lot started to use it, the aggresively marketed against it.  About the
only marketing IBM did with OS/2 was to kill it, before it killed MS.

 ML>     I don't do, and never have done, Windows!  Personally, I
 ML> am very pleased that none of my relatives nor friends run
 ML> OS/2.  I joyfully tell them that I can't help them when they
 ML> run into Windows trouble :-). 

That is a bonus for people like you and I.  The down side is it's a bear to
upgrade your system.  I'm in the market (10 years on the same computer is not
the issue), my kids need there own, and I want it to be OS/2 compatable, they
MUST have WIN for school work.  It's a bear trying to figure out what to buy.  
I want to go to best buy and just get one off the floor, like everyone else
does, but, alas, who knows if it'll run OS/2 correctly.

 ML>     I, for one, expect to continue to use OS/2 for my home
 ML> systems, even if it is never updated!  If new applications I
 ML> may decide that I need are not generally available for OS/2,
 ML> I will write my own.  It isn't any problem for me to avoid
 ML> using hardware that is not supported by OS/2 since I learned
 ML> long ago never to be the first kid on the block with the
 ML> latest computer gadgets or software.  I may never update my
 ML> present hardware unless it dies :-).  If I last long enough,
 ML> I may well be the last noncommercial OS/2 user around! 
 ML> (Will Honea may outlast me!) 

I may outlast you also.  You are not alone in this game, but we are few and
far between.  

 ML>     To find out what IBM is doing with OS/2, you should
 ML> subscribe to the IBM e-mail marketing newsletter "WARP FM"
 ML> rather than continuing to rant about what IBM is not doing
 ML> for you.  IBM is running a business, not a religion.  

Sure, but their product is perfect for the home consumer, and business
consumer.  A junior achievement class in 8th grade could have sold OS/2 to the 
masses with just 1/10 of the money IBM spent on LOTUS.  I suspect their
business is more monkey business than real business, and they, MS and INTEL
are monkeying around with things that adversly affect the computer user at
large, and thats me.  I'm pissed about it, but fortunately for me, it's just a 
hobby.  I don't really care all that much.  I can get along myself just like
you, in fact, it's actually more fun I reckon.

 ML> There is no reason for IBM not to support WinNT if that is where
 ML> money is to be made.  

There was big money to be made with OS/2, IF IBM wanted to go for it, but they 
didn't.  Why they didn't is speculation for people like me, and when I add 2
and 2, I don't like what I see, or have seen over past 15 years.

 ML> But the big difference between IBM and MS (which the commercial 
 ML> MS users will eventually learn to their discomfort) is that IBM 
 ML> supports its legacy customers.

Yeah, but at a big price.  MS supports it's customers also, they just pay for
the same thing over and over again, and the price is about the same either
way.

IBM provides the hardware and the service, MS provides the software, and INTEL 
provides the chips.  That has made all 3 very rich, and they aim to keep it
that way, and the customer loses.  That's how it is when a huge cartel holds a 
monopoly on the market.  "Screw the customer, we're making fast, easy cash"
Information is controlled by ZIFF-DAVIS, and the DOJ is controlled by cash.
Everyone WINS but the consumer, and he doesn't have a clue what hit him, or
that he has even been hit.  The perfect crime.

                    Jack 
--- timEd/2-B11
140/1