Rob Basler wrote in a message to Jack Stein:

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

 RB> Oddly enough, my bank branch updated all their machines
 RB> about a year ago, they have 100% OS/2 warp desktops in the
 RB> branch.

Your bank is highly unusual I think.  

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

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

 RB> That's what I've always thought.  You sure spend a lot less
 RB> time "fixing" it.

Everything is easier with OS/2, including the installation, IF  IBM wanted to
make it easy to install.  They didn't want to do that, yet, it was still easy
for anyone knowledeable enough to get around the silly ass road blocks IBM put 
in the way.  At first I thought IBM was just stupid, but didn't take long to
realize the were not STUPID, they had a purpose, and it was to keep you from
using OS/2.

JS>IBM never supported OS/2.  They developed it, but never
JS>attempted to get anyone to actually use it.  When people
JS>used it anyway, they were miffed, and when a lot started to
JS>use it, the aggresively marketed against it.

 RB> Back in the Warp 3 days they did attempt to get people to
 RB> use it, they also aggressively looked for preload
 RB> agreements.  

Really?  Give me 3 BILLION and watch how many preload agreements I can get.
The pricks wouldn't even pre-load it on their own PC's.

 RB> The MS trial in the states has had a lot of stories about how 
 RB> systems integraters were scared off preinstalling OS/2 by MS 
 RB> reps.  There was quite a bit of advertising for it in those 
 RB> days, both in trade mags and on TV of all things.  

Sorry, I must have missed those days...  I was heavy into computing then too,
wonder how it slipped by me... Oh, the nun commercials, I remember those lame
ads, it was a waste of money if the objective was to promote OS/2.  They had
to stick a huge hunk of money up the ass of Gateway or Dell, bribe them, sue
them, torture them, send them hookers, What ever normal businessmen do when
they want a company to use a superior product.  Heck, you could get them to
use a horrible product with the right tacktics, if you know what I mean.

 RB> Why IBM decided to smother it, no one knows.  Some say that 
 RB> support cost too much, some say IBM did it to get a better 
 RB> preload deal for Windows 95, I don't know what is true.

I say it's because IBM, MicroSoft and INTEL have a huge cartel going for them, 
and they like it as it is, and have ZIFF-DAVIS and the DOJ helping them
maintain this sick relationship, and the consumer gets stuck with their junk.

JS>It's a bear trying to figure out what to buy.  I want to go to 
JS>best buy and just get one off the floor, like everyone else 
JS>does, but, alas, who knows if it'll run OS/2 correctly.

 RB> Go to a smaller place, custom pick your components, it isn't
 RB> that hard. The only tricky part is video card and printer,

And the sound card, and the mother-board/chip set, and the CD burner, and,
hell, I've been looking at this stuff, it's a mess.

 RB> you can't go too far wrong with much else.  Also have a look
 RB> at IBM's device driver page, and ask here if there is a
 RB> component you are unsure about.

I would have liked IBM to support OS/2 to the extent that retailers would have 
been fighting to get a "certified OS/2 ready" sticker on the equipment they
sell.  IBM didn't do it, didn't WANT to do it, or it would have happened.  You 
can only keep a far superior product down by standing on it in a competitive
market.  They didn't want to compete with MS, so they stood on it, with both
feet.

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