Andy Roberts wrote in a message to Jack Stein:

(Lots of interesting stuff snipped...)

 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.

 AR> I've heard both of those reasons, and several others.

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

 AR> I think that is over simplifying the past situation.  IBM had 
 AR> little if anything to do with the screw job Microsoft did to 
 AR> Apple.  Let's face it, Microsoft is against everyone else.

Yep.  There comes a point when their "corporate attitude" boggles the mind.  I 
mean,  how much more money does billyboy need?  It's one thing to strive to be 
a better company for your customers,  but this attitude of them wanting total
domination of the market baffles me.  They want to be the *ONLY* software
company out there.  At least for anything nontrivial.  Not just for operating
systems,  either,  but application programs as well.  And the thing is,  there 
comes a point when bigger is NOT necessarily better,  when you can't speed a
project up by throwing more programmers at it.  Their stuff isn't that good
anyhow,  compared to so many apps that I've used on other platforms.

 AR> Microsoft buys from Intel so there is no competition with 
 AR> Intel.  Microsoft bought a controlling share of Ziff-Davis. The 
 AR> DoJ only got involved after the US government already bought so 
 AR> much Microsoft stuff that it created a conflict of interest.  
 AR> Besides here in the US money can often buy a legal judgement.  
 AR> Personally I still hope some future political changes will 
 AR> eventually result in justice.

I see where being able to command significant resources is going to let you
make a better case,  in any context that I'm aware of.  And I can't see any
change in the system that'd improve this situation...



 JS> You can only keep a far superior product down by standing on it in a
 JS> competitive market.

 AR> Microsoft did the standing on of OS/2.  Remember the many new 
 AR> versions of Win32s that did nothing except prevent OS/2 from 
 AR> installing the new 3rd-party software written with Microsoft 
 AR> tools and assistance.  Remember IBM kept releasing many new 
 AR> Win32s patches up until v.1.25b.  It was a rapid and endless 
 AR> cycle of Microsoft trying to put OS/2 down.

You mention "1.25b" there,  what is the latest version of that support that
Warp can use?  I'm not sure what I have here,  but am fairly certain that it's 
earlier than that.

 AR> But Microsoft started by appealing to the totally novice and 
 AR> technically illiterate game players.  The result was that the 
 AR> number of computer users increased.  But that didn't change the 
 AR> number of technically savvy computer users drastically.

Good point!



 AR> It was not and is not a matter of "want" nor desires nor which 
 AR> OS is technically superior.  IBM = International BUSINESS 
 AR> Machine.  It is simply a matter of "business". Making a profit.

Just so.



 AR> Personally I think IBM made a very bad call to give up on the 
 AR> end user SOHO user market regardless of how much more Microsoft 
 AR> was going to charge them or even if Microsoft didn't let IBM 
 AR> bundle Microsoft software to IBM clients. For the money IBM 
 AR> charges those big business clients IBM could send someone down 
 AR> to the local shop to buy WinXX retail, and still make a profit.

Agreed,  but it's a very different _kind_ of business to deal with,  one that
IBM has not been into at all,  and one that m$ has been into since their
inception,  and I can see where they might not have wanted to start such a
thing.  In order for them to do so and to be successful at it,  they'd have
probably needed to start a new division,  as with the introduction of the pc
in the first place,  and we can see how they got their butts kicked by the
clones in _that_ market -- they lost control of it completely.  Had they been
more innovative,  had they been less conservative,  and had they come up with
easier (and cheaper!) licensing for their MCA hardware,  that might have
become the new standard.  But that behavior isn't typical of IBM...

 AR> IMO someone at IBM completely under-estimated the effect of 
 AR> what software a user has at home has on what software will be 
 AR> chosen for big business later. 

Another good point.

 AR> IMO IBM falsely assumed that Microsoft home users would 
 AR> suddenly switch to OS/2 at work because of reliability.  Thus 
 AR> IBM falsely assumed that they could still hold onto the big 
 AR> business market even if they let loose of the end users.  By 
 AR> the time IBM figured out that isn't the way businesses grow, it 
 AR> was too late. So now IBM is trying to make the best of a bad 
 AR> situation and make their profit as a "Service" company.  No 
 AR> doubt Microsoft software needs a lot more service than OS/2.

No doubt!  Which probably accounts for all the classified ads I'm seeing
looking for people to help out with NT,  in particular!  Too bad I don't have
a certification or three in that department.  But I'm not currently either
willing or able to pay the going rate to get them,  since it's a seller's
market...



 AR> Software Choice and the ---
 AR> ___ Terminate 5.00/Pro*at 
 AR>  - Origin: Warp 4
 AR> engage.....----------=============>>>>>>>>>>> (1:109/921.1) 

Looks like something chopped your message.  More comments on part 2...

--- 
278/111