OS/2, eCS & ArcaOS - General > Events
Do not forget: Spock (Leonard Nimoy) introduced OS/2 Warp
xynixme:
--- Quote from: Tuure Linden on August 28, 2019, 06:30:05 pm ---My friend bought a new IBM Aptiva 486 in late 1994 or early 1995 and I never understood why it came with PC-DOS and Windows 3,1 installed instead of OS/2. Why didn't IBM ship OS/2 with its own computer models?
--- End quote ---
My restriction is eCS 1.2, FWIW. Hence nothing newer than a single core Pentium 4 CPU at best.
In general IBM was about options or choices, so the customers decided. In 1994 it was possible to order OS/2 2.1 pre-installed, without any obligations to support all configurations. Presumably the most popular, or cheapest, or most realistic choice of users was a default, i.e. their DOS and Microsoft's GUI. An understandable choice. Selling copies of OS/2 is not a goal of a hardware-selling hardware division.
Doug Bissett:
--- Quote ---Why didn't IBM ship OS/2 with its own computer models?
--- End quote ---
That is actually a very complicated question, that I will attempt to answer briefly.
There were two, completely separate, divisions in IBM. One handled building PCs (and they were originally responsible for having Microsoft make the BIOS, and DOS). The other handled software development, other than DOS. Rumor has it, that they were across the hall from each other, but I don't think that was true. The IBM PC was always looked upon as being a "toy", by upper management, and they pretty much ignored anybody who said that it had a lot of potential, if it had a proper operating system. Somehow, somebody did manage to get both projects off the ground, but the two divisions hated each other, and would never cooperate. IBM actually made a pretty good PC, but others came along and made them cheaper, with better support (remember, the PC was just a "toy", so upper management didn't care). Meanwhile Microsoft was learning a lot about how to make software work, and OS/2 made a pretty good base for something cheaper, so Microsoft made sure that they owned a license to use whatever OS/2 had. They also contributed a few things to OS/2, just to be sure they had a foot in the door. Eventually, Microsoft walked out on IBM, and created windows (much to the relief of the PC department, because they had an outside alternative).
There was also the legal problems with bundling software with a PC. IBM was flat out not allowed to do that, while Microsoft engaged in a kickback scheme to get all manufacturers (including IBM - remember that the PC department hated the OS/2 department) to install their software. IBM did manage to install OS/2 on some machines, but windows was always what came up first, so most users didn't even know there was an alternative, or they figured it wasn't worth the effort to even try it. Knowledgeable businesses did recognize that OS/2 was superior, and many did embrace it. At that time, IBM did try advertising OS/2, but that fell flat on its face because they had no experience with selling to the general public (and, the marketing department didn't believe it would ever sell anyway). Meanwhile, Microsoft did a very flashy advertising program, aimed directly at young people. IBM went back into their shell (still believing that the PC had no future), and Microsoft basically took over the PC world. Eventually, the IBM PC department was sold off to Lenovo, and IBM decided to abandon OS/2.
It is an interesting study, to look at what the IBM share prices did, over that period, and upper management still looked upon the PC as being a "toy" (probably still do).
Here we are, 25 years later, still trying to make OS/2 work on modern hardware. Fortunately, the OS/2 base was well designed, and it is possible to fix many of the long term problems, and add new features. The main problem is that we just don't have enough people, who know what they are doing, to keep up with the demand, and there are licensing problems with the IBM development tools, which makes it difficult for a programmer to get started. Most "new" development is done by porting software from the Linux world, which has introduced it's own set of problems, but it does keep the platform alive.
Dennis Smith:
--- Quote from: Tuure Linden on August 28, 2019, 06:30:05 pm ---My friend bought a new IBM Aptiva 486 in late 1994 or early 1995 and I never understood why it came with PC-DOS and Windows 3,1 installed instead of OS/2. Why didn't IBM ship OS/2 with its own computer models?
--- End quote ---
IBM had hardware compatibility and driver issues on Aptivas when OS/2 Warp was first released. Retail Warp versions actually had a sheet of paper inside the box telling the buyer to call IBM Tech Support for a software update diskette and special installation instructions for Aptivas. By mid-1995 IBM was selling Aptivas preinstalled with DOS/Win 3.11 and OS/2 Warp 3. It was called Selecta-System. You could chose between operating systems. Later Windows 95 was added to the mix.
IBM offered quite a few computers models pre-installed with OS/2 during the 1994-1996 time frame.
Martin Iturbide:
Hi
--- Quote from: André Heldoorn on August 28, 2019, 03:33:16 pm ---
--- Quote from: Tuure Linden on August 28, 2019, 08:55:19 am ---Did IBM fail because of bad marketing?
--- End quote ---
Windows 95 and cheap computer with just 4 MiB of RAM was the best market condition ever....
--- End quote ---
I also remember that on that moment Microsoft wanted everybody to use Windows NT, but it used as much as resources at OS/2. So Microsoft came with the idea to make a "mediocre/average/poor" OS that uses less resources, until hardware price catch up with Windows NT. That Windows was 95, 98, and Me (millennium), after those editions Microsoft finally consolidated all Windows to NT with Windows XP. So maybe hardware requirement and prices at that time were a problem for OS/2.
On the other hand the IBM PC clone industry was growing at that time, and Compaq, HP, Packard Bell, etc,etc... didn't want to buy the OS from his competition, IBM, so they felt safe with Microsoft, a software exclusive company that will not compete with them in hardware... ;D ;D ;D
And Microsoft used to also have an almost illegal strategy to charge more for a Windows OEM license to companies that offers PCs with more OSes.
Regards
Tuure Linden:
And what would be OS/2 like today if IBM hadn't abandoned it? Would it be nothing like ArcaOS?
When compared to Windows, many things have changed.... and usually for worse. I stopped using Windows completely when XP came out. I just hated it. It was ugly and early version had some issues with my hardware. I used only Linux almost for 10 years. I don't remember when I stopped using OS/2 Warp 3 but it must have been about the time Windows 2000 came out. I once had even a triple boot system with OS/2 Warp 3, Redhat Linux 6.0 and Windows NT 4.0. Later it was only Windows and then only Linux.
Windows Vista and 7 completely messed up how network configuration is done... And what were they thinking when making Windows 8? Windows 10 is a completely mess. I've used it and have it installed on some computers but they have completely messed up system configuration and big changes are made in every release. The system is also spying on users and some very annoying software is installed by default (Candy Crush Saga and other crapware). They UI is ugly... but it's getting better. Actually I kinda liked Windows Vista's look, 7 was uglier.
With OS/2 there are many things that work and it's nice to have a system that hasn't changed that much. But because I haven't used it for over a decade many things have to be re-learned now when I'm using ArcaOS. With modern Linux distributions there's also this problem that everything changes too much. I liked the time when you needed to complie the kernel yourself and edit XF86Config, lilo.conf etc. It was logical and clear. Nowadays it's not anymore. But ArcaOS is almost same that OS/2 Warp over two decades ago. Ofcourse mixing it up with OSS and RPM etc makes thing a bit more confusing but as a long time Linux user I don't find that to be a problem. But what changed would IBM have done? Would "a modern OS/2" be something as terrible as Windows 10? At lest Windows 10 seems to be very stable compared to many former Windows versions (2003 server excluded, it must have been the most stable Windows ever).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version