[oclug] RE: OCLUG digest, Vol 1 #2729 - 5 msgs

[Asad Quraishi]

IBM was still in their 'Big Blue' stage at this time.  It is also the 
time when they were innovating the PC less than Compaq for ex.  IMO 
OS/2's demise was due more to marketing errors - building it for the 
corporate and not youth/home market.  Even on the corporate side their 
target market was big enterprise while Microsoft included the SME.  MS 
just had a better marketing and sales organization.  That has always 
been Bill's genius - not technology.  That plus knowing which products 
to bet the farm on.

- Asad

Robert Brockway wrote:

>On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 charles.macdonald at hrdc-drhc.gc.ca wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>In any case, there were reasons OS/2 died.  They had little to do with
>>>Microsoft.
>>>      
>>>
>>What about Microsoft supposedly telling IBM that if they were to
>>continue to preload OS/2 on their machines - that IBM would be unable to
>>obtain a OEM licence to preload Win95 on any IBM brand PC.
>>    
>>
>
>I still think OS/2 would have been a viable option if there hadn't been
>for a sudden and severe ram shortage hitting the world at a time when OS/2
>required twice as much ram as DOS/Win3.1 to run efficiently.
>
>It's entirely possible that the demise was caused by a combination of
>factors - I'm left with the feeling that OS/2 should have succeeded on the
>desktop but just didn't.
>
>  
>
>>Since OS/2 was originally written as a test run by Microsoft, under
>>contact, any gaps in OS/2 were also signs of the fickle finger of M$
>>    
>>
>
>I have always felt that IBM was always serious about OS/2 even if MS
>wasn't.  They flogged OS/2 Warp long after it was already dead :)
>
>Cheers,
>	Rob
>
>  
>

-- 
Asad Quraishi <aquraishi at skyesystems.com>
JID: quad4b at jabber.skyesystems.org
Skye Object Systems Inc.
"...helping organizations build systems & software better"
http://www.skyesystems.com