[oclug] RE: OCLUG digest, Vol 1 #2729 - 5 msgs
aquraishi at skyesystems.com
Thu Jul 3 16:12:33 EDT 2003
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.
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
>>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 :)
Asad Quraishi <aquraishi at skyesystems.com>
JID: quad4b at jabber.skyesystems.org
Skye Object Systems Inc.
"...helping organizations build systems & software better"
More information about the OCLUG