🚀 go-pugleaf

David T. Johnson wrote:
> Back in May, 1998 Esther Schindler authored an article published on 
> ZdNet in which she claimed that OS/2 was officially dead since IBM had 
> decided not to port OS/2 to the then-being-developed Intel "Merced" 
> 64-bit processor.  Said Esther's article:  "...Big Blue has hammered 
> another nail into the operating system's coffin by deciding not to 
> deliver a 64-bit version for Intel Corp's forthcoming Merced chip...The 
> Warp Server and WSOD enhancements ensure that OS/2 will survive into 
> 1999.  But once Merced becomes Intel's mainstream chip, OS/2 might 
> finally rest in peace."
> 
> As many here probably know, Intel did eventually release their 'Merced' 
> processor as the "Itanium" and OS/2 never was ported to it by IBM or 
> anyone else.  This article had a big effect, though, on the OS/2 user 
> base at the time and probably accelerated the departure of many users 
> from the OS/2 platform since it painted a picture of imminent and 
> upcoming new CPU hardware that would simply not run OS/2.  So what was 
> wrong with that picture?  Well, Intel never intended Itanium to be a 
> mainstream chip but instead targeted it as a high-end niche hardware 
> platform.  And then, problems with Itanium performance, compatibility, 
> cost, and development complexity doomed it to a less-than-successful life.
> 
> Finally, now, it's 2005 and, ironically, Itanium and 'dead' are 
> beginning to appear together in print frequently:
> 
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27149
> 
> OS/2 didn't die in 1998 in spite of Esther's articles but went on to 
> survive until at least 2006 and, ironically, may even outlive the 
> Itanium that was supposed to have killed it back in 1999.

   In Tom Nadeau's article "Understanding IBM" part 20 at
http://www.os2hq.com/articles/uibm20.htm entitled "A Smooth 5-Speed" he
made the point that IBM, unlike M$, does not have an all or nothing
approach to marketing.  Despite all the negative views about OS/2
expressed over the years based on IBM's _expressed_ intentions I think
we can confirm with hindsight that Nadeau's observation was/is correct.
At the time Esther wrote her article Nadeau reckoned that behind the
scenes IBM had dropped the speed to 3.  We keen users who won't give up
know since that time quite a lot of goodies have still been coming out -
we know very well Mike Kaply and Scott Garfinkle's work!!

   Well if that was what we got from 1998 - 2005 is it possible they
will continue but at speeds 2 or 1??  As long it does not drop to zero
OS/2 is still actually alive!

   My opinion is that there is still a place for OS/2 despite the clunky
drones of IBM management.  The Windoze monoculture is a viral and
spyware disaster.  The Mac and the Sun workstations are too expensive.
Linux is not that good.  I understand that its libraries have become
more and more of an unwieldy mess and drivers are almost as hard to come
by as for OS/2!

   It wouldn't take that much to make OS/2 a usable alternative for more
of the market and "ordinary" users.  Its technological state is
_actually_ remarkably healthy.  It would just take some concentrated
savvy marketing like Michael Robertson has done with Linspire to get it
to make traction.

-- 
To reply by e-mail edit this address to the correct form: vbien at
attglobal dot net