🚀 go-pugleaf

G. Wayne Hines wrote:
> In an earlier episode, "David T. Johnson" 
> <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>A lot of discussion has occurred over the years about why OS/2 did not 
>>take off with IBM.  People have pointed to Microsoft's illegal monopoly 
>>activities, IBM's poor marketing skills, technical problems with various 
>>OS/2 versions, lack of hardware and software support, and other things. 
>>  Something seldom mentioned, however, is the possibility that the 
>>decision to end OS/2 development was nothing but an arbitrary decision 
>>made by former IBM CEO Lou Gerstner back in the mid-90s.  During an 
> 
> 
> But, would that "arbitrary decision" perhaps have been made so 
> IBM could get a better price break from Microsoft on Windows 95?
> 
> Microsoft seemed to have a distinct edge in the marketplace, 
> thanks partly to FUD and promotion of what almost amounted to 
> vapourware. Just how late was Windows 95? 
> 
> In the early 90's, computer dealers in this area were pushing MS
> products over other brands. The issue was "compatibility". "That
> program may not run on DR-DOS". Where I worked, we installed (in
> 1993, I think) a small network with Novell DOS-7, without any 
> trouble. The dealer who sold us the computers didn't want to 
> sell Novell DOS. He warned we'd have all kinds of troubles. Part
> of that system was still going when I left the company last 
> August. It worked very well. There were a couple of Windows 
> networks in the building and they seemed to always have trouble.

   Yes aye aye to that.  Right from the start of the PC revolution there 
was a "mind capture", some sort of emotional grip.  When IBM and M$ were 
together the predisposition was things had to be "IBM compatible".  This 
wasn't held just by computer dealers but very generally - all sorts of 
people.  I noticed it amongst professional colleagues in the public 
service.  After IBM and M$ broke up the bias went to to M$.  *Anything* 
M$ introduced was eagerly seized by these professional staff - Lotus 123 
was supplanted by Excel, dBase was supplanted by Foxbase, Wordstar by 
Word.  Nothing had the same lean, whether it was Worperfect, the 
Macintosh let alone DRDOS or OS/2 or CTOS which I was a keen users in 
those days.

   OS/2 or eCS still has that emotional barrier to cross to win hitherto 
non-OS/2 users

   You could ASK these people why they were so keen on M$ products but 
you couldn't get any sensible answers.  They just felt at home with the 
stuff.  Everything else was somehow foreign and the'd shrug their 
shoulders to any evidence to the contrary.  However, any slight 
shortcoming in competing products they'd come down on you like a ton of 
bricks saying "there you are!"  This is even true today amongst 
different colleagues who are critical of big business.

   For Australian users, here is the links that David Johnson posted 
early in the thread:

http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/cgi-bin/h-search?key=gerstner&pushbutton=Search

> 
> I got Warp-3 in August, 1995, from a dealer who had seen Windows
> 95. I think he was a beta tester. He said I would enjoy OS/2 
> much more than Windows, and that it was a better system. He was 
> right.
> 
> gwh
>