OS/2 continues to suffer IBM's internal divisions.

OS/2 continues to suffer IBM's internal divisions.

Post by Dennis Peterso » Thu, 11 Jun 1998 04:00:00





> whispered this through the grapevine:

> >> "Porting OS/2 to Merced would be on a par with porting to the
> >> PowerPC - IBM wasn't able to get that to work either".

> >IBM did get it to work.

> Why didn't they market it, then?

No application support? It is hard enough to get application support for
the Intel version.

dp

 
 
 

OS/2 continues to suffer IBM's internal divisions.

Post by Victor Bi » Fri, 12 Jun 1998 04:00:00


  In Australia Rupert Murdoch's "quality" daily the Australian
republished an article by a Barabara Gengler from Platforms
entitled "OS/2 misses the Merced bus".  This followed an IBM
announcement that it will be the only Intel-based operating
system not to support the 64-bit Merced chip.
  Presumably IBM hasn't the programming firepower to do it.  
"Porting OS/2 to Merced would be on a par with porting to the
PowerPC - IBM wasn't able to get that to work either".  This
confirms Brad Wardell's essay distributed late last year,
"OS/2 the past, present and the future" - that IBM made a mess
of the PowerPC venture which mortally weakened OS/2 at a
critical stage.  I understand some of the core of OS/2 is
coded in assembler and since IBM's "downsizing", closing of
Baton Rouge (spelling?) etc. the hot shots have been dispersed.
So there is no one capable in the place to do the porting?
  Is IBM's top level thinking dominated by what we Aussies
call economic rationalism, or more correctly, economic
fundamentalism?  That is to say an accountant's mentality,
narrow short term marketing outlook, taking the market as is,
lacking a long term commitment to non-market factors such as
technical excellence and prowess, lacking a contributory
attitude to offering the best to society.  With a
contributory mentality the form of markets become an outcome
of the contributions rather than something taken as is.  If
the number of people with a contributory mentality become too
few, the marketism mentality would result in a shapeless
morass.  Before pervasive large scale technology where markets
dealt with uncomplex things like food, clothing and shelter
shapelessness didn't matter.  But with powerful ubiquitous
technology, shapelessness means things like environmental
degradation, mis-shapen cities and excellent things like
OS/2 given the ping pong ball treatment in IBM!
  On the other hand the article shows IBM staying in there
and just doing the on-going support and upgrading of the
op sys.  Points mentioned include: IBM is pitching it to
small to medium businesses (not "big" business as many in this
group suggest) or as a turn key solution; Warp Server to
include support for managing Windows NT 4.0 clients, GUI
resource monitoring, backup & recovery functionality;
Year 2000 compliance, web serving capability, Java 1.1.6
support, deliver functionality OS/2 clients over the Internet
by "Software Choice service".  Netscape 4.0 will be delivered
in October by this means.  The only dampener a colleague
mentioned is that there may be a hefty fee.

Victor Bien
VCB Computing (R)
Employing network marketing concepts to promote OS/2
The network is the channel (apologise to Sun).

 
 
 

OS/2 continues to suffer IBM's internal divisions.

Post by Dave Thol » Fri, 12 Jun 1998 04:00:00


Quote:> "Porting OS/2 to Merced would be on a par with porting to the
> PowerPC - IBM wasn't able to get that to work either".

IBM did get it to work.
 
 
 

OS/2 continues to suffer IBM's internal divisions.

Post by Steven C. Den Bes » Fri, 12 Jun 1998 04:00:00



whispered this through the grapevine:

Quote:>> "Porting OS/2 to Merced would be on a par with porting to the
>> PowerPC - IBM wasn't able to get that to work either".

>IBM did get it to work.

Why didn't they market it, then?
 
 
 

OS/2 continues to suffer IBM's internal divisions.

Post by Dave Thol » Fri, 12 Jun 1998 04:00:00


Steven C. Den Beste writes:

Quote:>>> "Porting OS/2 to Merced would be on a par with porting to the
>>> PowerPC - IBM wasn't able to get that to work either".
>> IBM did get it to work.
> Why didn't they market it, then?

Irrelevant; the issue was getting it to work, not marketing.

I thought I was in your kill file, Steven.  Maybe this would be a
good opportunity to find out if you figured out how to use a one-button
mouse yet.

 
 
 

OS/2 continues to suffer IBM's internal divisions.

Post by Steven C. Den Bes » Fri, 12 Jun 1998 04:00:00



whispered this through the grapevine:

Quote:>Steven C. Den Beste writes:

>>>> "Porting OS/2 to Merced would be on a par with porting to the
>>>> PowerPC - IBM wasn't able to get that to work either".

>>> IBM did get it to work.

>> Why didn't they market it, then?

>Irrelevant; the issue was getting it to work, not marketing.

>I thought I was in your kill file, Steven.  Maybe this would be a
>good opportunity to find out if you figured out how to use a one-button
>mouse yet.

I changed newsreaders and haven't yet updated the killfile. But you've now
inspired me. Time to hit the manual!
 
 
 

OS/2 continues to suffer IBM's internal divisions.

Post by josc » Fri, 12 Jun 1998 04:00:00






> > whispered this through the grapevine:

> > >> "Porting OS/2 to Merced would be on a par with porting to the
> > >> PowerPC - IBM wasn't able to get that to work either".

> > >IBM did get it to work.

> > Why didn't they market it, then?

> Working, even working robustly or fast, does not mean it's marketable for a
> whole lot of other non-technical reasons (e.g. lack of cheap and plentiful
> hardware base.)

Sepaking of hardware, IBM is divesting themselves of the PPC R&D for PC
class systems.  They'll focus on embedded PPC development and on high end
PPC.
 
 
 

OS/2 continues to suffer IBM's internal divisions.

Post by Jason » Sat, 13 Jun 1998 04:00:00


josco posted the following to comp.os.os2.advocacy:

Quote:>Sepaking of hardware, IBM is divesting themselves of the PPC R&D for PC
>class systems.  They'll focus on embedded PPC development and on high end
>PPC.

I assume that this means that the 750 is now Motorola's baby?

--
Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time
to reform.
             -- Mark Twain

 
 
 

OS/2 continues to suffer IBM's internal divisions.

Post by Dave Thol » Sat, 13 Jun 1998 04:00:00


Steven C. Den Beste writes:

Quote:>>>>> "Porting OS/2 to Merced would be on a par with porting to the
>>>>> PowerPC - IBM wasn't able to get that to work either".
>>>> IBM did get it to work.
>>> Why didn't they market it, then?
>> Irrelevant; the issue was getting it to work, not marketing.

>> I thought I was in your kill file, Steven.  Maybe this would be a
>> good opportunity to find out if you figured out how to use a one-button
>> mouse yet.
> I changed newsreaders and haven't yet updated the killfile. But you've now
> inspired me. Time to hit the manual!

It figures.  Must have occurred after you made your ridiculous
one-button mouse posting.
 
 
 

OS/2 continues to suffer IBM's internal divisions.

Post by Joseph T. Mallo » Sun, 14 Jun 1998 04:00:00


Quote:>Steven C. Den Beste writes:

>>>> "Porting OS/2 to Merced would be on a par with porting to the
>>>> PowerPC - IBM wasn't able to get that to work either".

>>> IBM did get it to work.

>> Why didn't they market it, then?

>Irrelevant; the issue was getting it to work, not marketing.

>I thought I was in your kill file, Steven.  Maybe this would be a
>good opportunity to find out if you figured out how to use a one-button
>mouse yet.

Now, ask yourself (or, for the reflexively impaired Tholen, "your") this:
what's wrong with that question?  Aside from the simple stupidity of it,
Tholen, Steven can -- and should -- respond, "Irrelevant; the issue was
getting it to work, not marketing."  That is, of course, if you are
self-consistent.  Which, by the by, you are not.
 
 
 

OS/2 continues to suffer IBM's internal divisions.

Post by Robato Y » Thu, 18 Jun 1998 04:00:00



Quote:>josco posted the following to comp.os.os2.advocacy:

>>Sepaking of hardware, IBM is divesting themselves of the PPC R&D for PC
>>class systems.  They'll focus on embedded PPC development and on high end
>>PPC.

>I assume that this means that the 750 is now Motorola's baby?

Ultimately it has to fall one or the other, and I honestly think it's
better that way.

Rgds,

Chris

Quote:

>--
>Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time
>to reform.
>             -- Mark Twain

(counting down from top 50 oxymorons...)
10.  Tight slacks  
9.   Definite maybe
8.   Pretty ugly
7.   Twelve-ounce pound cake
6.   Diet ice cream
5.   Rap music
4.  Working vacation  
3.  Exact estimate  
2.  Religious tolerance
And the NUMBER ONE top oxy-MORON
1.   Microsoft Works
---From the Top 50 Oxymorons (thanks to Richard Kennedy)
 
 
 

OS/2 continues to suffer IBM's internal divisions.

Post by Edwin E. Thorn » Thu, 18 Jun 1998 04:00:00




Quote:> Steven C. Den Beste writes:

> >>>>> "Porting OS/2 to Merced would be on a par with porting to the
> >>>>> PowerPC - IBM wasn't able to get that to work either".

> >>>> IBM did get it to work.

> >>> Why didn't they market it, then?

> >> Irrelevant; the issue was getting it to work, not marketing.

> >> I thought I was in your kill file, Steven.  Maybe this would be a
> >> good opportunity to find out if you figured out how to use a
one-button
> >> mouse yet.

> > I changed newsreaders and haven't yet updated the killfile. But you've
now
> > inspired me. Time to hit the manual!

> It figures.  Must have occurred after you made your ridiculous
> one-button mouse posting.

Evidence, please.
 
 
 

OS/2 continues to suffer IBM's internal divisions.

Post by tho.. » Fri, 19 Jun 1998 04:00:00


Quote:Edwin E. Thorne writes:
>> Steven C. Den Beste writes:
>>>>>>> "Porting OS/2 to Merced would be on a par with porting to the
>>>>>>> PowerPC - IBM wasn't able to get that to work either".
>>>>>> IBM did get it to work.
>>>>> Why didn't they market it, then?
>>>> Irrelevant; the issue was getting it to work, not marketing.

>>>> I thought I was in your kill file, Steven.  Maybe this would be a
>>>> good opportunity to find out if you figured out how to use a
>>>> one-button mouse yet.
>>> I changed newsreaders and haven't yet updated the killfile. But you've
>>> now inspired me. Time to hit the manual!
>> It figures.  Must have occurred after you made your ridiculous
>> one-button mouse posting.
> Evidence, please.

He didn't post any followup.
 
 
 

1. Dvorak's 1995 note to IBM: Sell the OS/2 division

Those here that  steer clear of the advocacy group, have missed out on my
topic:   "A modest proposal". This will correct that oversight, AND  bring
John Dvorak's FANTASTIC INSIGHT article to your attention..PLS READ THE
ARTICLE link below..   btw, I was not aware of this article when I wrote my
little ditty,  (but great minds shud reach the same conclusion)..


I came across this old article which had amazingly insight for period just
prior to Win95's 1995 release..
Dvorak wasnt visionary enuf (or knowledgeable) to realize that MS has A LOT
TO SAY what IBM does with "its" OS/2 system... He shud have proposed
something similiar to my proposal above...
BTW, I ran this up the flagpole a week ago and not even one warp'ee has
tried to lower the flag,   hmmmmmm...
This MUST mean you warp'ees like it..

http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/issues/1414/pcm00041.htm

2. novice samba question

3. IBM Should Buy Novel's Apps Division!

4. FS: NEW CISCO 1004

5. IBM's continues to support OS/2 - NOT!!!

6. frontpage not starting

7. News: Great push for OS/2: IBM merges OS/2 and Java division

8. - Major automotive website -

9. Why, oh why, oh why do we have to suffer this from IBM?

10. IBM Consumer Division

11. IBM & Star Division

12. Reorganization at IBM software division

13. IBM announces continuing OS/2 support