Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Apr 2007 21:11 UTC, submitted by judgen
OS/2 and eComStation "In this anniversary, I'd like to shed some light about my first-hand experience with [OS/2], especially since I see many attempts at history re-writing and over-simplification, when people compress OS/2's two decades into a single paragraph. An OS/2 user named Roger Perkins wrote to OS/2 newsgroups ten years ago: "Here's to OS/2's 10th Anniversary on April 2nd! No OS has ever died so many times!"
Thread beginning with comment 226852
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

By 1995, the world was already on Windows. It wasn't a matter of moving to it. It was a matter of "why should I switch to OS/2?".

I sort of agree with you about the general attitudes of IBM and the other commercial Unix vendors. But it was not a matter of it not occurring to them that their stuff must be competitive with Windows.

It was more a matter of only caring about selling big, expensive servers, which were a lucrative business, and not caring about the desktop.

Long before Win95, that attitude is what let Microsoft waltz in and take over the desktop... with DOS, no less!

This has come back to haunt them. They eventually realized, too late, that whoever controls the desktop ultimately controls the server.

But, more importantly, we have *all* been paying for that bit of shortsightedness for a couple of decades now.

I suspect that Microsoft's victory would be complete by now if it were not for the unexpected arrival of Linux and OSS.

I know you do not like Linux and OSS. But you have to admit that they have complicated MS's plans for absolute world domination.

Reply Parent Score: 3

ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

Actually, OS/2 had a nice sizeable userbase... Once. IBM just didn't want to pony up the dough to support their consumer/SOHO OS. The support cost would probably be astronomical compared to their mainframe dept.

I suspect that Microsoft's victory would be complete by now if it were not for the unexpected arrival of Linux and OSS.

I completely agree. With mention of the revival of Apple Inc and Jobs' second coming.

I know you do not like Linux and OSS. But you have to admit that they have complicated MS's plans for absolute world domination.

I do like Linux. I don't have a need for it. Ditto for OSS. I use OSS apps all the time. I just think that the OSS fundamentalists and GNU/RMS should read "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" by Robert Fulghum. And yes I know that MS' OS dominance is challenged. Competition will make it all good. ;)

Reply Parent Score: -1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

ronaldst,

Thank you for the response. And I apologize for misjudging you.

Keep in mind that a lot of us are strong advocates, but stop short of being fundamentalists. ;-) But I do admit that "bad advocacy" is all too common.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Bad advocacy is worse than no advocacy at all. Not only is it ineffective... but it can actually motivate others to act against one's cause. And it is much easier to destroy than to create.

Reply Parent Score: 2

rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

I suspect that Microsoft's victory would be complete by now if it were not for the unexpected arrival of Linux and OSS.

Yup. MS had the OS market tied up in knots and mostly locked up tight, but Linux (and to a less extent BSD) are mainly developed outside the commercial marketplace and tend to be at least somewhat immune from market forces.

That makes them significant threats to Microsoft, IMO.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Woogbear Member since:
2006-07-12

Linux more resembles a Bagdad slum compared to a modern operating system like OS X.

Reply Parent Score: 1