Microsoft did not blackmail IBM into killing off OS/2. To
understand why IBM back then never wrote a single successful
software product for the PC, start at the source. 85% of all
problems are directly traceable to top management. And so in
1992, what computer is on the desks of IBM top management?
IBM XTs with CGA monitors. 1983 machines on Sept 1990 desks.
IBM management was so technically ignorant - so educated in
MBA school philosophies - that their own computers could not
execute new software sold in retail stores.

This is a company that will make a successful OS?

OS/2 was just another classic example of IBM management who
did not even write code. Names such as Cannavino and Akers
should be on your lips. These were bean counters who could
not recognize an innovation even if it bit them in the ass.
It is that technical ignorance that caused difficulty for
Microsoft to get IBM to endorse innovation - such as a
graphical interface. IBM in 1990 even insisted on writing new
OS code for the 1984 IBM AT - IBM management was that myopic.
Windows 3.0 arrived May 1990.

Managers who were technically naive caused an IBM /
Microsoft breakup. IBM was brainwashed into a mainframe
mentality - had no appreciation of the graphical interface
that was even making Apple so successful. IBM even called
their PC group the Entry Systems division because they viewed
the PC only as an extension of mainframes. Cannavino was even
declaring his division the most profitable when it was really
losing, in 1992, about $1billion per year.

The IBM Microsoft divorce, started Sept 1990, gave Microsoft
development of Windows and gave IBM the development of OS/2.
This separation was fully implemented by mid-1991. These were
the days of Windows 3.x. OS/2 did not work well was Jan
1992. OS/2 2.0 finally arrived in 1993 about the same time
that a first Windows NT was making an appearance. IOW
Windows NT was created completely independent of IBM and
contrary to what was posted.

After the parting, Microsoft started building two operating
systems. One was a preemptive multitasking OS that used a
graphical interface, worked superbly, and met the delivery
schedule. I was using NT without crashes before a completely
different OS named Windows 95 arrived. In fact NT engineers
had to transfer to the Windows 95 group because Win 95 was so
problematic.

NT worked just fine without crashing on my 486s in direct
contradiction to what was posted. In fact this PC is a 486-66
Mhz PC. Why? It uses Windows NT 4.0 that executes hardware
fast enough even ten years later. With Windows 9x, this 486
machine would have been scrapped long ago. That is how stable
NT was even back in 1994. But again, if discussing Windows,
then always state which one. Back then, two completely
different Windows OSes existed. Previous posts imply all
Windows OSes are same.

OS/2 could have been successful in mid 1980s. But a
multitasking text oriented Operating System released in the
1990s and written in assembly language was too little too late
- and an example of what happens when top management are bean
counters rather than come from where the work gets done.

IBM top management undermined OS/2 - especially its greatest
anti-innovators - John Akers and Jim Cannavino. Nobody would
write a new Operating System in assembly language. And yet
that is exactly what IBM managers did with OS/2.

Its a tribute to IBM engineers that they were able to make
OS/2 functional. But again, too little too late - or what
happens when top management does not come from where the work
gets done.

In 1992, OS/2 still was not doing a graphical interface
because even top IBM management did not understand the
concept. Worse, the first version did not yet do preemptive
multitasking correctly. Too little too late. Symptoms
directly traceable to inferior top management in IBM.

So how does this related to a CMOS date time clock that does
not keep good time AND predates all of this?

wrote:
I am not advocating it, I only pointed out that its multitasking was
true, pre-emptive, and vastly superior to any MS product. Oh, BTW, the
first versions of windows wouldn't even run a day without crashing and
had more bugs than lines of code. So what does that have to do with
anything?

Even worse, the IBM people did not even understand what
multitasking was as we showed them one application locking
out other tasks. When first released, bugs in OS/2 caused
its preemptive MT abilities to not perform correctly.

And when first released, windows was a total disaster. Again, so what?
Stay in the present. At its peak in the late 90's, OS/2 was a cadillac
to M$'s yugo. You can always argue app support, but technically,
nothing holds a candle to OS/2. If MS was allowed to be crap for 10
years, and is now glorified, why do you think it matters that OS/2 had
problems at first as well? The SIQ was the cause of just about any hang
on any OS/2 system. When that was not an issue, NT could not stand up
to OS/2 for stability. When Billy glued that dopey GUI onto NT, its
reliability tanked.

There is a reason why OS/2 ran every ATM on the planet until the banks
sold out to billy. If your ATM works, its OS/2.

And just another reason why OS/2 was not a profitable
product for IBM.

OS/2 was not profitable for a lot of reasons, the largest of which came
out in the MS trial, when we all learned that gates blackmailed IBM
into killing it off. Again, totally irrelevant to the topic at
hand.Profits do not equate to quality and features. I would take a BMW
over a Ford any day, but Ford sells more product. Doesn't mean their
cars are better, it just means they sell more of them. Again, so what?

Windows NT does it for all applications,

According to some people's warped definition of preemptive
multitasking, but NT's "idea" of it was not what preemptive really is,
as demonstrated in OS/2 (not early releases, like you are whining
about)

NT was Microsoft's answer to OS/2 when IBM and Microsoft finally
had a parting of the ways in early 1990s.

Wake up. NT WAS OS/2 as taken by gates when he split from M$ Everyone
knows bill never invented anything, or wrote an OS from the ground up.
He took NT from IBM as part of the parting of the ways, and found
people to embellish it, except he took what you are whining about which
is the versions that could not do preemptive multitasking. Shoot, he
couldn't even pull the OS/2 code from the kernel until XP came around.
Such a brilliant mind he has.....

However OS/2 has no useful graphical interface.

Wow. Dumbest statement I ever read on usenet. Apparently, you never,
ever saw OS/2 on a desktop. Most people will agree that the OS/2 Object
Oriented interface is superior in every way to anything M$ has ever
stolen. The OS/2 desktop is legendary. Can't believe you never saw
it.......

Guess that pretty much blows any credibility you were hoping to show
off around here.

No useful graphical interface. Yikes.... You really are clueless.