[Info-vax] OT: IBM to buy Sun

[Bill Pechter]

In article <72hm26Fqe08iU7 at mid.individual.net>,
Bill Gunshannon <billg999 at cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>In article <gpvohp$a5r$1 at pechter.motzarella.org>,
>	pechter at bandit.pechter.dyndns.org.pechter.dyndns.org (Bill Pechter) writes:
>> In article <72fekdFpmcofU2 at mid.individual.net>,
>> Bill Gunshannon <billg999 at cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <gptds3$q8$1 at lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>,
>>>	m.kraemer at gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
>>>> In article <72eqiuFpiqmpU1 at mid.individual.net>, billg999 at cs.uofs.edu (Bill
>>>> Gunshannon) writes:
>>>>>  
>>>>> Comparing OS/2 to VMS is like comparing a Yugo to a Porsche.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not so familiar with cars (especially US ones),
>>>
>>>Ummm...   Neither of those is American.
>>>
>>>> so I guess in this analogy OS/2 would be the Porsche:
>>>> it's lean, fast, has an own distinctive GUI 
>>>> and runs on my Thinkpad which I can take
>>>> with me anytime I want to.
>>>
>>>And to think people here think I am the one who is anti-VMS.
>>>
>>>Porsche's are anything but lean.  They do perfoem well, but then,
>>>depending on your criteria, so does VMS.  OS/2 was a lame attempt
>>>to mimic Microsoft.  It had as much chance of success as Linux
>>>does today.
>>>
>> 
>> Oh come on.   A lame attempt to mimic Microsoft.  Get real.
>> 
>> OS/2 was a solid attempt at a real OS for the PC.  Microsoft was still
>> shipping WinNT 3.x when OS/2's Workplace shell blew it away in terms of 
>> ease of use and simplicity.
>> 
>> I was with IBM when they were pushing Warp3 and later Warp4.
>> There was nothing out there that was as advanced.
>
>And yet, where are they today?
>
>> 
>> They had X11, TCP/IP, NFS... they didn't "embrace and extend" the standards
>> they implemented them.
>
>So did MS.  Just because very few people did them, doesn't mean they
>weren't available on Windows.  I run DOS versions of TCP/IP done by
>MS almost every day.  X11 was not high on Windows list of interests
>but that seemed to be because they spcifically did not see the value
>in remote display adn were happy with their own way of doing things.
>There were, however, third party X11 solutions dating back to MSDOS
>days.
>
>> 
>> The only problem was they got their clock cleaned when the Microsoft Office
>> suite became the business standard and Microsoft walked away from the 
>> Win32s "standard for compatibility."
>
>So what, IBM couldn't match them?  It definitely had a foot in more
>businesses doors than MS at that point in time.
>

It didn't matter when the IBM solution was a second rate Lotus Smartsuite
that was a lot better than the earlier one with Ami Pro.

>> 
>> Everytime Microsoft changed their API IBM had to go out and figure out how to 
>> keep it working in OS/2.
>
>So, it wasn't really superior, it was following MS every step of the way,
>which is what I said in the first place.

Nope... MS defined the API for apps to run under both OS's and kept 
it constantly changing to break compatibility.

>
>> 
>> Also, the resources required -- mainly memory -- had a higher footprint than
>> Win3.x and NT3.x.
>
>And, given the cost of hardware at the time, not a sign of a better product.
>
>So, what part of OS/2 wasn't better did I miss?
>

Built in internet support and browser when MS had none of the above.
Full TCP/IP support designed in.
Excellent terminal emulation over TCP/IP.

You have to actually drive the box to feel it.


>bill
>
>-- 
>Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
>billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>University of Scranton   |
>Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   

Bill
-- 
-- 
Digital had it then.  Don't you wish you could buy it now!
              pechter-at-pechter.dyndns.org