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?
