IBM and Microsoft settle over the OS/2 debacle

[Zeus_Hunt]

From 1993 to 1999, the "OS Wars" were very spirited and bitter at times.  IBM and Microsoft were vying to be the successor to DOS.  Microsoft's answer at the key moment was Windows 3.1.  IBM's solution was OS/2.  Windows obviously won, but when one looks at it in hindsight, one has to wonder how this occurred.

In 1993, users had two choices. They could run DOS + Windows 3.1 which was, to put it charitably, not very stable.  Windows 3.1 could run Windows programs and it could run most DOS programs (though not games, for that, users would have to exit back to DOS to play them).

The second choice was OS/2.  OS/2 could also run Windows programs. And it ran DOS programs far better than Windows could and in many cases, even better than DOS (because it could give DOS programs more "conventional" memory).  Even DOS games ran under OS/2.  On top of that, OS/2 had an object-oriented desktop shell called the Workplace Shell (which Windows 95 borrowed heavily from to make "Explorer"), had preemptive multitasking, protected memory, a flat memory model, an accelerated game environment called DIVE (before there was a DirectX), and could run true 32bit OS/2 programs which supported multithreading.

So how did OS/2 lose? OS/2 was so far in advanced of Windows at the time. It could run all the software Windows could run and then some. It was more powerful. It was faster. It was pushed by IBM. It was cheaper even.  This is something Linux advocates should think about, btw.  For all the touting Linux (or Mac) users give their respective OSes, it is unlikely that any OS will ever have as big of an advantage over Windows as OS/2 did in 1993. And yet it lost.

Again, how did OS/2 manage to lose out? The answer is complicated.  For one thing, Microsoft was able to leverage the power of inertia and make special deals with OEMs.  IBM had to license Windows for a set price from Microsoft.  There were OEMs at the time who claimed that Microsoft was selling DOS 6 + Windows 3.1 to them for $10 and including Office with it if they agreed not to have any systems with OS/2.  Meanwhile, IBM was supposedly having to pay Microsoft $20+ for each copy of OS/2 in licensing fees and IBM, operating under a previous anti-trust consent decree couldn't blatantly sell OS/2 at a loss like Microsoft was doing with Windows at the time.

By the time OS/2 was starting to pick up ground, Windows 95 had arrived and a year later, Windows NT 4.0 arrived which, while not quite as good as OS/2, was "good enough" and Microsoft had gotten the third party support through every effort they could think of (and every "effort" later got them into trouble).

So now IBM and Microsoft have settled their differences with Microsoft paying IBM $850 MILLION.  I guess one has to wonder whether all those OS/2 ISVs who also suffered immensely could seek settlements.

[nsane]

interesting, it just goes to show what kinda of bullshit smaller companies have to go through. why don't they just make it illegal to contract companies NOT to buy the compteting product, some people might actually like to use it? :P obvious monopoly :huh:

[Zeus_Hunt]

interesting, it just goes to show what kinda of bullshit smaller companies have to go through. why don't they just make it illegal to contract companies NOT to buy the compteting product, some people might actually like to use it? :) obvious monopoly :)

obvious monopoly :o OH YES !!!