Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!ariel!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!lu!ccmk
From: CCMK@lure.latrobe.edu.au (Mark Kosten - Computer Centre, La Trobe Uni.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Is OS/2 dead?
Message-ID: <4993@lure.latrobe.edu.au>
Date: 30 Jan 91 10:46:06 GMT
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University
Lines: 43

eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>My local all-news station just carried an announcement from Microsoft that it
>is terminating its OS/2 development program in order to concentrate on its
>Windows product.
>
>No details or followup were added.  However, several things are instantly
>obvious.
>
>One is that OS/2 is now effectively dead.  Sure, IBM is still working on it ---
>but does anybody think even Fortune 500 planning staffs are idiotic enough
>to sink money into an OS that never made it to full production status and
>has now been dumped by its own designers?
>
>Two is that the IBM/Microsoft "strategic partnership" is also dead.  Given that
>the two were making grandiose public plans for OS/2 codevelopment less than
>six weeks ago, IBM has to see this decision as a kick in the teeth.  Further,
>the two no longer have any significant interests in common -- the PC clone
>market is well-enough established that Microsoft doesn't *need* IBM anymore.
>
>Three is that Bill Gates hasn't lost his chutzpah or his eye for the main
>chance.  He's putting all his eggs in one basket; his company's future now
>hangs on Windows.  He's gambling that the credibility hit Microsoft takes will
>be offset by the gains from being able to concentrate his systems people on
>doing one thing well.  He is probably correct in both of these judgements; it
>remains to be seen whether the original strategic mistake that led to this
>pass is so severe that even this best isn't enough to ensure Microsoft's future.
>
>Four is that UNIX's lock on the general-purpose multi-user market is now secure.
>There was never any serious technical challenge from OS/2, but because many
>Fortune 500 companies could be conned into overlooking its dependence on the
>80x86 line it had a serious psychological impact.  Neither DOS nor Windows
>can cut it for multi-user use and nothing else has the backing to break into a
>maturing market.  So UNIX is it.
>
>Now, of course, we get to watch the feebs in the trade press claim they knew
>it all along...

Does anyone, particularly from Microsoft and IBM, have any comments, or is
is this a confusion of the original report from last year?

We desperately need to know!!!

Mark Kosten