Galactic Civilizations
Jaime A. Cruz, Jr.
I can remember my first online experience with OS/2. It with OS2CIM on the
old Compuserve system, on OS/2 2.1 with a 14.4K modem. There were several
OS/2 fora (similar to Usenet groups, only moderated) over there, but the most
intelligent discussion occured on the Canopus Forum, run by William F.
Zachmann. There, proponents of all different platforms used to argue and
debate (civilly) the benefits of developing on different platforms.
Many industry reporters used to chime in there. Esther Schindler, Peter
Coffee, Nick Petereley to name a few. And then there was a brash young
software developer from an unknown company... Brad Wardell from Stardock. He
was talking about a game he was developing called "Galactic Civilizations."
It was already getting a LOT of notice from the gaming industry and the
pundits in that forum. One of the most notable features of Galactic
Civilizations (known as GalCiv to it's growing legion of fans) was that it
ran on IBM's OS/2. In fact, it was the ONLY major game offered over the
counter at Egghead, CompUSA, etc. for that platform.
GalCiv was an awesome game that came in a HIDEOUS box. But it was ADDICTIVE!
People installed OS/2 just so they could take a crack at the Drengins and
the other races in the game. Brad argued endlessly on the forum as to why he
developed for OS/2 and then he made the promise that I will NEVER forget.
He stated, in no uncertain terms, that no matter WHAT Stardock would do in
the future, and no matter what platforms they would expand on to, GalCiv will
ALWAYS be an OS/2-only game! It would always be something we could claim as
our own exclusively.
Wonder for what price a soul sells for these days? :-\
Jaime A. Cruz, Jr.
Who is Tim Martin? See http://TMFAQ.servehttp.com
David H. McCoy
server.optonline.net>, Spam...@Bite.Me says...
don't you write a game?
Soul. Sheesh.
--
--------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
--------------------------------------
no-spam
wrote:
I agree. If there had continued to be an OS/2 market, even 20% of
the Win market, he might have kept GalCiv for OS/2.
Marty
> Wonder for what price a soul sells for these days? :-\
You're being very dramatic, but it's a very similar story to what
happened with Peter and PMView. An inexperienced, gung-ho developer
made a statement based on the euphoria of a temporary market condition,
and later had to retract it when reality hit.
Why should he keep his good idea parked in the garage?
Jaime A. Cruz, Jr.
Because unlike Peter, he has a big, fat portfolio of other software titles
for Windows, that's why. So I guess one's word means nothing these days, eh?
Morenga
land with
GalCiv. Hey, we all need to make a living.
Now, what I do blame him for is that he so eagerly joined the choire of OS/2
undertakers, insisting that one could not even offer OS/2 SW on a "no
support"
or "pre-paid only" basis.
Something e.g. the Amiga community lives with happily ever after.
Nobody in his right mind asked Brad to loose money here.
But his insistence that any $ earned in the OS/2 market was by default ill
gotten
gains that could only bring forth regret and shame for those who earned it,
did it for me !!!
With all due respect to his commercial interest, he didn't have to spit down
the ladder of OS/2 that helped him climb up into Windoze commerce "heaven".
And one final word. I don't thinks his GalCiv Windoze dreams are going that
well.
Greetings
Morenga
J. Clarke
And those of us who were playing it 5 years ago get to snicker at all the new
enthusiasts who have just discovered it. FWIW, the game is not greatly
different.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Jason Bowen
Jaime A. Cruz, Jr. <Spam...@Bite.Me> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 02:33:42 GMT, Marty wrote:
>
>>Jaime A. Cruz, Jr. wrote:
>>> Wonder for what price a soul sells for these days? :-\
>>
>>You're being very dramatic, but it's a very similar story to what
>>happened with Peter and PMView. An inexperienced, gung-ho developer
>>made a statement based on the euphoria of a temporary market condition,
>>and later had to retract it when reality hit.
>>
>>Why should he keep his good idea parked in the garage?
>>
>
>Because unlike Peter, he has a big, fat portfolio of other software titles
>for Windows, that's why. So I guess one's word means nothing these days, eh?
>
Please, it's a piece of software... don't tell me that you are emotional
over him changing his mind.
Morenga
Hey, ever read the news lately??
Morenga
David Sutherland
<Spam...@Bite.Me> wrote:
[snip]
>
>Wonder for what price a soul sells for these days? :-\
>
Brad seems to think his is worth more than misplaced loyalty to an OS.
>
>Jaime A. Cruz, Jr.
>
>Who is Tim Martin? See http://TMFAQ.servehttp.com
>
Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)
Morenga
>I agree. If there had continued to be an OS/2 market, even 20% of
>the Win market, he might have kept GalCiv for OS/2.
No he wouldn't. Once IBM screwed Brad on the new OS/ client deal
he actually turned his love for OS/2 into genuine disgust of the OpSys.
You can only truly hate what you're not allowed to love.
Morenga
Don Hills
"Jaime A. Cruz, Jr." <Spam...@Bite.Me> wrote:
>
>old Compuserve system, on OS/2 2.1 with a 14.4K modem. There were several
>OS/2 fora (similar to Usenet groups, only moderated) over there, but the most
>intelligent discussion occured on the Canopus Forum, run by William F.
>Zachmann. There, proponents of all different platforms used to argue and
>debate (civilly) the benefits of developing on different platforms.
Civilly? Well, maybe by the standards of these newsgroups. But it certainly
wasn't as civil as you recall. A quote picked at random:
"Actually, no. I've had a conversation recently with an IBM exec who used
to follow this forum, during a non-disclosure meeting on a completely
unrelated matter. This individual told me that some of the IBM execs just
don't care to be in any way associated with the forum anymore because of the
kind of af hominem and filthy language which has become more prevalent here
within the past six months or so." - Britt Hagen, 11/96.
On the OS wars topic, do you remember Brad making available the custom setup
for Galciv that used OSes as personalities? Quote from Brad:
"I've uploaded to the Stardock forum (GO STARDOCK) a custom made GalCiv
save game and support modules to allow you to play out the OS wars in GalCiv.
In the scenario, you are in control of the OS/2 civilization and must defeat
the forces of Windows95, WindowsNT, NextStep, Mac, and Linux in a conquest
to control the universe.
A specially made AI module was created so that the players would speak as if
they were really representing the OS. For example, the leader of WindowNT
will say that his ships may be very expensive and slow, they are very tough
and reliable. Humor throughout."
>GalCiv was an awesome game that came in a HIDEOUS box. But it was ADDICTIVE!
> People installed OS/2 just so they could take a crack at the Drengins and
>the other races in the game. Brad argued endlessly on the forum as to why he
>developed for OS/2 and then he made the promise that I will NEVER forget.
>
>He stated, in no uncertain terms, that no matter WHAT Stardock would do in
>the future, and no matter what platforms they would expand on to, GalCiv will
>ALWAYS be an OS/2-only game! It would always be something we could claim as
>our own exclusively.
I don't recall that promise, Jaime. I did find this in the Canopus archives:
=====================
10-Sep-95 22:26:09
The key feature that Windows95 would give to a game is multithreading.
That is, that is what Windows95 really gives over a plain Windows 3.1 game.
This is an over simplification but if the game is not taking advantage of
multithreading, why not just make it for the larger DOS market?
The same is true for OS/2. I love OS/2 but let's be real, if Galactic
Civilizations could have been done under DOS, we probably would have
made a version for it (since the market is gigantic).
Brad
=====================
Clearly, Brad doesn't seem to have been as one-eyed as you recall.
I'm not calling you mistaken or a liar, though. I may well have missed the
post you referred to. Or maybe he made it on USENET instead of Canopus. If
you can find it, I'd like to see it.
--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support."
Jaime A. Cruz, Jr.
>>So I guess one's word means nothing these days, eh?
>
>Hey, ever read the news lately??
>
Sadly, yes I have. Symptomatic of modern times. :-(
Marty
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 02:33:42 GMT, Marty wrote:
>
>>Jaime A. Cruz, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>Wonder for what price a soul sells for these days? :-\
>>
>>You're being very dramatic, but it's a very similar story to what
>>happened with Peter and PMView. An inexperienced, gung-ho developer
>>made a statement based on the euphoria of a temporary market condition,
>>and later had to retract it when reality hit.
>>
>>Why should he keep his good idea parked in the garage?
>
> Because unlike Peter, he has a big, fat portfolio of other software titles
> for Windows, that's why. So I guess one's word means nothing these days, eh?
True, but GalCiv has been a big part of that portfolio (judging by how
much they've continued to invest in it). We've all stated things at
some point in our lives out of inexperience.
Brad's words on this matter didn't even necessarily add value to his
product (unlike Peter's lifetime license). It certainly wouldn't have
been a strong reason to buy Brad's game over any other (at least in my
book).
So he made a mis-statement. Happens to the best of us.
Bob Eager
wrote:
> On the OS wars topic, do you remember Brad making available the custom setup
> for Galciv that used OSes as personalities? Quote from Brad:
>
> "I've uploaded to the Stardock forum (GO STARDOCK) a custom made GalCiv
> save game and support modules to allow you to play out the OS wars in GalCiv.
>
> In the scenario, you are in control of the OS/2 civilization and must defeat
> the forces of Windows95, WindowsNT, NextStep, Mac, and Linux in a conquest
> to control the universe.
Is this module around anywhere?
--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70, PC/AT..
David H. McCoy
sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**btconnect.com says...
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:16:44 GMT, "Jaime A. Cruz, Jr."
> <Spam...@Bite.Me> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >
> >Wonder for what price a soul sells for these days? :-\
> >
>
> Brad seems to think his is worth more than misplaced loyalty to an OS.
>
Indeed. It is fascinating to see such devotion to a collection of ideas
typed in by some guys so they can eat.
And yet, despite this sad devotion, you don't see these guys stepping up
to write anything. After all these years, they are all still talk.
Mark Kelley
news:abfcnzarg.hg...@news1.attglobal.net...
>
> >I agree. If there had continued to be an OS/2 market, even 20% of
> >the Win market, he might have kept GalCiv for OS/2.
>
> No he wouldn't. Once IBM screwed Brad on the new OS/ client deal
> he actually turned his love for OS/2 into genuine disgust of the OpSys.
I've never noticed such a thing from Brad. In fact, everything I read by
him about OS/2 indicates that he is still fond of it and would have liked it
if it had been more successful in the marketplace. It's a Windows world at
the moment and so Brad had to move in that direction, too, in order to earn
a living (and provide one to many others, too); he had to be realistic about
things. Nevertheless, it is clear from everything he writes that he has
nothing at all resembling "disgust of the OpSys."
Don Hills
rd...@spamcop.net (Bob Eager) wrote:
>Is this module around anywhere?
Not that I'm aware of. It was called SUPERGC.ZIP, try the usual download
haunts. Maybe an email to Brad might result in it being available for
download from Stardock.
leto...@nospam.net
>"Morenga" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
>news:abfcnzarg.hg...@news1.attglobal.net...
>>
>> >I agree. If there had continued to be an OS/2 market, even 20% of
>> >the Win market, he might have kept GalCiv for OS/2.
>>
>> No he wouldn't. Once IBM screwed Brad on the new OS/ client deal
>> he actually turned his love for OS/2 into genuine disgust of the OpSys.
>I've never noticed such a thing from Brad.
Then you paid attention to his posts. Brad has been angry with IBM since the
day someone on Compuserve pointed out that OS2 was a business platform and it
wasn't going to be modified so his games could run better.
In fact, everything I read by him
>about OS/2 indicates that he is still fond of it and would have liked it if
>it had been more successful in the marketplace. It's a Windows world at the
>moment and so Brad had to move in that direction, too, in order to earn a
>living (and provide one to many others, too); he had to be realistic about
>things. Nevertheless, it is clear from everything he writes that he has
>nothing at all resembling "disgust of the OpSys."
>>
>> You can only truly hate what you're not allowed to love.
>>
>> Morenga
>>
>>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
leto...@together.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Kelley
news:3eeb3452$1$yrgbherq$mr2...@news.earthlink.net...
> In <bcdpav$46f$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, on 06/13/03
> at 07:23 PM, "Mark Kelley" <Dontm...@ME.purdue.edu> said:
>
> >"Morenga" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
> >news:abfcnzarg.hg...@news1.attglobal.net...
> >>
> >> >I agree. If there had continued to be an OS/2 market, even 20% of
> >> >the Win market, he might have kept GalCiv for OS/2.
> >>
> >> No he wouldn't. Once IBM screwed Brad on the new OS/ client deal
> >> he actually turned his love for OS/2 into genuine disgust of the OpSys.
>
> >I've never noticed such a thing from Brad.
>
> Then you paid attention to his posts. Brad has been angry with IBM since
the
> day someone on Compuserve pointed out that OS2 was a business platform and
it
> wasn't going to be modified so his games could run better.
I assume that you meant that I didn't pay attention to his posts, but you
would be incorrect. I have read his posts with great interest, and continue
to do so. I simply have not detected the anger or hostility that you see to
see there.
leto...@nospam.net
><leto...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:3eeb3452$1$yrgbherq$mr2...@news.earthlink.net...
>> In <bcdpav$46f$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, on 06/13/03
>> at 07:23 PM, "Mark Kelley" <Dontm...@ME.purdue.edu> said:
>>
>> >"Morenga" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
>> >news:abfcnzarg.hg...@news1.attglobal.net...
>> >>
>> >> >I agree. If there had continued to be an OS/2 market, even 20% of
>> >> >the Win market, he might have kept GalCiv for OS/2.
>> >>
>> >> No he wouldn't. Once IBM screwed Brad on the new OS/ client deal
>> >> he actually turned his love for OS/2 into genuine disgust of the OpSys.
>>
>> >I've never noticed such a thing from Brad.
>>
>> Then you paid attention to his posts. Brad has been angry with IBM since
>the
>> day someone on Compuserve pointed out that OS2 was a business platform and
>it
>> wasn't going to be modified so his games could run better.
>I assume that you meant that I didn't pay attention to his posts, but you
>would be incorrect. I have read his posts with great interest, and continue
>to do so. I simply have not detected the anger or hostility that you see to
>see there.
Then you have not read very many of them or for very long -- Brad has had an
emotional problem with IBM going back several years. They would not do what
he wanted to make his games work like he wanted to.
End of story.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In fact, everything I read by him
>> >about OS/2 indicates that he is still fond of it and would have liked it
>if
>> >it had been more successful in the marketplace. It's a Windows world at
>the
>> >moment and so Brad had to move in that direction, too, in order to earn a
>> >living (and provide one to many others, too); he had to be realistic
>about
>> >things. Nevertheless, it is clear from everything he writes that he has
>> >nothing at all resembling "disgust of the OpSys."
>>
>> >>
>> >> You can only truly hate what you're not allowed to love.
>> >>
>> >> Morenga
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> leto...@together.net
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
leto...@together.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brad BARCLAY
> Then you have not read very many of them or for very long -- Brad has had an
> emotional problem with IBM going back several years. They would not do what
> he wanted to make his games work like he wanted to.
Brad's problems with IBM don't directly equate to a "hatred" for OS/2.
Like another posters observations, mine have always been, through both
public and private conversations, that Brad Wardell still has a soft
spot for OS/2, and would have liked to have seen it succeed.
The problem in his (and in my) mind was IBM mismanaged OS/2 to the n-th
degree.
And before you try to argue with me on /that/ point, I was an OS/2
developer inside IBM for several years, and got to see it all first hand.
Brad BARCLAY
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From the OS/2 WARP v4.5 Desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
The jSyncManager Project: http://www.jsyncmanager.org
David T. Johnson
Jason Bowen
<leto...@nospam.net> wrote:
>In <bcdpav$46f$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, on 06/13/03
> at 07:23 PM, "Mark Kelley" <Dontm...@ME.purdue.edu> said:
>
>>"Morenga" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
>>news:abfcnzarg.hg...@news1.attglobal.net...
>>>
>>> >I agree. If there had continued to be an OS/2 market, even 20% of
>>> >the Win market, he might have kept GalCiv for OS/2.
>>>
>>> No he wouldn't. Once IBM screwed Brad on the new OS/ client deal
>>> he actually turned his love for OS/2 into genuine disgust of the OpSys.
>
>>I've never noticed such a thing from Brad.
>
>Then you paid attention to his posts. Brad has been angry with IBM since the
>day someone on Compuserve pointed out that OS2 was a business platform and it
>wasn't going to be modified so his games could run better.
>
Hmmm, let's see, what could games use that business couldn't benefit from?
If you consider poor driver support, i.e. limited drivers available, and
constant white papers that mention transitioning from OS/2 to other
platforms then I guess maybe Brad got the message. Anything that benefits
software development can benefit any group. A scientific programmer could
benefit from programming tools that helped them develop advance visulation
software. A person in the arts or media could benefit from advanced audio
and video capabilities. The familar cry about OS/2 being for business
doesn't justify IBM's not expanding OS/2's capabilities, in fact it
hinders anybody adopting it.
Jason Bowen
David H. McCoy
bow...@rintintin.colorado.edu says...
consures. XP is now the realization of merger between business stability
and consumer friendliness.
--
Jaime A. Cruz, Jr.
>leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>> Then you have not read very many of them or for very long -- Brad has had an
>> emotional problem with IBM going back several years. They would not do what
>> he wanted to make his games work like he wanted to.
>
> Brad's problems with IBM don't directly equate to a "hatred" for OS/2.
> Like another posters observations, mine have always been, through both
>public and private conversations, that Brad Wardell still has a soft
>spot for OS/2, and would have liked to have seen it succeed.
>
> The problem in his (and in my) mind was IBM mismanaged OS/2 to the n-th
>degree.
>
> And before you try to argue with me on /that/ point, I was an OS/2
>developer inside IBM for several years, and got to see it all first hand.
Actually, Brad's "problem" (if that's how you want to define it) isn't so
much with IBM and OS/2, but for the users remaining on OS/2. Just as many
here have accused me of having unrealistic expectations, so Brad feels that
way about the entire OS/2 community. If you check my posts on Google, I'm
not exactly a fanatic. I just have this idealistic streak in me that says a
man's word should be his bond. Guess that's why I'll never be a good
Republican... I DON'T do this all for the almighty dollar. I DON'T
understand why companies lay off employees just to fatten up a bottom line
for stock holders, I DON'T understand why a company would want to trust
another FOREIGN company with all of their valuable data, and I DON'T
understand why a company would decide it's better for the bottom line to
continually miss projects and pay the late fee, rather than keep on the staff
necessary to MEET all of the deadlines. Not EVERYTHING should be about the
bottom line!
Mark Kelley
<leto...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3eeb4ab5$1$yrgbherq$mr2...@news.earthlink.net...
>
> Then you have not read very many of them or for very long -- Brad has had
an
> emotional problem with IBM going back several years. They would not do
what
> he wanted to make his games work like he wanted to.
>
> End of story.
Again, your assumption is incorrect. I've been an OS/2 user since 2.0 and
have been familiar with Stardock and Brad Wardell since the early days of
development of GalCiv, and have followed Brad's comments and involvement for
as long he's been, well, involved. As a Stardock customer since its
beginning, I have followed information about the company since its beginning
and I still do so today.
Mark Kelley
news:3EEB7222...@isomedia.com...
> Brad BARCLAY wrote:
>
> >
> > The problem in his (and in my) mind was IBM mismanaged OS/2 to the
> > n-th degree.
> >
> > And before you try to argue with me on /that/ point, I was an OS/2
> > developer inside IBM for several years, and got to see it all first
> > hand.
> >
>
> It is hard for any product sold by a corporation to succeed when the CEO
> personally pulls the plug on it. Download this zipped up .mp3 file and
> hear Lou Gerstner say that he personally made the decision back in the
> mid-90s that "no new resources were going into OS/2."
I certainly wouldn't disagree with that. Whatever the reasons for OS/2's
lack of success in the marketplace, however, I do not believe that Brad
Wardell ever showed any anger or hostility to the OS. It appears to me that
all of his writings indicate the opposite, in fact; he was, and is, a fan of
the OS and would loved to have seen it succeed in the marketplace and be
developed further.
Brad BARCLAY
> Actually, Brad's "problem" (if that's how you want to define it) isn't so
> much with IBM and OS/2, but for the users remaining on OS/2. Just as many
> here have accused me of having unrealistic expectations, so Brad feels that
> way about the entire OS/2 community.
What "way"? I've been in contact with Brad Wardell many times over the
years, and while I don't want to speak for him, I've _never_ heard him
express any problems with the OS/2 community. Some fanatical _portions_
of the community he has had problems with (as have I and most other OS/2
users), but that doesn't equate to the community as a whole.
Brad Wardell was one of the staunchest defenders OS/2 ever had. Brad
Wardell never did anything to the OS/2 community -- but IBM let down
Brad Wardell (as it did pretty much anyone who ever used OS/2). I don't
blame him for being sore against IBM -- his core business was with OS/2
at one time, and all around him IBM was dismantling it. And I don't
even want to go into how Stardock must have been screwed on the whole
OS/2 for PowerPC debacle.
> If you check my posts on Google, I'm
> not exactly a fanatic. I just have this idealistic streak in me that says a
> man's word should be his bond. Guess that's why I'll never be a good
> Republican... I DON'T do this all for the almighty dollar. I DON'T
> understand why companies lay off employees just to fatten up a bottom line
> for stock holders, I DON'T understand why a company would want to trust
> another FOREIGN company with all of their valuable data, and I DON'T
> understand why a company would decide it's better for the bottom line to
> continually miss projects and pay the late fee, rather than keep on the staff
> necessary to MEET all of the deadlines. Not EVERYTHING should be about the
> bottom line!
I don't disagree with you on these things -- but I don't see how your
irritation at these "signs of the times" in certain parts of the world
have any bearing on the topic at hand. Every business has to adjust to
market conditions -- that's the nature of the beast. And in the OS/2
world, it's IBM -- not Stardock -- that creates or destroys those
conditions at will.
Brad BARCLAY
> It is hard for any product sold by a corporation to succeed when the CEO
> personally pulls the plug on it. Download this zipped up .mp3 file and
> hear Lou Gerstner say that he personally made the decision back in the
> mid-90s that "no new resources were going into OS/2."
>
> http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/multimedia/wave/mpeg/gerstner.zip
It's worth noting that Mr. Gerstner wouldn't have come to this
conclusion had OS/2 been a big success. I believe it _could_ have been,
but between Microsoft's illegal monopoly maintenence gambits, and PSP
back in the mid-90s wasting a whole lot of money on OS/2 PPC and then
droppping it while almost completely ignoring OS/2 on Intel, a whole lot
of money, time, and effort was wasted for ultimately next to nothing.
IBM is, unfortunately, not like Microsoft. I'm not a Microsoft fan,
but I have to laud them for their tenacity -- if they release a product,
they stick with it no matter how badly it initially sells. The first
year or two Windows NT was out it was practically ignored -- and now its
the core of the most used OS on the planet. The XBox's sales next to
the PlayStation 2 are a joke, and is losing money hand over fist, and
yet they're still pushing on, full steam ahead. IBM in the same
position either scales a product back, or drops it completely. If it's
not profitable, it goes into "maintenence mode", with no further
marketing or development beyond legacy support.
Irv Spalten
David T. Johnson wrote:
> Brad BARCLAY wrote:
>
> >
> > The problem in his (and in my) mind was IBM mismanaged OS/2 to the
> > n-th degree.
> >
> > And before you try to argue with me on /that/ point, I was an OS/2
> > developer inside IBM for several years, and got to see it all first
> > hand.
> >
>
> It is hard for any product sold by a corporation to succeed when the CEO
> personally pulls the plug on it.
BULLSHIT, the road to OS/2 success was already crumpling when he made
those remarks.
> Download this zipped up .mp3 file and
> hear Lou Gerstner say that he personally made the decision back in the
> mid-90s that "no new resources were going into OS/2."
>
> http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/multimedia/wave/mpeg/gerstner.zip
>
IBM is probably better off and stronger because of his decision, no
matter what OS/2 users, developers, and IBM OS/2 employees felt about
the 'market'.
IBM didn't have the DESKTOP applications to fight MS. IBM did have the
MIDDLEWARE, and that is where the money is made. You don't see TM
hawking DB/2 for OS/2 in his pirate posts, do you?
Yes, IBM might have been able to do better with OS/2, but it was a
CORPORATE DECISION that had to be made. Think about it, IF you can.
Irv
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
leto...@nospam.net
><leto...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:3eeb4ab5$1$yrgbherq$mr2...@news.earthlink.net...
>>
>> Then you have not read very many of them or for very long -- Brad has had
>an
>> emotional problem with IBM going back several years. They would not do
>what
>> he wanted to make his games work like he wanted to.
>>
>> End of story.
>Again, your assumption is incorrect.
There is no "assumption." He has stated these things over the years of CIS
and in usenet. -- Now, if have followed everything as you claim, you need to
go work on your reading comprehension.
Take the ecs shills and assholes following you along here with you.
I've been an OS/2 user since 2.0 and
>have been familiar with Stardock and Brad Wardell since the early days of
>development of GalCiv, and have followed Brad's comments and involvement for
>as long he's been, well, involved. As a Stardock customer since its
>beginning, I have followed information about the company since its beginning
>and I still do so today.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
leto...@together.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa
> the Win market, he might have kept GalCiv for OS/2.
Actually, putting market pressures and the debate about
how Brad may or may not feel about IBM aside, I suspect
there were probably other factors at work.
It is substantially easier to develop a modern-looking
game with DirectX than it is to develop a modern-looking
game for OS/2... for which the sum-and-total of the game
development tools consist mainly of half-finished apis and
semi\un-offical ports of sdks from other platforms; all
with nominal to no hardware support.
I'm not saying it can't be done, as it is something I
intend to take a crack at myself if I can fit some extra
time into my schedule. However, it is by no means a sane
challenge for anyone who wants to do something more
sophisticated than cards or mahjong. (No offense meant
against cards or mahjong... my mom's totally addicted to
mahjong. Cards and mahjong can be a lot of fun; but in
general these types of games have a little more leeway
in terms of things like frame rate.) One must have a
pretty compelling reason to go through the extra trouble.
(And, again no offense, a bunch of people on the usenet
who spend most of their time yelling at each other *isn't*
a compelling reason.)
So, when faced with a choice between a platform with
good tools and lots of users, and a platform with poor
tools and a few users, I can see why the choices that were
made happened no matter how Brad may or may not have felt
about OS/2 or IBM.
I really don't want to get dragged into a big battle, so
let me just say that I feel like I've said my peace and
leave it at that.
-Lisa
Mark Kelley
news:3eebbd6a$1$yrgbherq$mr2...@news.earthlink.net...
> In <bcg49n$28f$2...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, on 06/14/03
> at 04:42 PM, "Mark Kelley" <Dontm...@ME.purdue.edu> said:
>
>
> ><leto...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> >news:3eeb4ab5$1$yrgbherq$mr2...@news.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >> Then you have not read very many of them or for very long -- Brad has
had
> >an
> >> emotional problem with IBM going back several years. They would not do
> >what
> >> he wanted to make his games work like he wanted to.
> >>
> >> End of story.
>
> >Again, your assumption is incorrect.
>
> There is no "assumption."
Sure there was. You assumed that I hadn't read many of Brad's messages or
for very long. You were incorrect on both counts.
> He has stated these things over the years of CIS
> and in usenet. -- Now, if have followed everything as you claim, you need
to
> go work on your reading comprehension.
Well, if that's your claim, go ahead and provide a reference to prove your
point, which was to agree with Morenga's comment that Brad displayed a
"genuine disgust of the OpSys."
Brad may not be especially pleased with IBM, I don't know, but that does not
equate to having an "emotional problem with IBM" and is certainly not the
same thing as having a "genuine disgust of the OpSys."
>
> Take the ecs shills and assholes following you along here with you.
Marty was right; you sure like that word. And here I thought I was having a
polite conversation with you.
rj friedman
<yazt...@filter.jsyncmanager.org> wrote:
» IBM is, unfortunately, not like Microsoft. I'm not a Microsoft fan,
»but I have to laud them for their tenacity -- if they release a product,
»they stick with it no matter how badly it initially sells.
The Beast of Redmond can 'afford' to do that because they
make a billion dollars a minute (not really - but you get
the point) on their monopoly products that subsidizes the
losses - losses that would drive a company that didn't have
a couple of billion dollar a minute 'money trees' out of
business even if it is a matter of years.
They don't care how much money they lose on the other things
- even it is a matter of years and years - knowing that
eventually those products - no matter how inferior - because
of suicidal pricing and tyins that would bankrupt any other
company - will drive their competitor company's products out
of the market.
Ordinary companies - those without a couple of billion
dollar a minute 'money trees' can't afford to lose millions
year after year on products like the X-Box, Pocket PC, the
Dumbphone or the MSN until they eventually take over the
mindset of the 'It's technology challenged but it's good
enough, and it sure looks snazzy,' or the 'It's from MS so
it must be the best,' crowd.
--
________________________________________________________
[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan r...@yyyindoserv.com
To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________
Brad BARCLAY
> The Beast of Redmond can 'afford' to do that because they
> make a billion dollars a minute (not really - but you get
> the point) on their monopoly products that subsidizes the
> losses - losses that would drive a company that didn't have
> a couple of billion dollar a minute 'money trees' out of
> business even if it is a matter of years.
Except that IBM isn't one of those companies. IBM could easily have
afforded to take a concerted, long-term stance on OS/2, but they waffled.
Things were pretty good in the Warp v3 days. Not as good as they might
have been had MS not been pushing per-processor licensing agreemnts, and
changing their Win32s code every month just to break OS/2 compatibility
-- buth they still poured a bunch of money into the product, produced
OS/2 applications, and made it their flagship OS.
The IBM PC Co. didn't help, however, in that its OS/2 message was often
mixed. And the way they setup OS/2 on their machines wasn't
particularily user fliendly (remember the dual-boot Aptivas that were
completely FAT-formatted? The desktop was a mess, and users kept
tripping over the fact that in some places they could appear to give
files long names, but in others (like file dialogs) they couldn't).
But by and large, things were pretty decent in those days.
Unfortunately, PSP then decided to dedicate a huge portion of its budget
to porting OS/2 to the PowerPC platform. And they still insisted on
charging big money for development tools and other developer support.
Take a look at what IBM has been doing with Linux. They sunk over $1
billion into it, at a time when it wasn't really making them any money.
And now that investment is paying off. Thankfully, as IBM doesn't
control Linux, they don't actually take the helm when it comes to
development -- that job goes to the Open Source community.
So IBM could easily have "toughed it out". They also could have made
fewer dumb design decisions (or at least have done a better job in
implementing some of the high level stuff. OS/2's core is a thing of
beauty IMO, but many of the things put atop of it, at the application
layer, didn't take advantage of its design sufficiently, or in the case
of something like DIVE, never really got the internal development
support to advance and improve it).
> They don't care how much money they lose on the other things
> - even it is a matter of years and years - knowing that
> eventually those products - no matter how inferior - because
> of suicidal pricing and tyins that would bankrupt any other
> company - will drive their competitor company's products out
> of the market.
Microsoft doesn't always win (think Bob, or more recently, Win ME).
They do get to sell alot of product through preload agreements with
OEMs, which is an obvious advantage, and who really knows how many times
they've illegally weilded their monopoly club -- but they don't always
win, not even in the end. The Xbox is doing terribly against the
PlayStation 2, for example -- and even if they keep at it, I don't see
that changing anytime soon (in the videogame space, Sony is taking all
the chances, while Microsoft is playing things far too conservatively by
selling a PC in a black box with an "X" on top of it). But they stick
with it to the bitter end, with the entire company behind it.
Quite unlike IBM, which will discontinue a product after its first year
if it doesn't make it big (or, in some cases, will drop the product
after it's actually been developed, just because they don't want to put
the marketing effort into it) -- and even when they do appear to "back"
the product, send mixed messages by having some divisions support it,
while others appear to actively work against it (PC Co with OS/2, or
that flap with the Server group just two or three years ago when they
benchmarked Oracle on IBM servers with tweaks that made it benchmark
faster than DB2 on the same system...).
David T. Johnson
Mike Ruskai
> IBM is, unfortunately, not like Microsoft. I'm not a Microsoft fan,
>but I have to laud them for their tenacity -- if they release a product,
>they stick with it no matter how badly it initially sells. The first
>year or two Windows NT was out it was practically ignored -- and now its
>the core of the most used OS on the planet. The XBox's sales next to
>the PlayStation 2 are a joke, and is losing money hand over fist, and
>yet they're still pushing on, full steam ahead. IBM in the same
>position either scales a product back, or drops it completely. If it's
>not profitable, it goes into "maintenence mode", with no further
>marketing or development beyond legacy support.
MS stuck with NT only because they knew eventually their monopoly momentum
would allow them to force it on the rest of the market, whether or not it
was ready. By many standards, it still isn't.
They don't keep products which aren't of strategic value. Remember Bob?
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
Irv Spalten
Are you a fan of 'revisionist history'?
David T. Johnson wrote:
> Brad BARCLAY wrote:
> > David T. Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> It is hard for any product sold by a corporation to succeed when the
> >> CEO personally pulls the plug on it. Download this zipped up .mp3
> >> file and hear Lou Gerstner say that he personally made the decision
> >> back in the mid-90s that "no new resources were going into OS/2."
> >>
> >> http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/multimedia/wave/mpeg/gerstner.zip
> >
> >
> > It's worth noting that Mr. Gerstner wouldn't have come to this
> > conclusion had OS/2 been a big success.
>
> I think that it was too early to make any conclusions about the
> potential of OS/2 at the time that Gerstner made his decision.
Based on what? References please? Sales information please?
> At the
> time, Warp 4 was immeasurably superior to the Windows 95 that Microsoft
> was selling.
Do you remember the 'Beta' vs. 'VHS' stuff? Where is it written that the
best solution has to win? What about 'MicroChannel' vs. 'PCI Bus'?
> Gerstner has never stated *why* he wanted to terminate
> OS/2 other than to 'stop fighting with Microsoft.'
I thought it was clear? The 'desktop' was lost, remember that? I think
today he was correct, the money was in the Middleware, not the desktop.
I certainly didn't think he was correct when he made that statement, nor
did most of my co-workers.
> Isn't 'fighting with
> each other' what corporations are supposed to do in the marketplace?
Depends? Did you risk losing the company? IBM had and still has a long
history of looking at its resources and what parts of the business need
resources and parts that are not performing. Normal to 'steal' resources
from poor performing units. Do you think MS is making money from OS's?
Do you think MS is making as much per person working on an OS as from
the Office group that makes the suite of programs?
> Also, it was, and still is, *highly* unusual for a CEO to make that sort
> of product decision.
Gates makes declarations all the time, so do most other hi-tech CEO's.
Some may not get the coverage as others, some may not be of interest to
specific people and are missed.
He had a job to do, and part of that was making IBM's customers happy.
CLEAR direction is sometimes needed when a company has many divergent
offerings, and especially when two parts of a company send different
signals.
> Usually, those decisions are made by the people
> responsible for the appropriate profit centers and *not* the CEO.
When one thinks of who talks for MS, I'd think one would first mention
Gates, and then Balmer. Who else and what have they said? References in
the form of URL's please.
What would happen if Gates said one thing and Balmer another?
IBM has a unique business with respect to some offerings. I had heard
that if one had gone to a ledger book and looked for the names of IBM's
OS/2 customers, and added ALL the money paid to IBM for ALL purchases,
that they would have accounted for 39% of IBM yearly sales. OS/2 was a
very small part of that figure. If true, and I can not prove this figure
as I never had access to the numbers, but it was what 'we' were told,
Gerstner had to juggle many parts of the business at the same time and
walk a thin line not to drive them away from IBM. Matter of fact, the
data I just presented, again, if true, would probably EXPLAIN why OS/2
has hung on so long, and why IBM goes to great lengths to satisfy those
very same customers. Of course, if you have different data, please share
it with references.
I'm also not saying that all those customers would or could even bolt
from IBM. Some of that h/w they had purchased, like large commercial
computers couldn't be replaced or even acquired from somewhere else, but
if nothing more, IBM wanted to be the supplier of choice for those
companies, even if it meant supplying NT server farms to them.
> > I believe it _could_ have been,
> > but between Microsoft's illegal monopoly maintenence gambits, and PSP
> > back in the mid-90s wasting a whole lot of money on OS/2 PPC and then
> > droppping it while almost completely ignoring OS/2 on Intel, a whole lot
> > of money, time, and effort was wasted for ultimately next to nothing.
> >
> > IBM is, unfortunately, not like Microsoft. I'm not a Microsoft fan,
> > but I have to laud them for their tenacity
>
> You can call it "tenacity" but I would call it 'greed' and 'corruption.'
You are looking at what they 'do', not 'why'. It is the 'why' that is
important. 'Why' was to make sure they had a lock on PC's, and hence,
the important cash cow, Office, be on each computer. Test, which costs
more in stores or per PC shipped with, Office or the OS? Which costs
more to develop, Office or OS? Which has a higher profit, Office or OS?
Yeah, I know, MS doesn't break down the figures. However, enough
'pundits' have fairly good insight into MS and others that do these type
of 'programs'. Best guess, Office is the winner in all categories. It
isn't even clear that any of the OS's are profit centers. DOS is today,
but that is only because of its longevity and that the development costs
have been recovered and the limited set of people working on it
(probably very few full time) 'cost' less than sales.
If you have different data, URL's please.
>
> > -- if they release a product,
> > they stick with it no matter how badly it initially sells. The first
> > year or two Windows NT was out it was practically ignored -- and now its
> > the core of the most used OS on the planet. The XBox's sales next to
> > the PlayStation 2 are a joke, and is losing money hand over fist, and
> > yet they're still pushing on, full steam ahead.
>
> Indeed. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they are twisting the
> arms of anyone who is supporting the Sony Playstation 2 in any way that
> they can.
>
> > IBM in the same
> > position either scales a product back, or drops it completely. If it's
> > not profitable, it goes into "maintenence mode", with no further
> > marketing or development beyond legacy support.
>
> IBM generally relies on sound business practices and honest competition
> for success and they have performed pretty well over the last 80 years.
> Microsoft's methods and tactics are not likely to age as well.
Hmm, why did the government sue them (IBM)?
Andrew J. Brehm
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:12:56 GMT, Brad BARCLAY wrote:
>
> > IBM is, unfortunately, not like Microsoft. I'm not a Microsoft fan,
> >but I have to laud them for their tenacity -- if they release a product,
> >they stick with it no matter how badly it initially sells. The first
> >year or two Windows NT was out it was practically ignored -- and now its
> >the core of the most used OS on the planet. The XBox's sales next to
> >the PlayStation 2 are a joke, and is losing money hand over fist, and
> >yet they're still pushing on, full steam ahead. IBM in the same
> >position either scales a product back, or drops it completely. If it's
> >not profitable, it goes into "maintenence mode", with no further
> >marketing or development beyond legacy support.
>
> MS stuck with NT only because they knew eventually their monopoly momentum
> would allow them to force it on the rest of the market, whether or not it
> was ready. By many standards, it still isn't.
>
When Microsoft started the NT project and released NT 3.1 and NT 3.5 it
was not at all clear that there was a "monopoly momentum" to speak of.
And NT was ready for the market at some point, that's why people bought
it. It has nothing to do with an elleged "monopoly", but simply with
NT's ability to run applications that people wanted to run. It took
Microsoft years to create that environment and it was Microsoft's only
excuse for Windows 95 (introduce Win32 while staying compatible with
Win16).
IBM had the same choice and tried to use it. They also had a product
that was meant to introduce a new API while staying compatible with the
old. IBM failed.
And if you tell me that this was because of Microsoft's per-CPU licences
or OEM agreements or anything, you better explain why these agreements
stopped OEMs from buying OS/2 licences _instead_.
In fact, in Germany Vobis preloaded OS/2. But for a long time people
prefered MS-DOS and after 1995 people wanted Windows 95. That's the way
it is, and it has all to do with application availability and nothing to
do with OS/2 being discriminated against by OEMs because of agreements
with Microsoft.
What could Microsoft do if an OEM decided not to sign the agreement and
go with OS/2 instead?
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Bob Eager
Brehm) wrote:
> What could Microsoft do if an OEM decided not to sign the agreement and
> go with OS/2 instead?
What they did. raise the prices for the MS licences that the OEM *did*
need. No OEM was going to go all OS/2 straight away. What MS did was to
say 'use anything except our products and the price for the ones you do
want goes sky high'. That, indeed, is what they did to IBM, and it's in
the record of the DoJ case.
--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70, PC/AT..
Andrew J. Brehm
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:05:24 UTC, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
> Brehm) wrote:
>
> > What could Microsoft do if an OEM decided not to sign the agreement and
> > go with OS/2 instead?
>
> What they did. raise the prices for the MS licences that the OEM *did*
> need. No OEM was going to go all OS/2 straight away. What MS did was to
> say 'use anything except our products and the price for the ones you do
> want goes sky high'. That, indeed, is what they did to IBM, and it's in
> the record of the DoJ case.
How would that affect an OEM that wanted to offer OS/2?
The strategy would only work if Microsoft knew that people wanted
Windows rather than OS/2.
What could Microsoft do to an OEM that wanted OS/2 rather than Windows?
Warped_One
is the directX equivalent and full 3D acceleration. And, as an aside "Voice
over IP".
My only use for windows has been gaming (and one or two business apps at the
office.)
Anyway, that's my take on it.. FWIW
Alan Beagley
such existed. But it made it far too expensive for OEM's to offer
customers a choice.
-=-
Alan
On 06/15/03 12:40 pm Andrew J. Brehm put fingers to keyboard and
launched the following message into cyberspace:
Andrew J. Brehm
> Microsoft's strategy would have had no effect on OS/2-only OEMs -- if
> such existed. But it made it far too expensive for OEM's to offer
> customers a choice.
>
Incidentally, Vobis did offer such a choice. I remember that for years
Vobis offered a choice between IBM PC-DOS, MS-DOS/Windows, and OS/2
Warp.
But what was the problem with being an OS/2-only OEM? OS/2 was
compatible with MS-DOS and Windows, and a dual-boot system with IBM
PC-DOS (to run some DOS games that wouldn't run under OS/2) was also
possible.
William L. Hartzell
Jaime A. Cruz, Jr.
>
>When Microsoft started the NT project and released NT 3.1 and NT 3.5 it
>was not at all clear that there was a "monopoly momentum" to speak of.
>
>And NT was ready for the market at some point, that's why people bought
>it. It has nothing to do with an elleged "monopoly", but simply with
>NT's ability to run applications that people wanted to run. It took
>Microsoft years to create that environment and it was Microsoft's only
>excuse for Windows 95 (introduce Win32 while staying compatible with
>Win16).
>
>IBM had the same choice and tried to use it. They also had a product
>that was meant to introduce a new API while staying compatible with the
>old. IBM failed.
>
>And if you tell me that this was because of Microsoft's per-CPU licences
>or OEM agreements or anything, you better explain why these agreements
>stopped OEMs from buying OS/2 licences _instead_.
>
>In fact, in Germany Vobis preloaded OS/2. But for a long time people
>prefered MS-DOS and after 1995 people wanted Windows 95. That's the way
>it is, and it has all to do with application availability and nothing to
>do with OS/2 being discriminated against by OEMs because of agreements
>with Microsoft.
>
>What could Microsoft do if an OEM decided not to sign the agreement and
>go with OS/2 instead?
>
Actually, I think it's because IBM's marketing was completely caught
flatfooted. They've NEVER shown any talent for marketing to the home user
and I doubt they ever will. One of the best lines I ever read about the
problem with Prodigy (remember that??) was that it combined everything Sears
knew about high tech combined with everything IBM knew about consumer
marketing.
In the past, IBM was able to sell to the home user simply because the home
user grew familiar with office technology in his workplace. Wintel turned
that around. More and more people got computers before they ever entered the
workplace. Just as the old office worker wanted to work with what he/she was
familiar with, the new generation of office worker wanted to work with what
he/she was familiar with as well. THAT'S where IBM blew it. They basically
ignored the consumer marketplace and took it for granted.
Nowadays, IBM reminds me of a Keystone Kops movie. Always testing the wind
to see what people consider the "HOT" technology, then push it like crazy
until the next big thing comes along. You have to admire Microsoft... their
path is quite clear... WORLD DOMINATION. IBM's message is "We'll do whatever
you want as long as we make a buck."
If IBM R&D invented sushi, IBM Marketing would sell it as "Cold, Dead Fish"
Bob Eager
Brehm) wrote:
> > What they did. raise the prices for the MS licences that the OEM *did*
> > need. No OEM was going to go all OS/2 straight away. What MS did was to
> > say 'use anything except our products and the price for the ones you do
> > want goes sky high'. That, indeed, is what they did to IBM, and it's in
> > the record of the DoJ case.
>
> How would that affect an OEM that wanted to offer OS/2?
As I said above..it affected any OEM that wanted to offer OS/2, but not
exclusively. See above. I know of OEMs who wanted to 'dip a toe in the
water' and offer OS/2 on (say) 5% of their systems to start with. But
the cost of the 95% of MS licences then became prohibitive because MS
raised the unit cost due to the OEM not offering exclusively MS.
Jaime A. Cruz, Jr.
It's not what the OEM wanted, it's what his customers wanted. Also, remember
back then Microsoft collected a DOS/Windows licensing fee for EVERY PC SOLD!
Whether or not DOS/Windows was installed on that PC! So if an OEM wanted to
sell a PC with DR-DOS or OS/2, he'd have to pay TWO licenses! Not hard to
figure out why the OEM's just installed DOS/Windows, then. They were already
paying for it.
Even now Microsoft is trying to pull every little dirty trick in the book to
prevent OEM's from selling PC's WITHOUT an operating system, claiming that it
encourages piracy! Like as if someone would only buy a PC that way to
install an illegal copy of Windows. It's like the RIAA levying a surcharge
on every blank CD-R sold because they just KNOW the only reason someone would
want one would be to pirate music. GMAB.
David T. Johnson
> David,
>
> Are you a fan of 'revisionist history'?
>
> David T. Johnson wrote:
>
>
>>Brad BARCLAY wrote:
>>
>>>David T. Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It is hard for any product sold by a corporation to succeed when the
>>>>CEO personally pulls the plug on it. Download this zipped up .mp3
>>>>file and hear Lou Gerstner say that he personally made the decision
>>>>back in the mid-90s that "no new resources were going into OS/2."
>>>>
>>>>http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/multimedia/wave/mpeg/gerstner.zip
>>>
>>>
>>> It's worth noting that Mr. Gerstner wouldn't have come to this
>>>conclusion had OS/2 been a big success.
>>
>>I think that it was too early to make any conclusions about the
>>potential of OS/2 at the time that Gerstner made his decision.
>
>
> Based on what? References please? Sales information please?
That is something referred to as 'opinion.'
>
>
>>At the
>>time, Warp 4 was immeasurably superior to the Windows 95 that Microsoft
>>was selling.
>
>
> Do you remember the 'Beta' vs. 'VHS' stuff? Where is it written that the
> best solution has to win? What about 'MicroChannel' vs. 'PCI Bus'?
There is no particular reason that I am aware of why there must be just
one OS platform. We have a choice of more than one model of car to buy
and yet, thanks to international standards, we can be reasonably sure
that the car we buy will run satisfactorily on the local grade of fuel
and will have the necessary lights, safety equipment, braking equipment,
etc. OS/2 is a powerful, secure, efficient, and cost-effective platform
that was a reasonable choice for many types of purposes at the time that
Gerstner pulled the plug on it in the mid-90s. The fact that OS/2
continued to be widely used demonstrates that it has many advantages
that could have been exploited by IBM if Gerstner had not seen fit to
exercise his fiat.
>
>
>>Gerstner has never stated *why* he wanted to terminate
>>OS/2 other than to 'stop fighting with Microsoft.'
>
>
> I thought it was clear? The 'desktop' was lost, remember that?
The desktop was certainly conceded by Gerstner for reasons known only to
him. Apparently, he felt that it was important to 'stop fighting with
Microsoft.'
> I think
> today he was correct, the money was in the Middleware, not the desktop.
The money is obviously in the desktop and the middleware and the
applications and tools which can be leveraged to those. The financial
results of Microsoft illustrate that clearly. Gerstner turned his back
on perhaps the most lucrative single IT market which has ever existed.
> I certainly didn't think he was correct when he made that statement, nor
> did most of my co-workers.
>
>
>>Isn't 'fighting with
>>each other' what corporations are supposed to do in the marketplace?
>
>
> Depends? Did you risk losing the company?
The bigger threat to IBM was to not participate in the marketplace. IBM
is attempting to use Linux as a backup but that ship has hit some large
rocks recently. Things look a little grim for the IBM software business
IMO. Fortunately for IBM, that is only about 1/3 of their revenues.
> IBM had and still has a long
> history of looking at its resources and what parts of the business need
> resources and parts that are not performing. Normal to 'steal' resources
> from poor performing units. Do you think MS is making money from OS's?
Hand over fist...
> Do you think MS is making as much per person working on an OS as from
> the Office group that makes the suite of programs?
Hand over fist...
[snip]
--
Andrew J. Brehm
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:40:27 UTC, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
> Brehm) wrote:
>
> > > What they did. raise the prices for the MS licences that the OEM *did*
> > > need. No OEM was going to go all OS/2 straight away. What MS did was
> > > to say 'use anything except our products and the price for the ones
> > > you do want goes sky high'. That, indeed, is what they did to IBM, and
> > > it's in the record of the DoJ case.
> >
> > How would that affect an OEM that wanted to offer OS/2?
>
> As I said above..it affected any OEM that wanted to offer OS/2, but not
> exclusively. See above. I know of OEMs who wanted to 'dip a toe in the
> water' and offer OS/2 on (say) 5% of their systems to start with. But the
> cost of the 95% of MS licences then became prohibitive because MS raised
> the unit cost due to the OEM not offering exclusively MS.
I would actually prefer it if the OEM I buy a computer from exclusively
supported one system. Anyway, this wouldn't stop OEMs from exclusively
offering OS/2 in order to sell to those customers who wanted OS/2.
Andrew J. Brehm
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:40:27 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>
> >Bob Eager <rd...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:05:24 UTC, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
> >> Brehm) wrote:
> >>
> >> > What could Microsoft do if an OEM decided not to sign the agreement and
> >> > go with OS/2 instead?
> >>
> >> What they did. raise the prices for the MS licences that the OEM *did*
> >> need. No OEM was going to go all OS/2 straight away. What MS did was to
> >> say 'use anything except our products and the price for the ones you do
> >> want goes sky high'. That, indeed, is what they did to IBM, and it's in
> >> the record of the DoJ case.
> >
> >How would that affect an OEM that wanted to offer OS/2?
> >
> >The strategy would only work if Microsoft knew that people wanted
> >Windows rather than OS/2.
> >
> >What could Microsoft do to an OEM that wanted OS/2 rather than Windows?
> >
>
> It's not what the OEM wanted, it's what his customers wanted.
If the customers wanted OS/2, an OEM would do well offering OS/2, even
exclusively.
> Also, remember back then Microsoft collected a DOS/Windows licensing fee
> for EVERY PC SOLD!
But not from our OS/2 OEM, only from those who wanted to sell Windows
PCs instead.
> Whether or not DOS/Windows was installed on that PC! So if an OEM wanted
> to sell a PC with DR-DOS or OS/2, he'd have to pay TWO licenses!
Only if he wanted to have the cake and eat it too. If our OEM doesn't
need a Windows licence because customers want DR-DOS or OS/2, there
would be no problem.
> Not hard to figure out why the OEM's just installed DOS/Windows, then.
> They were already paying for it.
That's true for those OEMs who wanted to offer Windows, but not for our
OS/2 OEMs.
> Even now Microsoft is trying to pull every little dirty trick in the book
> to prevent OEM's from selling PC's WITHOUT an operating system, claiming
> that it encourages piracy! Like as if someone would only buy a PC that
> way to install an illegal copy of Windows. It's like the RIAA levying a
> surcharge on every blank CD-R sold because they just KNOW the only reason
> someone would want one would be to pirate music. GMAB.
I think Microsoft has a point re PCs without an OS. What do you think
will most people do with a new PC? Install GNU/Linux? Why not buy a PC
with some version of Linux pre-installed instead?
William L. Hartzell
Mike Tuthill
says...
> There is no particular reason that I am aware of why there must be just
> one OS platform.
I'd have to agree with this statement however I'm not sure MS would
agree. I'm not sure why they want to dominate the OS side of things but
I suspect that it's a way to keep application development costs down as
it would certainly cost more to develop apps for multiple platforms. On
the other hand they could include an emulator with each copy of Office
that would allow the native code to run under Linux, OS/2, Solaris,
Unix, BeOS, etc. etc. The emulator would add cost however they already
own one so they'd just have to finetune it. AFAIC emulators are MS best
friend right now even if they don't realize it.
Brad BARCLAY
> I think Microsoft has a point re PCs without an OS. What do you think
> will most people do with a new PC? Install GNU/Linux? Why not buy a PC
> with some version of Linux pre-installed instead?
No, Microsoft is far more fearful that people who own existing Windows
licenses will simply install the Windows they already own, transfering
it to their new machine after junking their old one.
And yes, I much prefer to install Linux myself on my new machines,
thank-you-very-much. I prefer to have control over what packages are
installed and how everything is configured at install time. It's a lot
easier to control during install than it is trying to remove everything
the OEM installed afterward.
Irv Spalten
proof if you have any. I'll refute your 'opinions' and let the reader
decide.
David T. Johnson wrote:
> Irv Spalten wrote:
> > David,
> >
> > Are you a fan of 'revisionist history'?
> >
> > David T. Johnson wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Brad BARCLAY wrote:
> >>
> >>>David T. Johnson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>It is hard for any product sold by a corporation to succeed when the
> >>>>CEO personally pulls the plug on it. Download this zipped up .mp3
> >>>>file and hear Lou Gerstner say that he personally made the decision
> >>>>back in the mid-90s that "no new resources were going into OS/2."
> >>>>
> >>>>http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/multimedia/wave/mpeg/gerstner.zip
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It's worth noting that Mr. Gerstner wouldn't have come to this
> >>>conclusion had OS/2 been a big success.
> >>
> >>I think that it was too early to make any conclusions about the
> >>potential of OS/2 at the time that Gerstner made his decision.
> >
> >
> > Based on what? References please? Sales information please?
>
> That is something referred to as 'opinion.'
Irrational 'opinion' with no inside knowledge proposed by you, and yes,
wrong.
> >
> >
> >>At the
> >>time, Warp 4 was immeasurably superior to the Windows 95 that Microsoft
> >>was selling.
> >
> >
> > Do you remember the 'Beta' vs. 'VHS' stuff? Where is it written that the
> > best solution has to win? What about 'MicroChannel' vs. 'PCI Bus'?
>
> There is no particular reason that I am aware of why there must be just
> one OS platform.
True... but WHAT incentive is there for more than one underlying API? As
you say later, Linux isn't doing so well, is it (another API set).
> We have a choice of more than one model of car to buy
> and yet, thanks to international standards, we can be reasonably sure
> that the car we buy will run satisfactorily on the local grade of fuel
> and will have the necessary lights, safety equipment, braking equipment,
> etc.
Meanless to the discussion. I can also buy many different soda's and
drink them out of the same glass, so what?
> OS/2 is a powerful, secure, efficient, and cost-effective platform
> that was a reasonable choice for many types of purposes at the time that
> Gerstner pulled the plug on it in the mid-90s.
Yes, but where were the NEW applications and, unlike your car model, you
had data interchange problems with office continually. MS changed the
API's and others scurried to catch up. IBM had NO DESKTOP products (of
any consequence) to sell, so why would they care what the desktop was?
They already had the middleware market nicely tied up and MS compatible
versions as well. Like other developers, IBM saved money by developing
only for one API set, and even did better by not spending resources on
an OS that was not going to go anywhere.
> The fact that OS/2
> continued to be widely used demonstrates that it has many advantages
> that could have been exploited by IBM if Gerstner had not seen fit to
> exercise his fiat.
Or that the 'users' were in no position to move! The ATM you used in '92
would do the same job today. The desktop s/w you used in '92 would also
do the same job today. However, the ATM only need to do some remedial
bookkeeping and dispence money. The s/w didn't need to change. The
desktop however was a moving target. As the processors became faster,
better applications arrived and the old s/w did more and was upgraded.
IBM would have reaped NOTHING from the desktop s/w changes others made.
> >
> >
> >>Gerstner has never stated *why* he wanted to terminate
> >>OS/2 other than to 'stop fighting with Microsoft.'
> >
> >
> > I thought it was clear? The 'desktop' was lost, remember that?
>
> The desktop was certainly conceded by Gerstner for reasons known only to
> him. Apparently, he felt that it was important to 'stop fighting with
> Microsoft.'
It was clear to many, and as others have repeatedly told you, Gerstner
didn't operate unilaterally or in a vacuum. For the 'health' of IBM, I
believe today he did the correct thing.
> > I think
> > today he was correct, the money was in the Middleware, not the desktop.
>
> The money is obviously in the desktop and the middleware and the
> applications and tools which can be leveraged to those.
Name the IBM desktop solutions then! What would IBM have sold and reaped
profits from if Gerstner continued OS/2 development? Quick answer, NONE!
> The financial
> results of Microsoft illustrate that clearly.
Results not from the sale of OS's (I don't think they have made any
money on any but DOS), but MS doesn't break those figures down in their
annual reports.
> Gerstner turned his back
> on perhaps the most lucrative single IT market which has ever existed.
No, he concentrated IBM's effort to be on Windows in the MIDDLEWARE
areana, one IBM was/is very strong in and profitable.
> > I certainly didn't think he was correct when he made that statement, nor
> > did most of my co-workers.
> >
> >
> >>Isn't 'fighting with
> >>each other' what corporations are supposed to do in the marketplace?
> >
> >
> > Depends? Did you risk losing the company?
>
> The bigger threat to IBM was to not participate in the marketplace.
The bigger threat was participating in a market it wouldn't suceed in
and waste resources. They participated in the 'new' market in the
middleware and are/were very sucessful in it.
> IBM
> is attempting to use Linux as a backup but that ship has hit some large
> rocks recently.
No backup, but participating in an alternative market with, again,
middleware.
> Things look a little grim for the IBM software business
> IMO. Fortunately for IBM, that is only about 1/3 of their revenues.
And OS/2 would have been better if it were continued and changed the
perceived opinion you have of its business? It probably would have
wasted more resources and only make it worse.
> > IBM had and still has a long
> > history of looking at its resources and what parts of the business need
> > resources and parts that are not performing. Normal to 'steal' resources
> > from poor performing units. Do you think MS is making money from OS's?
>
> Hand over fist...
Think again... the emphasis is on 'making' which means PROFIT. You don't
make a profit until you recoup the development costs. Some, like 'Bob',
never will. WinME probably didn't also, but it really was a minor
upgrade from Win98 so the development costs would not be too high.
>
> > Do you think MS is making as much per person working on an OS as from
> > the Office group that makes the suite of programs?
>
> Hand over fist...
Hint, the 'cash cow' is the Office products. Wrong yet again, but I
never expected you to give any answer but the ones that suited your
'opinions'. Good thing your opinions are free, they are worthless even
less than one pays for them.
Done... FUD away... I'll not respond, but reasonable and intelligent
people whom read this thread will know and understand. Dig your hole
little boy.
Irv
>
> [snip]
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > I think Microsoft has a point re PCs without an OS. What do you think
> > will most people do with a new PC? Install GNU/Linux? Why not buy a PC
> > with some version of Linux pre-installed instead?
>
> No, Microsoft is far more fearful that people who own existing Windows
> licenses will simply install the Windows they already own, transfering
> it to their new machine after junking their old one.
Indeed. And isn't that fear realistic?
> And yes, I much prefer to install Linux myself on my new machines,
> thank-you-very-much. I prefer to have control over what packages are
> installed and how everything is configured at install time. It's a lot
> easier to control during install than it is trying to remove everything
> the OEM installed afterward.
>
I don't think that's true for most customers. Also, an OEM distribution
of GNU/Linux that is specifically supported on your new computer can
also be installed manually. (I have always installed the OS myself, even
when the computer came with the OS preinstalled.)
Brad Wardell
"Jaime A. Cruz, Jr." <Spam...@Bite.Me> wrote in message
news:wnvzrpehmanffnhjvat...@news-server.optonline.net...
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 02:33:42 GMT, Marty wrote:
>
> >Jaime A. Cruz, Jr. wrote:
> >> Wonder for what price a soul sells for these days? :-\
> >
> >You're being very dramatic, but it's a very similar story to what
> >happened with Peter and PMView. An inexperienced, gung-ho developer
> >made a statement based on the euphoria of a temporary market condition,
> >and later had to retract it when reality hit.
> >
> >Why should he keep his good idea parked in the garage?
> >
>
> Because unlike Peter, he has a big, fat portfolio of other software titles
> for Windows, that's why. So I guess one's word means nothing these days,
eh?
I remember the statement. I also, unlike you, remember the CONTEXT of the
statement. I said we would NEVER EVER *PORT* GalCiv to Windows. Even if I
didn't include the word port, that was the context of which it was intended.
For years, people had asked that we port GalCiv to Windows and I said it
would be virtually impossible to do so and even if we could, our start came
from OS/2 and GalCiv was special to us and we wouldn't do that.
If you were a developer, I think you would understand this context more. The
code of GalCiv for OS/2 has my finger prints all over it. I can look at it
and go "Ah yes, I wrote this the week before I got engaged." or even more
specifically "Ah, I remember eating a full box of chocolate wafer cookies
when I wrote this."
It gets to be a very personal experience.
Now, when Stardock's 10 year anniversary was approaching, I wanted to go
back and do GalCiv because it's a game I care deeply about obviously. But as
I had repeatedly said in the past, it would never be a port. It was written
from scratch over again. 0 lines are from the OS/2 version.
If you want to quibble in yoru mind that we reused our trademark game name,
that's certainly your business. But the "no Windows version" discussions
were always in the context of trying to port GalCiv to Windows. This
discussion was during the time when Describe and other companies were
writing a single code base and having it on multilple versions of Windows.
There was the obvious temptation to do that with OS/2 -- GPI on OS/2, GDI on
Windows. But we chose not to do that because the OS/2 version of GalCiv was
written with OS/2 in mind and it porting it or using it to make a Windows
version would have felt dirty. It was written as OS/2 advocacy in a way and
to port it to Windows would have been, IMO, wrong.
But to suggest that I would never ever revisit GalCiv for the rest of my
life out of loyalty to an inanimate object (i.e. an operating system) is
absurd. When you spend years of your life working on concept, you're not
going to throw out the whole concept out of some "loyalty" to an OS. And to
suggest that doing so is "selling ones soul" is offensive. For you would
instead argue that my "soul" somehow belongs to OS/2.
At the end of the day, it boils down to this: I wanted to play GalCiv and
play it to the next level and the only way to do this was on Windows. Even
with its considerable commercial and critical success, it'll be a fairly
small minority of our company's revenue this year. Object Desktop on Windows
and licensing of our various technologies is what pays the bills.
Brad
Brad Wardell
"Morenga" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:abfcnzarg.hg...@news1.attglobal.net...
> And one final word. I don't thinks his GalCiv Windoze dreams are going
that
> well.
>
You gotta be kidding? You been to a computer store lately? GalCiv is at
Walmart for crying out loud. Both Computer Gaming World and Computer Games
Magazine gave GalCiv Editor's Choice Awards.
Look, if I had had my way, I'd have stayed on OS/2 making OS/2 software even
today. But the market just couldn't sustain the type of software we made
after 1997.
Brad
Brad Wardell
> >the Win market, he might have kept GalCiv for OS/2.
>
> No he wouldn't. Once IBM screwed Brad on the new OS/ client deal
> he actually turned his love for OS/2 into genuine disgust of the OpSys.
>
> You can only truly hate what you're not allowed to love.
IBM didn't screw us and we do business (a lot of business) with IBM on a
regular basis.
The whole client thing has become something of an urban legend. It really
boiled down to this:
Us: Look, IBM, we need a contract by the end of this quarter so that we can
get something NEW for OS/2 out before the next version of Windows ships.
We've been negotiating for going on a year, we need to eitehr do this or
focus on our Windows stuff.
IBM: Sorry, we can't get our stuff together by the end of the quarter. But
if you want to license Warp 4 you can modify that.
Us: We need something based on the new server stuff. We don't want to go
with version 4, we'd get killed by the user base if we tried to get people
to upgrade to a Warp 4 + Fixpacks + bundles. Well, then are you at least
going to do a new stand alone "Warp 5"?
IBM: We have no plans to do so.
Us: Okay, well sorry, we can't pursue this then. We need to get our
developers to work on something , we can't stay in limbo so we'll have to
cease pursuing this.
The fact that it's 2003 and eCS 1.1 is only now out pretty much demonstrates
what our fear was. We wanted to get the client out BEFORE Windows 2000 came
out. I'm not sure if eCS 1.0 came out before Windows XP even.
But there was never any animosity in the scenario. If the OS/2 market had
been able to generate more revenue than it cost to support (and I don't
really care what they do in the Amiga software, we don't ship software we
don't support) we would continue to sell it.
Brad
Brad Wardell
<leto...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3eeb3452$1$yrgbherq$mr2...@news.earthlink.net...
> In <bcdpav$46f$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, on 06/13/03
> at 07:23 PM, "Mark Kelley" <Dontm...@ME.purdue.edu> said:
>
> >"Morenga" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
> >news:abfcnzarg.hg...@news1.attglobal.net...
> >>
> >> >I agree. If there had continued to be an OS/2 market, even 20% of
> >> >the Win market, he might have kept GalCiv for OS/2.
> >>
> >> No he wouldn't. Once IBM screwed Brad on the new OS/ client deal
> >> he actually turned his love for OS/2 into genuine disgust of the OpSys.
>
>
> Then you paid attention to his posts. Brad has been angry with IBM since
the
> day someone on Compuserve pointed out that OS2 was a business platform and
it
> wasn't going to be modified so his games could run better.
>
Actually, you are incorrect. Extremely incorrect. First off, OS/2 Warp 3
was modified specifically to run GalCiv better. You see, in GalCiv, every
ship was a window of type SS_ICON. OS/2 2.0/2.1 couldn't handle thousands
of windows of type SS_ICON so IBM modified OS/2 Warp 3 prior to release so
that it could handle that.
In addition, IBM spent a great deal of money PAYING developers to make OS/2
games. Stardock itself received money to develop Entrepreneur for OS/2. In
fact, IBM also paid us to go to CeBit '95 to demonstrate Entrepreneur for
the PowerPC version of OS/2.
But if that wasn't enough, at the Game Developer's Conference in 1995 IBM
had a huge booth area called "OS/2: let the games begin" and developed DIVE
and DART to do that and paid for these games to be made for OS/2:
DOOM
Simcity
Simcity 2000
SimTown
And a bunch of other Sim games (I still have the boxes of these for the OS/2
version)
Links for OS/2
The deal with Maxis was well into the 7 digit range. IBM also paid us well
into the 6 digit range to license Star Emperor for the IBM Family FunPak for
OS/2 which was avaialble at retail.
I should also point out that the GalCiv series on OS/2 sold over 30,000
copies at retail. And counting the IBM Family FunPak, we sold over a million
licenses of OS/2 games (most of it via the Family FunPak).
In short, your knowlege of OS/2's history is spotty, to say the least.
Brad
tho...@antispam.ham
> I said we would NEVER EVER *PORT* GalCiv to Windows. Even if I didn't
> include the word port, that was the context of which it was intended.
Same old spin doctoring. Banks don't buy third party software is what
what you wrote, but later spin doctored to say that "generally" was
intended. Maybe some day you'll learn to write what you intend, Brad.
Brad Wardell
"David H. McCoy" <fa...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19555f968...@news.east.cox.net...
> In article <bcg18a$pkn$1...@peabody.colorado.edu>,
> bow...@rintintin.colorado.edu says...
> > In article <3eeb3452$1$yrgbherq$mr2...@news.earthlink.net>,
> > <leto...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > >In <bcdpav$46f$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, on 06/13/03
> > > at 07:23 PM, "Mark Kelley" <Dontm...@ME.purdue.edu> said:
> > >
> > >>"Morenga" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
> > >>news:abfcnzarg.hg...@news1.attglobal.net...
> > >>>
> > >>> >I agree. If there had continued to be an OS/2 market, even 20% of
> > >>> >the Win market, he might have kept GalCiv for OS/2.
> > >>>
> > >>> No he wouldn't. Once IBM screwed Brad on the new OS/ client deal
> > >>> he actually turned his love for OS/2 into genuine disgust of the
OpSys.
> > >
> > >>I've never noticed such a thing from Brad.
> > >
> > >Then you paid attention to his posts. Brad has been angry with IBM
since the
> > >day someone on Compuserve pointed out that OS2 was a business platform
and it
> > >wasn't going to be modified so his games could run better.
> > >
> >
from?
> > If you consider poor driver support, i.e. limited drivers available, and
> > constant white papers that mention transitioning from OS/2 to other
> > platforms then I guess maybe Brad got the message. Anything that
benefits
> > software development can benefit any group. A scientific programmer
could
> > benefit from programming tools that helped them develop advance
visulation
> > software. A person in the arts or media could benefit from advanced
audio
> > and video capabilities. The familar cry about OS/2 being for business
> > doesn't justify IBM's not expanding OS/2's capabilities, in fact it
> > hinders anybody adopting it.
> >
> >
> Also, a so-called business oriented system would bring benefits to
> consures. XP is now the realization of merger between business stability
> and consumer friendliness.
BTW, for anyone who thinks I hate OS/2 or whatever, here's an article I
wrote recently detailing the history of Object Desktop:
http://www.stardock.com/stardock/articles/article_odhistory.html
When the article was circulated through the various tech sites a LOT of
people said things like "Man, OS/2 really was way ahead of Windows. I had
always thought it was overstated but look at those screenshots while we were
stuck with UAEs!"
Brad
> --
> --------------------------------------
> David H. McCoy
>
>
> --------------------------------------
Brad Wardell
"Brad BARCLAY" <yazt...@filter.jsyncmanager.org> wrote in message
news:I5NGa.94798$j9%.53973@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> David T. Johnson wrote:
>
> > It is hard for any product sold by a corporation to succeed when the CEO
> > personally pulls the plug on it. Download this zipped up .mp3 file and
> > hear Lou Gerstner say that he personally made the decision back in the
> > mid-90s that "no new resources were going into OS/2."
> >
> > http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/multimedia/wave/mpeg/gerstner.zip
>
> It's worth noting that Mr. Gerstner wouldn't have come to this
> but between Microsoft's illegal monopoly maintenence gambits, and PSP
> back in the mid-90s wasting a whole lot of money on OS/2 PPC and then
> droppping it while almost completely ignoring OS/2 on Intel, a whole lot
> of money, time, and effort was wasted for ultimately next to nothing.
Yep. I feel the same way.
Did you ever read this article I wrote a few years ago?
http://www.stardock.com/stardock/articles/endofos2.html
At the time, the more fanatical portions of the OS/2 community asserted I
was making up lies about IBM. Of course, since then, it's become clear
(thanks to Gerstner) that this is indeed what happened. OS/2 for the
PowerPC being a disaster made Gerstner not believe in OS/2's future and
combed with Microsoft's illegal OEM practices, ensured that OS/2 would never
be a mainstream OS. And being a niche OS for a commodity market was too
expensive for IBM to continue pursuing.
If IBM did anything really wrong, it was that they essentially lied about
these facts until much later. I use the Trials of Battle example because it
has real people involved. Briefly, IBM pushed OS/2 as a gaming platform in
1995. Dean Iverson and his wife believed in OS/2 so much that they quit
their jobs, refinanced their house and wrote Trials of Battle. But at the
end of 1996 when it shipped, IBM had already decided OS/2 was dead and
OS/2's retail presence quickly died which ensured that any games for it
would die too. Whereas the GalCiv series sold over 30K units, the games that
shipped in 1996 were lucky to hit 2K units so much had the consumer push by
IBM dwindled and OS/2 users flocked to the recently released NT4. If IBM
had been honest, it could have saved people like the Iversonsons a lot of
grief.
Brad
Brad Wardell
"Brad Wardell" <bwar...@stardock.com> wrote in message
news:RAadnUOBMJr...@comcast.com...
BTW, just to help clear this up, here is a post from comp.os.os2.games from
1998 (yes, 5 years ago) which talks about the Windows version:
Bear in mind, in 1998 we were still making OS/2 software and I think GalCiv
Gold for OS/2 even came out that year. So a Windows version was long in the
making with bits of code started here and there for the underlying engine.
It wouldn't be until 2001 that we began writing code in a major way but as
you can see in this post, even as far back as 1998 when we were still
entrenched in the OS/2 market and BEFORE the OS/2 client attempt we were
actively discussing the Windows version of Galactic Civilizations.
And if that's not enough, here's one from 1997 where I had hoped to have a
GalCiv 3 on Windows (and OS/2):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:comp.os.os2.games+GalCiv+Windows+Never+author:%22Brad+Wardell%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=62j8u8%2498h%241%40denws02.mw.mediaone.net&rnum=5
We ended up not doing a Windows version then because Entrepreneur ended up
selling so well that we decided to make a sequel of that rather than rewrite
GalCiv for DirectX/DIVE.
In short, that a Windows version of GalCiv was coming should have been of no
surprise to anyone since it had been discussed publicly on comp.os.os2.games
and elsewhere for over half a decade.
Brad
Brad Wardell
I should clarify here before one of the more zealous OS/2 "advocates"
misinterpets this. IBM did not pay for the development for Entrepreneur on
OS/2. IBM had a program called "Springboard" in 1995-1996 where they
essentially provided grants to developers. The big winners of this were Id,
Maxis, Sony (Lemmings), Access (Links) where essentially 100% of the costs
were paid. But on Entrepreneur, they paid us a grant to help cover the
costs of the OS/2 for the PowerPC version (about 10% of the budget). The
point is that IBM was pushing OS/2 as a gaming platform enough to pay
millions of dollars to developers to make games for OS/2.
Brad
David T. Johnson
dizzy
Classic antagonism.
leto...@nospam.net
><leto...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:3eeb3452$1$yrgbherq$mr2...@news.earthlink.net...
>> In <bcdpav$46f$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, on 06/13/03
>> at 07:23 PM, "Mark Kelley" <Dontm...@ME.purdue.edu> said:
>>
>> >"Morenga" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
>> >news:abfcnzarg.hg...@news1.attglobal.net...
>> >>
>> >> >I agree. If there had continued to be an OS/2 market, even 20% of
>> >> >the Win market, he might have kept GalCiv for OS/2.
>> >>
>> >> No he wouldn't. Once IBM screwed Brad on the new OS/ client deal
>> >> he actually turned his love for OS/2 into genuine disgust of the OpSys.
>>
>> >I've never noticed such a thing from Brad.
>>
>> Then you paid attention to his posts. Brad has been angry with IBM since
>the
>> day someone on Compuserve pointed out that OS2 was a business platform and
>it
>> wasn't going to be modified so his games could run better.
>>
>Actually, you are incorrect. Extremely incorrect.
Nonsense. I have an archive of all your old posts from CIS where you went
ballistic on the OS2 user community and IBM, because the users wouldn't buy
your gulf game, and IBM wouldn't push the market you wanted.
We also have a collection here on usenet where you were whining and whining
that IBM wouldn't do this and wouldn't do that to make games better, thus
destroying the market -- which never existed beyond the minuscule in the first
place.
Now here you are trying to tell us that IBM was good to OS2 games. -- I don't
think you are ever going to learn to shut your mouth, but this would be a good
time to try, because you are not looking to swift here.
>Brad
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
leto...@together.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
says...
the clowns in any stores. In addition, I've read the reviews of GalCiv
and they've all been good.
These guys know about GalCiv and how its doing like they know about XP
and stability.
You don't owe them any explanations.
Joe Malloy
And maybe you will too, Tholen. I mean, who the heck was "Malloh", of whom
you were once complaining?
peter volsted
> "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
>
>
> IBM had the same choice and tried to use it. They also had a product
> that was meant to introduce a new API while staying compatible with the
> old. IBM failed.
>
> And if you tell me that this was because of Microsoft's per-CPU licences
> or OEM agreements or anything, you better explain why these agreements
> stopped OEMs from buying OS/2 licences _instead_.
>
> In fact, in Germany Vobis preloaded OS/2. But for a long time people
> prefered MS-DOS and after 1995 people wanted Windows 95. That's the way
> it is, and it has all to do with application availability and nothing to
> do with OS/2 being discriminated against by OEMs because of agreements
> with Microsoft.
>
A quote from judge Jackson's Fact Findings Nov. 5 1999 seems timely:
"118. At the same time that it offered the IBM PC Company the
rather general terms in the
Frontline Partnership Agreement, Microsoft also offered the PC
Company specific reductions
in the royalty rate for Windows 95 if the company would focus its
marketing and distribution efforts on Microsoft's new operating
system. Specifically, the PC Company would receive an $8 reduction
in the per-copy royalty for Windows 95 if it mentioned no other
operating systems in advertisements for IBM PCs, adopted Windows 95
as the standard operating system for its employees, and ensured that
it was shipping Windows 95 pre-installed on at least fifty percent
of its PCs two months after the release of Windows 95. Given the
volume of IBM's PC shipments, the discount would have amounted to
savings of between $40 million and $48 million in one year. Of
course, accepting the terms would have required IBM, as a practical
matter, to abandon its own operating system, OS/2. After all, IBM
would have had difficulty convincing customers to adopt its own OS/2
if the company itself had used Microsoft's Windows 95 and had
featured that product to the exclusion of OS/2 in IBM PC
advertisements."
That very well-lettered document is still to be found on:
<http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm>
--
good luck
peter
Menno
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote in message news:<1fwm4re.joblkx7glq8N%and...@netneurotic.de>...
> I think Microsoft has a point re PCs without an OS. What do you think
> will most people do with a new PC? Install GNU/Linux? Why not buy a PC
> with some version of Linux pre-installed instead?
I don't think MS has a point. These days, you have to ask specifically
for a PC with no OS. If you just ask for a new PC, you get Windows.
People asking specifically for a blank PC do so because they don't
want Windows or have already paid . Luckily, at the place where I
usually shop, there's no problem obtaining a blank PC as the dealers
there are not easily intimidated by MS sales techniques. Didn't always
use to be that way.
Even so, not many vendors will preinstall anything but Windows. Which
is fine by me, because I like to have full control over what happens
to my computer. (I always wonder who the speaker is in the Windows "My
Computer").
Also, most hardware vendors are basically clueless about the software.
Their "Reinstall Windows Horizon" is close enough to spit over.
There's no substitute for knowing what you're doing.
Cheers/2,
Menno
Andrew J. Brehm
> hi
>
> > "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> >
> >
> > IBM had the same choice and tried to use it. They also had a product
> > that was meant to introduce a new API while staying compatible with the
> > old. IBM failed.
> >
> > And if you tell me that this was because of Microsoft's per-CPU licences
> > or OEM agreements or anything, you better explain why these agreements
> > stopped OEMs from buying OS/2 licences _instead_.
> >
> > In fact, in Germany Vobis preloaded OS/2. But for a long time people
> > prefered MS-DOS and after 1995 people wanted Windows 95. That's the way
> > it is, and it has all to do with application availability and nothing to
> > do with OS/2 being discriminated against by OEMs because of agreements
> > with Microsoft.
> >
> A quote from judge Jackson's Fact Findings Nov. 5 1999 seems timely:
No, it doesn't. Nobody doubts what Microsoft has done.
> "118. At the same time that it offered the IBM PC Company the
> rather general terms in the
> Frontline Partnership Agreement, Microsoft also offered the PC
> Company specific reductions
> in the royalty rate for Windows 95 if the company would focus its
> marketing and distribution efforts on Microsoft's new operating
> system. Specifically, the PC Company would receive an $8 reduction
> in the per-copy royalty for Windows 95 if it mentioned no other
> operating systems in advertisements for IBM PCs, adopted Windows 95
> as the standard operating system for its employees, and ensured that
> it was shipping Windows 95 pre-installed on at least fifty percent
> of its PCs two months after the release of Windows 95. Given the
> volume of IBM's PC shipments, the discount would have amounted to
> savings of between $40 million and $48 million in one year. Of
> course, accepting the terms would have required IBM, as a practical
> matter, to abandon its own operating system, OS/2. After all, IBM
> would have had difficulty convincing customers to adopt its own OS/2
> if the company itself had used Microsoft's Windows 95 and had
> featured that product to the exclusion of OS/2 in IBM PC
> advertisements."
>
> That very well-lettered document is still to be found on:
> <http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm>
But it doesn't affect the discussion. I do not doubt what Microsoft has
done. My point was and is that all of what Microsoft did only worked
because customers wanted Windows, and not OS/2, and that Microsoft could
not do anything if an OEM decided to offer OS/2 instead of Windows, as
many have, at least in Germany. (I bought a PC in 1995 and it came with
Warp Connect. There was no question about the OS, and the store I bought
it in was simply a local computer store, neighbour to Vobis,
ironically.)
Jaime A. Cruz, Jr.
>
>In short, that a Windows version of GalCiv was coming should have been of no
>surprise to anyone since it had been discussed publicly on comp.os.os2.games
>and elsewhere for over half a decade.
>
>
>Brad
And I remember even back then pointing out the statements you made on
Compuserve, but then no one (including you) paid attention. And I'm working
on memory here (I don't have the messages saved since I long ago deleted both
OS2CIM and Golden CommPass) but I really don't remember the words "We'd never
PORT GalCiv..." but I DO remember words to the effect of "No matter what,
GalCiv will always be OUR game" referring to OS/2 users...
Cornelis Bockemühl
> When the article was circulated through the various tech sites a LOT of
> people said things like "Man, OS/2 really was way ahead of Windows. I had
> always thought it was overstated but look at those screenshots while we were
> stuck with UAEs!"
ObjectDesktop is now way obsolete for OS/2, because we have mainly
XWP, but also tools like DragText and many others to make life really
much easier.
On my W2K system at work I am missing a lot of this functionality
every day, while my colleagues don't: They simply have nothing to
compare with...
Bob St.John
> David T. Johnson wrote:
>
>> It is hard for any product sold by a corporation to succeed when the
>> CEO personally pulls the plug on it. Download this zipped up .mp3
>> file and hear Lou Gerstner say that he personally made the decision
>> back in the mid-90s that "no new resources were going into OS/2."
>>
>> http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/multimedia/wave/mpeg/gerstner.zip
>
>
> It's worth noting that Mr. Gerstner wouldn't have come to this
If by "big success" you mean .. accepted and promoted by the industry,
probably true. But it wasn't simply an issue of sales. OS/2 was selling
well enough at the time.
But to round out the picture that LVG was looking at, OS/2 contributed
little revenue by IBM standards. At the time, according to the
stockholder's reports, software was 20% of revenue. Of that, only 10% or
2% overall was "Intel" platform software. And a lot of the software IBM
was selling at the time ran on Windows. At any rate, OS/2 was a fraction
of the Intel software which was a small fraction of the overall software
which was a small fraction of the overall revenue. Not a position which
commands respect.
At this time LVG had large customers insisting that IBM protect their
investment in Windows software. Customers who contributed significant
revenue in mainframe, network, and services revenues and who had the
attention of IBM execs.
And you had many industry players complaining that OS/2 was an increased
cost without an equivalent increase in sales. That is, additional
resources to support OS/2 in addition to Windows. If there was no OS/2,
customers would simply buy Windows versions .. so the sales stays the
same .. OS/2 was simply a cost against revenue.
Many of the people making this particular argument were within IBM, in
various software and hardware areas.
Another items was the software strategy known as network centric
computing, later shortened to network computing. Referred to in the
remarks to the analysts as the next battle (LVG, June 1996 .. the war
for the desktop is over. Time to move on to the next battle).
Here LVG had been led to believe IBM could lose the small revenue area
of the desktop (LVG: You can't make money on a $49 product), but make
significant revenue on servers and collaborative software .. this is why
LVG acquired Lotus ... for Ray Ozzie and Notes.
In short, there was tremendous pressure on LVG by the industry to dump
OS/2, including pressure from large IBM customers and IBM's own
executives. There seemed to be little exposure to IBM by dropping OS/2.
No big revenue hit ... and IBM was convinced it could sell a lot of
software on Windows.
Recall the IBM marketing campaigns claiming IBM was the leading industry
vendor for Windows software and the "IBM Suites for NT".
From the advice, information, etc that LVG was given .. he felt he was
making the correct decision for 1996. By 1997 there was no empahsis on
OS/2 sales in IBM North America Software Marketing. IBM marketing groups
adopted an "OS/2 divestature strategy". IBM had already begun to counsel
accounts to move the desktop off OS/2, though they still felt they could
hold on to the server.
That's why the OS/2 Warp 5 client "went away". Donn Atkins, the PSP
marketing vp, had talked about the client release in early 1997 .. then
no more. Eventually WSeb came out as a new release .. while the client
received "convenience packs".
A lot of folks understood the exposure, but LVG was not one of them. The
decision he made in 1996 seemed very sound. It was not simply based on
sales and revenue. OS/2 was actually meeting sales objectives at the
time. Rather it was the overwhelming industry acceptance of Windows that
moved LVG and IBM away from OS/2.
Regards,
Bob St.John
Serenity Systems
Bob St.John
> Bob Eager <rd...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:05:24 UTC, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
>>Brehm) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What could Microsoft do if an OEM decided not to sign the agreement and
>>>go with OS/2 instead?
>>
>>What they did. raise the prices for the MS licences that the OEM *did*
>>need. No OEM was going to go all OS/2 straight away. What MS did was to
>>say 'use anything except our products and the price for the ones you do
>>want goes sky high'. That, indeed, is what they did to IBM, and it's in
>>the record of the DoJ case.
>
>
> How would that affect an OEM that wanted to offer OS/2?
>
> The strategy would only work if Microsoft knew that people wanted
> Windows rather than OS/2.
>
> What could Microsoft do to an OEM that wanted OS/2 rather than Windows?
The principal customer of the OEM at that time was the brick and mortar
PC store. Those stores wanted Windows on PCs. OS/2 was fine to them, but
not at the expense of Windows.
The big pressure on the IBM PC Company at the time was not IBM or MS. It
was the PC retailers. You can discuss the MS control of the retailers,
but the issue for OEMs was ... if you wanted to sell in the "channel",
you need to have Windows on your PCs or the dealers would buy from
another vendor.
Now, imagine how an OEM would feel if they committed to OS/2, over
Windows ... and then IBM walks away from OS/2. That's the circumstance
that most ISVs were in, including Wardell.
Andrew J. Brehm
> >
> > How would that affect an OEM that wanted to offer OS/2?
> >
> > The strategy would only work if Microsoft knew that people wanted
> > Windows rather than OS/2.
> >
> > What could Microsoft do to an OEM that wanted OS/2 rather than Windows?
>
> The principal customer of the OEM at that time was the brick and mortar
> PC store. Those stores wanted Windows on PCs. OS/2 was fine to them, but
> not at the expense of Windows.
So I thought.
> The big pressure on the IBM PC Company at the time was not IBM or MS. It
> was the PC retailers. You can discuss the MS control of the retailers, but
> the issue for OEMs was ... if you wanted to sell in the "channel", you
> need to have Windows on your PCs or the dealers would buy from another
> vendor.
And WinOS/2 wouldn't do?
> Now, imagine how an OEM would feel if they committed to OS/2, over Windows
> ... and then IBM walks away from OS/2. That's the circumstance that most
> ISVs were in, including Wardell.
Yes, that was indeed a bummer. However, in 1992/93/94/95 that was not
all that visible and would thus not have influenced the OEMs decisions,
would it?
Bob St.John
<snip>
>
> And WinOS/2 wouldn't do?
Not once Win95 came out. Retailers treated Win95 like a personal
appearance of Elvis.
Prior to that, it wasn't too bad. MS still marketed better, not many
folks in IBM marketing knew an end cap from a spiff. Even so, you had an
OS/2 presence and TEAM OS/2 out there promoting the brand.
>>Now, imagine how an OEM would feel if they committed to OS/2, over Windows
>>... and then IBM walks away from OS/2. That's the circumstance that most
>>ISVs were in, including Wardell.
>
>
> Yes, that was indeed a bummer. However, in 1992/93/94/95 that was not
> all that visible and would thus not have influenced the OEMs decisions,
> would it?
No .. IBM really didn't get into this market until Warp 3, though ..
then they worked pretty hard at getting acceptance in stores and were
doing OK. But the money poured into the Win95 launch ... folks lining up
the day before it went on-sale, stores openning at mid-night. Woof.
Without ignoring the antitrust testimony, if the PC retailers were
asking for OS/2, PC Company would have responded. But the MS "demand
generation" engine held sway.
rj friedman
<yazt...@filter.jsyncmanager.org> wrote:
» The IBM PC Co. didn't help, however...
That's for sure.
» in that its OS/2 message was often
»mixed.
I don't remember it being very 'mixed'. If there had been a
war between IBM and MS, the IBM PC Co. would have been in
the trenches with the troops from the beast of Redmond.
--
________________________________________________________
[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan r...@yyyindoserv.com
To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________
rj friedman
<yazt...@filter.jsyncmanager.org> wrote:
» Take a look at what IBM has been doing with Linux. They sunk over $1
»billion into it, at a time when it wasn't really making them any money.
True, but that was only because they finally figured out
that they would be reduced to selling pencils out of tin
cups unless they could find a way to stop the MS runaway
train.
Linux was the right product in the right place at the right
time. OS/2 was, too, back when 95 first came out - but IBM -
not having the wisdom of hindsight from the last ten years
thought that they and MS would be 'partners' - so they were
willing to downgrade OS/2 in their scheme of things.
The circumstances are completely different now - with IBM
realizing that unless they want to become Gates' vassal they
have to bring the beast down to size. Linux is the vehicle
to do that - it has the sizzle along with the steak.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > And WinOS/2 wouldn't do?
>
> Not once Win95 came out.
But at the time Windows 95 came out the battle was already lost.
Otherwise customers (relailers and consumers) wouldn't have prefered
Windows 95 (DOS+Win16+Win32) over OS/2 (DOS+Win16+OS/2).
> Retailers treated Win95 like a personal appearance of Elvis.
That was my impression as well. I still don't understand the hype.
Incidentally, I bought OS/2 Warp when the Windows 95 hype started (early
'95).
> Prior to that, it wasn't too bad. MS still marketed better, not many folks
> in IBM marketing knew an end cap from a spiff. Even so, you had an OS/2
> presence and TEAM OS/2 out there promoting the brand.
Ok.
> >>Now, imagine how an OEM would feel if they committed to OS/2, over Windows
> >>... and then IBM walks away from OS/2. That's the circumstance that most
> >>ISVs were in, including Wardell.
> >
> >
> > Yes, that was indeed a bummer. However, in 1992/93/94/95 that was not
> > all that visible and would thus not have influenced the OEMs decisions,
> > would it?
>
> No .. IBM really didn't get into this market until Warp 3, though ..
> then they worked pretty hard at getting acceptance in stores and were
> doing OK. But the money poured into the Win95 launch ... folks lining up
> the day before it went on-sale, stores openning at mid-night. Woof.
It was amazing. It was a miracle Microsoft has never been able to
reproduce. They only needed it once though.
> Without ignoring the antitrust testimony, if the PC retailers were asking
> for OS/2, PC Company would have responded. But the MS "demand generation"
> engine held sway.
Ok.
Robert Murr
For what it is worth, the agreement forced upon OEMs contained a clause
requiring the OEM to pay a royalty for each cpu that was shipped. If an
OEM sold a system with an OS2 preload, it nevertheless paid MS a royalty
as though the system had been shipped with Windows.
Working out the details of how this clause acted as a disincentive to
non-MS sales in the marketplace is left as an exercise for the student:-)
Also, when DOS was still King and OS2 and Windows were vying for the
title of Heir Apparent, MS engaged in a campaign of disparagement
against OS2 which ultimately ruined any chance that OS2 would capture
any significant portion of the over the counter OS market. IBM had
recently lost an anti-trust judgment (to Cal Comp) for approximately
$100 Million and its lawyers instructed its marketers to refrain
scrupulously from rebutting the MS disparagements and from engaging in
similar activities targeting Windows. OS2 thereafter won sales that
required competitive evaluations and lost almost all sales which were
not based on objective measures of performance. Hence, IIRC, OS2 came to
dominate a fraction of the market which seems well described as
'networks with at least 10,000 nodes.'
And so on, and so forth...
Cordially,
RWM
Andrew J. Brehm
> Hi,
>
> For what it is worth, the agreement forced upon OEMs contained a clause
> requiring the OEM to pay a royalty for each cpu that was shipped.
Why are you telling me this? As I have said before, I already knew that
(except that I don't use the word "force" to describe a clause of a
contract people agre to sign, unless you think that my bank "forces" me
to pay money for my mortgage, which I believe I voluntarily decided to
take).
> If an OEM sold a system with an OS2 preload, it nevertheless paid MS a
> royalty as though the system had been shipped with Windows.
In that case our OEM might want to go with OS/2 instead of Windows (we
are talking about the early 90).
> Working out the details of how this clause acted as a disincentive to
> non-MS sales in the marketplace is left as an exercise for the student:-)
The result would be that an OEM would have to decide to go for the large
market of people who wanted Windows or the smaller market of people who
wanted OS/2.
That's the same choice retailers essentially have to make between
Windows PCs and Macs. I don't see the problem. But I do see potential
for retailers to complain.
For example, Vobis once offered OS/2, PC-DOS, or Windows as a choice. At
some point they only offered Windows and were able to offer cheaper PCs
than Escom. Escom went OOB and Vobis was triumphant.
Of course today Vobis is the poor victim of evil Microsoft.
Brad Wardell
<leto...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3eed1a7a$3$yrgbherq$mr2...@news.earthlink.net...
IBM paid 100% of the cost for that golf game to be developed. How do you
reconcile that with your opinion?
Brad
Brad Wardell
"Jaime A. Cruz, Jr." <Spam...@Bite.Me> wrote in message
news:wnvzrpehmanffnhjvat...@news-server.optonline.net...
Yes, but this was part of a whole discussion about companies PORTING their
games. It was during the discussion about Describe and Colorworks about
having ported their programs to Windows. GalCiv on OS/2 is unique. Are we
talking software or trademarks?
I think given my links back to 1997 (over 6 years ago) demonstrate that a
re-written Windows version was always in the plan. I don't know what more
you want, you're going based off memory, I'm providing specific documented
links. I also recall what was written and remember what I said and the
context in which it was said.
Brad
Brad Wardell
"Cornelis Bockemühl" <cbo...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:b38b022f.03061...@posting.google.com...
> "Brad Wardell" <bwar...@stardock.com> wrote in message
news:<OMednXhzr7w...@comcast.com>...
>
> > When the article was circulated through the various tech sites a LOT of
> > people said things like "Man, OS/2 really was way ahead of Windows. I
had
> > always thought it was overstated but look at those screenshots while we
were
> > stuck with UAEs!"
>
> ObjectDesktop is now way obsolete for OS/2, because we have mainly
> XWP, but also tools like DragText and many others to make life really
> much easier.
If XWP replaces OD in your mind then you certainly weren't using OD to its
extent. I suggest revisitng the feature list of Object Desktop (or reading
that article).
>
> On my W2K system at work I am missing a lot of this functionality
> every day, while my colleagues don't: They simply have nothing to
> compare with...
There is Object Desktop on Windows. ;)
Brad
Robert Murr
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> Robert Murr <rwm...@pcmagic.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>For what it is worth, the agreement forced upon OEMs contained a clause
>>requiring the OEM to pay a royalty for each cpu that was shipped.
>
>
> Why are you telling me this?
It seems relevant and my review of the messages in this thread does not
show that this fact is a part of the discussion. Perhaps I missed
something, somewhere.
As I have said before, I already knew that
> (except that I don't use the word "force" to describe a clause of a
> contract people agre to sign, unless you think that my bank "forces" me
> to pay money for my mortgage, which I believe I voluntarily decided to
> take).
If you are in the market for a mortgage, there are lots of lenders out
there who will accept your application. There is only one Microsoft.
Microsoft said (words to the effect of) "Take it or else." As I said,
the consequences are left as an exercise for the student.
>
<snip>
Andrew J. Brehm
> Hi,
>
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > Robert Murr <rwm...@pcmagic.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>For what it is worth, the agreement forced upon OEMs contained a clause
> >>requiring the OEM to pay a royalty for each cpu that was shipped.
> >
> >
> > Why are you telling me this?
>
> It seems relevant and my review of the messages in this thread does not
> show that this fact is a part of the discussion. Perhaps I missed
> something, somewhere.
Ok.
> > As I have said before, I already knew that (except that I don't use the
> > word "force" to describe a clause of a contract people agre to sign,
> > unless you think that my bank "forces" me to pay money for my mortgage,
> > which I believe I voluntarily decided to take).
>
> If you are in the market for a mortgage, there are lots of lenders out
> there who will accept your application.
As there are and were several vendors of operating systems.
> There is only one Microsoft. Microsoft said (words to the effect of) "Take
> it or else."
And there is only one <insert specific bank that is the only bank that
offers what customers want or need>.
> As I said, the consequences are left as an exercise for the student.
The consquences were that I made my decision for a bank for my mortgage
and that I have always made my decision regarding what OS to use. And at
the time in question that decision was for OS/2.
leto...@nospam.net
You never said that before. All you did was rant like an idiot about how
stupid OS2 users were because they didn't buy your "game," The best gulf game
ever made, yada, yada, yada. -- It was pretty nauseating. Furthermore, since
this new claim is inconsistent with your past public statements on the game --
I'm inclined to reconcile it by thinking your completely full of bullshit.And
if not, if its true then your ranting behavior is even more bizarre
considering it wasn't even your money you lost. -- Naturally, I'm sure you
don't have one piece of verifiable evidence to prove IBM paid for it, thus
showing us that this claim is just more bullshit.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
leto...@together.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<wnvzrpehmanffnhjvat...@news-server.optonline.net>,
on 06/12/2003
at 10:16 PM, "Jaime A. Cruz, Jr." <Spam...@Bite.Me> said:
>But it was ADDICTIVE!
Was? It still is.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Any unsolicited bulk E-mail will be subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.
Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply
to spam...@library.lspace.org
Brad Wardell
<leto...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3eedf97d$1$yrgbherq$mr2...@news.earthlink.net...
LOL. Thanks for reminding me why OS/2 fanatics have their reputation.
Brad BARCLAY
>> No, Microsoft is far more fearful that people who own existing Windows
>>licenses will simply install the Windows they already own, transfering
>>it to their new machine after junking their old one.
>
> Indeed. And isn't that fear realistic?
Realistic, perhaps. But not necessarily ethical.
If a Windows XP user who bought the OS shrink-wrapped at a store buys a
new computer after their old one completely dies, should they have to be
forced to _also_ pay for a second copy of the OS that they don't need?
Personally, I think not.
Sure, I can see that from MS's POV they'd like everyone to have to buy
5 licenses of their software for just one system -- but that certainly
doesn't seem to be particularily good for honest consumers.
> I don't think that's true for most customers. Also, an OEM distribution
> of GNU/Linux that is specifically supported on your new computer can
> also be installed manually. (I have always installed the OS myself, even
> when the computer came with the OS preinstalled.)
And that's fine -- "most customers" can buy pre-installed systems if
they like. I'd just like to buy naked systems so I can do my own
install, without having to pay for licenses of software I already own,
or have no intention of using.
Brad BARCLAY
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From the OS/2 WARP v4.5 Desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
The jSyncManager Project: http://www.jsyncmanager.org
Richard Steiner
>You never said that before. All you did was rant like an idiot about
>how stupid OS2 users were because they didn't buy your "game," The
>best gulf game ever made, yada, yada, yada.
Links for OS/2 actually *is* a pretty good golf game. I still play it
quite a bit, and I bought a couple of 5-course libraries as well. :-)
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
Now running in text mode on a PPro/200. Eat my dust, GUI freaks!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Richard Steiner
"Brad Wardell" <bwar...@stardock.com> spake unto us, saying:
>LOL. Thanks for reminding me why OS/2 fanatics have their reputation.
The OS/2 community is no different from any other minority platform
community, Brad. I've seen the same fanatacism in the Amiga, Linux,
Mac, and even GEOS communities.
Robert Murr
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>>If you are in the market for a mortgage, there are lots of lenders out
>>there who will accept your application.
>
>
> As there are and were several vendors of operating systems.
>
You are equating OEMs with end users. If an OEM wished to offer Windows
preloads, it could either pay retail for each instance or pay a 'per
cpu' royalty. If you wished to purchase a system with Windows installed,
you would be forcing the vendor to resolve that dilemma. In this area
(SF Bay) until recently, and perhaps still as we speak, it was not
possible to purchase a system without paying for Windows as a line item
on the invoice even when the system was delivered with no OS. Every
vendor in this area was effectively forced to pay the 'per cpu' royalty.
>
>>There is only one Microsoft. Microsoft said (words to the effect of) "Take
>>it or else."
>
>
> And there is only one <insert specific bank that is the only bank that
> offers what customers want or need>.
>
Not true. Mortgages of any particular configuration are available from
thousands of vendors. You would have to hypothesize a really exotic set
of requirements to narrow the vendor field down to one candidate. For
the sake of absolute clarity: your analogy fails.
>
>>As I said, the consequences are left as an exercise for the student.
>
>
> The consquences were that I made my decision for a bank for my mortgage
> and that I have always made my decision regarding what OS to use. And at
> the time in question that decision was for OS/2.
>
And, unless you dealt with a vendor who refused to preload Windows, you
paid a Windows royalty to MS.
>
Cordially,
RWM
Brad BARCLAY
> Yep. I feel the same way.
>
> Did you ever read this article I wrote a few years ago?
>
> http://www.stardock.com/stardock/articles/endofos2.html
Sure did. A good read overall.
> If IBM did anything really wrong, it was that they essentially lied about
> these facts until much later. I use the Trials of Battle example because it
> has real people involved. Briefly, IBM pushed OS/2 as a gaming platform in
> 1995. Dean Iverson and his wife believed in OS/2 so much that they quit
> their jobs, refinanced their house and wrote Trials of Battle. But at the
> end of 1996 when it shipped, IBM had already decided OS/2 was dead and
> OS/2's retail presence quickly died which ensured that any games for it
> would die too. Whereas the GalCiv series sold over 30K units, the games that
> shipped in 1996 were lucky to hit 2K units so much had the consumer push by
> IBM dwindled and OS/2 users flocked to the recently released NT4. If IBM
> had been honest, it could have saved people like the Iversonsons a lot of
> grief.
I got an e-mail from Dean just a year or two ago when our digital paths
crossed somewhere online. He remembered me from the ToB betas, and
decided to send me a quick note. We had a convertaion about his own
trials during the Trials of Battle development, and all that I can say
is that I'm happy to know now that those days are well behind him, and
that he's still working in the gaming industry (and making money doing
so at that!).
I'll have to search my e-mail to see if I have his messages still --
but I fear that he probably sent them to me at my IBM address, for which
all mail I ever received has been completely lost.
Brad Wardell
"Richard Steiner" <rste...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:22j7+oHp...@visi.com...
> Here in comp.os.os2.misc, leto...@nospam.net spake unto us, saying:
>
> >You never said that before. All you did was rant like an idiot about
> >how stupid OS2 users were because they didn't buy your "game," The
> >best gulf game ever made, yada, yada, yada.
>
> Links for OS/2 actually *is* a pretty good golf game. I still play it
> quite a bit, and I bought a couple of 5-course libraries as well. :-)
I thought it turned out well too. IBM paid Access Software to port Links to
OS/2. They in turn contracted Winware (Jim Thomas who also ported the
Simcity series) to port it.
When they finished it, they asked us to publish it. What Letoured recalls
(somewhat incorrectly) was my response to people on Compuserve who were
demanding Links LS to be ported to OS/2. My response was that Links for
OS/2 was a pretty damn good game (it was) and its sales, along with the
sales of the Simcity series just didn't justify that. The argument was
always that the OS/2 game jsut wasn't "good" enough but the real reason is
that by 1997, when Links came out, the OS/2 market had died. But IBM had
pushed OS/2 as a gaming platform and it was kind of sad (and foolish) to
have paid for all these games to be made for OS/2 only to abandon the whole
market.
It takes a certain level of...well fanaticism to insist that IBM wasn't
interested in the game market for OS/2. They most certainly were. Just not
in 1996/1997. But I think people had a right to feel a little burned when
IBM in 1995 takes out a big booth at the Games Devleopers Conference to push
OS/2 as a gaming platform, pays developers partially or fully to port games,
and then, within ONE year they completely abandon the whole thing.
I mean heck, you'd think they'd had given OS/2 more of a chance than they
did. OS/2 Warp came out in 1994. By end of 1995 Lou G. had given up on
OS/2. My 6 year old has a longer attention span than that. ;)
But what some people do is think of IBM as some huge single entity. It's
not. PSP was part of IBM and they were great. It was Lou Gerstner who was no
friend of OS/2. He was more interested in pushing IBM's stock prices in the
near term than worry about any sort of long term strategy. IBM gave it a
go, but I wish they had tried for a bit longer.
I think we'd all be better off today if there was real competition in the OS
market.
Brad