Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] OM] OT: Operating Systems (was: Future ES-10 support(WAS Randomnes

Subject: [OM] OM] OT: Operating Systems (was: Future ES-10 support(WAS Randomness prevails))
From: Phillip Franklin <pfranklin@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 23:56:03 -0800
Olaf Greve wrote:
==========================================================================
Ironically enough, big blue's decision to go with OS/2 is what caused
Microsoft to become big BIG time. For those of you who don't know:
Microsoft
didn't think OS/2 was the right approach to a "new" OS, and then decided
to
copy the Mac OS. So, while big blue and Apple were still busy battling
one
another, they let the really big fish escape. Boy, will they regret
this!
==========================================================================

This is not at all factually correct.  Since I was working in desktop
software for Xerox at this time and the fact that it was Xerox PARC that
really developed the GUI (graphical user interface) which Steve Jobs
borrowed for the Lisa and then Mac, I'm pretty accurate on my analysis
here.  First IBM and Microsoft were jointly working on what was commonly
called OS/2. Basically it would replace DOS hence the name OS/2. 
Microsoft had already shipped versions 1 & 2 of Windows and one called
Windows 286 (which used the Kernel of Windows 2) and even one called
Windows 386 (which in all essence was the beginnings of (Windows 3.0).
These of course all used the GUI which was commonly referred to as the
Apple Mac OS. Microsoft even went to great pains to license these "look
& feel" from Apple for these releases.  When Apple realized that
Microsoft was serious with this GUI and was making what was called
overlapping windows in Windows 2 (similar to what just came out on the
Mac) Apple eventually launched the most expensive lawsuit ever filed up
until that point in American  history.  However all along Microsoft and
IBM were busy on the new 32 bit operating system everyone referred to as
OS/2.  At Xerox Desktop Software we were watching the developments of
this effort on almost a daily basis. Not that mother Xerox was really
concerned (they just were copier heads anyway).  OS/2 was quite
operational way before Windows 3.0 was released.  Microsoft was hedging
it's bets.  If Apple would be successful in stopping Windows in court,
then they would have a big chunk of OS/2 to fall back on.  However if
Apple was not successful they would own an operating system outright. No
more dealing with IBM.  So when IBM became aware that Microsoft was
playing them for suckers all hell broke loose.  IBM lashed out at
Microsoft thinking Microsoft would not stand up to them.  Many even
suggested that Microsoft was sabotaging the efforts of OS/2 in case they
needed to pull out.  They really never wanted to  be partners with IBM.
They just needed them for security at that time.  Once they realized
that they were not going to need IBM they just pulled the plug.  For
several years these two companies mutually hated one another.  Many top
execs at IBM would probably be put to pasture over this snafu.  IBM
proceeded diligently on developing OS/2.  They were overly aware of
possible legal entanglements with Apple over a similar "look & feel" OS.
But Microsoft proceeded along the lines of their previous Windows
releases which they were shipping on all along.  Microsoft was extremely
successful in getting 3rd party developers  such as ourselves and of
course Aldus, Adobe and others to join camp with them.  It was easy
because companies like Aldus were already porting to Win 2.01 and Win
286.  So when Win 3.0 was released with much fanfare in May 1990 a new
era had been born and Microsoft was the undisputed daddy (and momma to I
guess).  It had very little to do with what was the best technology
(everyone already knew a Unix V with a GUI was the most technically
advanced). It was solely strategic marketing an maneuvering which put
Microsoft on top.

So the die was cast.  It really had nothing to do with any competitive
animosity between IBM and Apple.  Anyone who states this just does not
know his facts.  OS/2 was thought about way before Apple had released
it's Lisa or Mac.  IBM and Microsoft's relationship went back to at
least early 1981. And it was a good one until Microsoft screwed them on
OS/2.  IBM was never too pre-occupied with what Apple was doing. Nor was
Microsoft.  Microsoft was just too damn unimaginative to create a
different looking GUI.  DRI even had their own GUI (Gem Desktop). Apple
scared them with just one poorly written letter. In the end it was
finally revealed that it was Xerox that had developed the GUI. So Apple
of course lost it's "mother of all" lawsuit's hands down.  Of course
that was the war of the worlds Apple vs. Microsoft.  IBM just watched
quietly from afar hoping that both companies would go broke fighting
each other.  In the meantime Xerox decided it had heard enough. It sued
Apple. But the Statute of Limitations kept them from claiming damages.
It seems they just waited too damn long to make any noise.

Why people on this user group and others debate these issues appalls
me.  They make it sound like there was really this Apple vs. IBM
mentality in either of these corporations.  The only comment that anyone
ever heard between these two companies was when at some forgotten
conference Steve Jobs whined to Philip Estridege (IBM's father of the PC
who died in a famous airplane crash in Dallas in the mid 1980's) "Why
did you have to call it a PC".  Other than that I don't think these
companies ever had an official bad word to say to one another. In fact,
much of the money needed to create the Power PC chip from Motorola came
from IBM. So IBM actually had a large stake in development of the Power
PC Macs. The only  animosity that seems to come out is between different
users of the different platforms who love to whine that "mine is better
than yours". Enough already.  Different people have different tastes. 
No OS is perfect, never was, never will be.  These companies are run on
aspects of market strategy and control. Not what is best in the
technical sense. Most technological developments come over a timeline
and are utilized by all companies in the market place somewhat equally.
Adaptec, ATI and the like makes controllers for all platforms. Chip
making technology also follows this timeline. Basically all machines
from the same vintage are usually technologically equal. Different
approaches for different type of users is all that is really different.
Like Chevy's vs. Fords or OM4Ti's vs. Canon EOS (obligatory OM content). 

Personally I don't mind different opinions being aired here. That's what
this whole thing is about.  But when you gloss over this history which I
spent so much of my life (I know I should have probably been in
real-estate) and get it so wrong,  I just feel it is neccessary to rant
like this. Sorry to those who could care less about this.  But to those
who read this you got a first hand history lesson.

Phillip Franklin

< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [OM] OM] OT: Operating Systems (was: Future ES-10 support(WAS Randomness prevails)), Phillip Franklin <=
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz