#Tosh 3401 & Adap 1542
2 messages in this thread
Rob:
>
>
> Are you running IBM hardware, or some other? My impression has
> been that most people who have successfully used OS/2 have had
> true blue machines.
>
>
I am running a Northgate 386/33 with many third party boards in it. I have a
NEC CDR-74 CDROM attached through a Trantor SCSI adapter along with two Maxtor
IDE drives, a Quatech 16 bit SERIAL board, a Media Vision PAS16 audio board and
an Orchid ProDesigner II s video board.
It appears that the majority of the people having problems with hardware are
those with garage built clone computers. I have OS/2 2.1 on a few Dell
machines at work and have not encountered any hardware related problems.
The encouraging news is that the IBM people responsible for OS/2 are making
every effort to get OS/2 working regardless of who built the machine. The
Personal Systems Programming Group is their own profit center and must succeed
on their own merit. The hardware side of IBM must due the same. The more
machines they can get OS/2 to run on the better it is for them and for OS/2
users.
Evidence of this is the fact that the IBM hardware side will offer Windows NT
in addition to OS/2, Novell and Lan Server on their server class machines. THey
currently also offer WIndows 3.1 bundled on the machines. Too me these actions
speak louder than words.
.. Ron 08-May-93 11:05
Ron,
I really do hope IBM will get back on track and do their part to keep
Microsoft on its toes. The last thing in the world we need is for Microsoft
to dominate the market any more than it already does. Sounds like IBM is
making some right moves. I'm convinced that they have numerous excellent
technologies sitting undeveloped in their research labs. It seems like
their worst mistakes have come from suppressing new technologies in an
effort to protect their old ways to doing business.
It looks to me like the worst danger to IBM is themselves. What I don't see
coming from them is a clear view of what they think the future could/should
look like. One thing I give Bill Gates credit for, he knows what he wants
the future of computing to look like, and where he wants his company to go.
And he is _very_ persistent in pressing toward that goal. Can you imagine
IBM pressing forward for over 5 years to gain acceptance of a software
architecture which few people were buying? I can't.
Back to the wars,
-=Rob=-