[krw]

Yes, and you missed entirely, the target of the reference, as usual.

There isn't another reference, DimBulb. *You're* the other idiot.

 

[Joerg]

They didn't have much choice. PCs were going to go mainstream whether
IBM did it or not. ...

Well, there's the choice. They could have cost-optimized PCs just like
the others did. But they wanted so much dough that aspiring consultants
like me back then who needed a industrial-quality computer bought other
brands, in my case Tandon.

... PCs paid for themselves as mainframe terminals,
alone. There was a time where IBM was in a cost crunch between
microprocessors and balls-to-the-wall ECL. Companies were done paying
$20M+ for a computer, but the technology wasn't there yet to make them
cheaper (it is now). ...

I think it was there, because others did it and IBM did it later as
well. With their ThinkPad line which had a great cast-iron reputation.

... IBM had to remake itself and it took Gerstner to
change IBM into a "services" company - and fast.

They sort of always were, delivering turn-key installations (my pa put
many of those in place, huge installations). They were also good in
special machinery, we designed die bonders together with them.

IBM could have really turned the corner with OS/2, back then the best OS
since sliced bread. But everything was kept quite proprietary and
expensive and that's not the way to make a fortune in the computer
world. At least not since the mid 80's.

 

[Joerg]

They did offer it to everybody, period, with only a very few key people
being refused if they asked.

And that's what usually bombs for companies. They think that there's
only 10-20 "must keeps" but in reality there are tons of them. They
can't refuse too many takers because then they'd get into trouble with
the law in many countries. So, suddenly there is this stampede and lots
of clients can't get their stuff done.

Not sure how that translates to a research environment. The research
money mostly came from Corporate, not from the product divisions,
because the divisions very often had no idea what they'd need in 5 or 10
years. One of the greatest strengths of the IBM model was the excellent
technology transfer, unlike e.g. Xerox, so it worked well for a long time.

You are right, academic style research is different, you'd have to
exclude them and split their cost out to the other divisions as
allocations. That's what we did with HR, QC and so on in order not to
have three of each. But destroying machines doesn't fix anything. Pretty
much the only area where is does is in agriculture where folks reap huge
subsidies for not producing something, courtesy of the taxpayer like usual.

[...]

 

[Joerg]

A buy-out is voluntary. There were many of those thru out the '80s.


I had a new (I bought it a year earlier) 6.5GHz HP spectrum analyzer
with a full set of calibrated EMI antennas sent to the crusher in '98.
The project was canceled and it happened to be in one of these
periods. A friend in research wanted it, but he couldn't take the
depreciation either, so it went to scrap.

Sounds as daft a corporate decision as letting all the fuel out of a
flying aircraft to make it fly more economical. Ends in a crash. Wasn't
there a chance that it "fell" out of the hopper, the crusher guys would
get some nice bottles of Hennessy, and it went back?

 

[krw]

Well, there's the choice. They could have cost-optimized PCs just like
the others did. But they wanted so much dough that aspiring consultants
like me back then who needed a industrial-quality computer bought other
brands, in my case Tandon.

No, they really couldn't. Remeber the 'B' part of their name. Their
customer was the same customer that bought 3277s, which were built
even more like a tank. There was no money in chasing the bottom
feeders either. As it turned out, there was no money in PCs at all.

I think it was there, because others did it and IBM did it later as
well. With their ThinkPad line which had a great cast-iron reputation.

It takes a *lot* of ThinkPads to make $30B (or $100B).

They sort of always were, delivering turn-key installations (my pa put
many of those in place, huge installations). They were also good in
special machinery, we designed die bonders together with them.

Different game. Selling hardware and then servicing it is not the
same as selling a service (complete with people), then supplying the
hardware to make it happen. ...and even supplying someone *else's*
hardware to make it happen.

IBM could have really turned the corner with OS/2, back then the best OS
since sliced bread. But everything was kept quite proprietary and
expensive and that's not the way to make a fortune in the computer
world. At least not since the mid 80's.

OS/2 was simply another case of superior technology getting buried by
marketing. In retrospect, I don't believe there was anything IBM
could have done to salvage that mess. They were hog-tied by the DOJ.
M$ was under no such restriction.

 

[Joerg]

No, they really couldn't. Remeber the 'B' part of their name. Their
customer was the same customer that bought 3277s, which were built
even more like a tank. There was no money in chasing the bottom
feeders either. As it turned out, there was no money in PCs at all.

Well, I paid over $5k for my Tandon back then, sans monitor (which was
anopther $2k or so). There were huge profit margins to be had back then,
Dell built a whole successful company around that.

It takes a *lot* of ThinkPads to make $30B (or $100B).

Got to think diversified here. We also didn't make all our profits with
just one kind of ultrasound machine.

Different game. Selling hardware and then servicing it is not the
same as selling a service (complete with people), then supplying the
hardware to make it happen. ...and even supplying someone *else's*
hardware to make it happen.

It shouldn't matter much whether they make the HW or not, other than
they'd give up some of the HW profit margins. What matters to the
customers is that they get a turn-key solution without having to worry
about details. Whether they also rent the people or not.

OS/2 was simply another case of superior technology getting buried by
marketing. ...

What marketing? I think that was the problem, there wasn't much of it.
Most small biz owners I knew back than had never heard of OS/2. All they
knew was Microsoft. Marketeers and journalists also knew Apple.

... In retrospect, I don't believe there was anything IBM
could have done to salvage that mess. They were hog-tied by the DOJ.
M$ was under no such restriction.

That's interesting. How did the DOJ hinder their sales efforts? Did that
also affect places like Europe?

 

[AwlSome Auger]

OS/2 was simply another case of superior technology getting buried by
marketing. In retrospect, I don't believe there was anything IBM
could have done to salvage that mess. They were hog-tied by the DOJ.
M$ was under no such restriction.

OS/2 WAS utilized by IBM for YEARS after it was dropped as a consumer
PC product.

Nearly every bank around the world used it all the way up until the
banks started embracing Windows 2000.

And that's a fact, Jack.

They could have made money on PCs, had they contracted it out to TROC
or Hong Kong or such, but that would have also guaranteed even more
cloning, which was the big no-no back then.

Tandon made the first hard drives for the IBM XT series, and they saw
the light and made themselves bigger.

IBM simply tried to apply a bigger business model to a business niche
that required a different mindset that had not as yet been developed in
the business world.

 

[AwlSome Auger]

What marketing? I think that was the problem, there wasn't much of it.
Most small biz owners I knew back than had never heard of OS/2. All they
knew was Microsoft. Marketeers and journalists also knew Apple.

OS/2 died when Microsoft refused to give IBM, as was their agreement,
the win32 API, so they could make OS/2 win32 compatible.

Without that compatibility, they had no viable product, except to their
own niche business segment.

 

[Joerg]

OS/2 WAS utilized by IBM for YEARS after it was dropped as a consumer
PC product.

Nearly every bank around the world used it all the way up until the
banks started embracing Windows 2000.

And that's a fact, Jack.

But that's a drop in the bucket compared to MS' sales numbers.

They could have made money on PCs, had they contracted it out to TROC
or Hong Kong or such, but that would have also guaranteed even more
cloning, which was the big no-no back then.

Tandon made the first hard drives for the IBM XT series, and they saw
the light and made themselves bigger.

.... and I bought my first business class PC from them ...

IBM simply tried to apply a bigger business model to a business niche
that required a different mindset that had not as yet been developed in
the business world.

One crucial thing they failed to do: Talk to thy small-biz clients. Case
in point are guys like me. When someone buys a small product from IBM
that is obviously going to be used in a small-biz setting but then there
aren't any other sales (such as PCs, OS licenses, more software) that
would be an excellent opportunity to have a chat with this customer. To
find out why that is so. But nobody every called. "Didn't know" does not
count because back then nearly everything in the computer world required
mailing in registration cards. So they had the names and phone numbers
right there.

 

[Joerg]

OS/2 died when Microsoft refused to give IBM, as was their agreement,
the win32 API, so they could make OS/2 win32 compatible.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

Without that compatibility, they had no viable product, except to their
own niche business segment.

Ok, but I and lots and lots of others weren't interested in Win32 or
anything. We all used DOS programs because they were (and still are)
much more reliable than anything Windows. I employed a "roached-on"
task-switcher running in 5MB of RAM, allowing me to use 3-4 DOS programs
at the same time. But that was a kludge and most others couldn't get
that going. AFAIR they all wanted OS/2 as "the better DOS" so they could
do task switching. It wasn't really available at reasonable conditions
but most people didn't even know about it.

 

[UltimatePatriot]

That's interesting. How did the DOJ hinder their sales efforts? Did that
also affect places like Europe?

Actually, both were hindered by national security and organized crime
and terrorism concerns.

It wasn't long after they were so worried, though, that we started
selling 286's to Russia, and MS was selling Flight Simulator to Arab
terrorists.

The reason things became so easy to get then were the very same Obama
mentalities that are making us even more vulnerable now.

America makes something nice, and the assholes of the world say "Hey,
that's nice..." and take it and convolute its purpose and use it to ****
us with.

I'll be glad when The Lord comes back and stomps this planet into
oblivion.

The human race is so tragically flawed, I am surprised that God let us
survive this long. Man has a basic problem, and he even likes to find
thing to blame that on, like 'R complexes' and the like. None of us are
worthy of a damned thing. Anyone that thinks they are in particular.

 

[Joerg]

Actually, both were hindered by national security and organized crime
and terrorism concerns.

It wasn't long after they were so worried, though, that we started
selling 286's to Russia, and MS was selling Flight Simulator to Arab
terrorists.

The reason things became so easy to get then were the very same Obama
mentalities that are making us even more vulnerable now.

America makes something nice, and the assholes of the world say "Hey,
that's nice..." and take it and convolute its purpose and use it to ****
us with.

I'll be glad when The Lord comes back and stomps this planet into
oblivion.

He will, but only after everyone on the planet has heard or read how he
or she can be saved.

The human race is so tragically flawed, I am surprised that God let us
survive this long. Man has a basic problem, and he even likes to find
thing to blame that on, like 'R complexes' and the like. None of us are
worthy of a damned thing. Anyone that thinks they are in particular.

God is surprisingly patient. And there is still hope. He told us so
through scripture

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

Thanks, I didn't know that.




Ok, but I and lots and lots of others weren't interested in Win32 or
anything. We all used DOS programs because they were (and still are)
much more reliable than anything Windows. I employed a "roached-on"
task-switcher running in 5MB of RAM, allowing me to use 3-4 DOS programs
at the same time. But that was a kludge and most others couldn't get
that going. AFAIR they all wanted OS/2 as "the better DOS" so they could
do task switching. It wasn't really available at reasonable conditions
but most people didn't even know about it.

BeOS and emulators. OS/2 was a true timeslice task switcher though, so
it could run a huge count of VDMs as well. The problem with OS/2 (and
BeOS) is modern HW compatibility, since there is no current developmental
upkeep.

What would be really cool would be to get the OS/2 or BeOS original
compile code. Another good one would be DesqViewX as it was an Xserver.

All three would make nice front ends under a Linux kernel!
There's a product in there!

 

[The Great Attractor]

God is surprisingly patient. And there is still hope. He told us so
through scripture

No. He told us that only by faith in Jesus can we be saved. The entire
race of man, and the Earth was condemned when we killed Jesus Christ.
That sin was not taken well by God.

No matter what your iniquitous works are or are not here on Earth, if
the last words on your lips as you die are not "forgive me for my sins,
Lord Jesus", you are not 'faithful' enough.

The only folks that will escape that requisite are the Jews.

 

[Joerg]

No. He told us that only by faith in Jesus can we be saved. ...

That's why I wrote what you had snipped: "He will, but only after
everyone on the planet has heard or read how he or she can be saved."

Meaning people understanding exactly that, that Jesus is the only way to
be saved. Because that's what scipture says.

... The entire
race of man, and the Earth was condemned when we killed Jesus Christ.
That sin was not taken well by God.

It had to happen, he died for our sins. Jesus said so himself.

No matter what your iniquitous works are or are not here on Earth, if
the last words on your lips as you die are not "forgive me for my sins,
Lord Jesus", you are not 'faithful' enough.

The only folks that will escape that requisite are the Jews.

But only if they follow the law brought to them via Moses to the letter.
Which nobody can perfectly do. Remember when Jesus told the lynchmob who
wanted to stone the prostitute "Let him who has no sin throw the first
stone" and then they all sadly walked away, elders first? So they, too,
must utter those words and really mean them. Then they will be saved
just like the one criminal on the cross next to Jesus who repented right
then and there (the other didnt').

 

[The Great Attractor]

It had to happen, he died for our sins. Jesus said so himself.

No. It did not have to happen. It only had to happen because of the way
the species of man is.

I am quite sure that other species in other worlds have different
values instilled into their being than man does. Do not be so arrogant as
to think that we are the only sentient species that exists or was ever
created.

 

[Joerg]

No. It did not have to happen. It only had to happen because of the way
the species of man is.

God decided it had to happen. Of course it is correct that the reason
why he decided to send Jesus was that teh species of man has fallen into
tons of sin.

I am quite sure that other species in other worlds have different
values instilled into their being than man does. Do not be so arrogant as
to think that we are the only sentient species that exists or was ever
created.

So far I haven't heard of any outer space folks, they should have found
Usenet by now or at least establish a web portal ;-)

 

[krw]

Well, I paid over $5k for my Tandon back then, sans monitor (which was
anopther $2k or so). There were huge profit margins to be had back then,
Dell built a whole successful company around that.

Actually, the margins were pretty poor by IBM's standards. They had a
*huge* overhead to cover. Those research people are expensive to
feed. ;-)

Got to think diversified here. We also didn't make all our profits with
just one kind of ultrasound machine.

$30-$100B is a lot of diversification too. It was a lot of company to
turn on a dime. It was ugly, but Gerstner pulled it off.

It shouldn't matter much whether they make the HW or not, other than
they'd give up some of the HW profit margins. What matters to the
customers is that they get a turn-key solution without having to worry
about details. Whether they also rent the people or not.

The point is that it was a dramatic change from selling hardware with
service to selling a service that may have some hardware, somewhere.

What marketing?
Gates'.

I think that was the problem, there wasn't much of it.
Most small biz owners I knew back than had never heard of OS/2. All they
knew was Microsoft. Marketeers and journalists also knew Apple.

There was a deep anti-IBM streak in the small computer journalism at
the time. They snuggled right up to BillyG though. Apple and Jobs
were sold as a fairy tale. ...still are.

That's interesting. How did the DOJ hinder their sales efforts? Did that
also affect places like Europe?

Certainly it affected Europe. There were strict rules on IBM
marketing and what the company could do. Remember, they'd just
escaped (outlasted) the DOJ's antitrust suit and were still living
under the '56 consent decree. Everything we did, even in engineering,
was controlled by rules set down by lawyers after the run ins with the
DOJ. Those restrictions were just lifted a few years ago (this
decade).

 

[krw]

OS/2 WAS utilized by IBM for YEARS after it was dropped as a consumer
PC product.

You're and idiot, DimBulb.

Nearly every bank around the world used it all the way up until the
banks started embracing Windows 2000.

And that's a fact, Jack.

Not that anyone cares, Dimmie.

They could have made money on PCs, had they contracted it out to TROC
or Hong Kong or such, but that would have also guaranteed even more
cloning, which was the big no-no back then.

You're about as stupid as they come, AlwaysWrong.

Tandon made the first hard drives for the IBM XT series, and they saw
the light and made themselves bigger.

That's about as irrelevant as it gets, Dimmie.

IBM simply tried to apply a bigger business model to a business niche
that required a different mindset that had not as yet been developed in
the business world.

What flowery language, for stating the obvious. What a dope, DimBulb!

 

[AwlSome Auger]

You're and idiot, DimBulb.

You're the idiot.