IBM to bury OS/2

IBM will stop selling the OS/2 operating system at year's end, marking an end of an era for Big Blue.

IBM, which made the announcement this week, said it will discontinue OS/2 products by Dec. 23 and withdraw standard support for OS/2-related products as of Dec. 31, 2006.

Support for OS/2 will only be available under a service contract after 2006.

"We're making official what has been going on for quite some time," said Steve Eisenstadt, an IBM spokesman. "We haven't released a new version of OS/2 in nine years."

Big Blue is directing its OS/2 customers to switch to the Linux OS.

OS/2, which debuted in April 1987, struggled to gain the wide acceptance that Microsoft's Windows enjoyed. While OS/2 may have been considered technically superior to Microsoft's early versions of Windows, the operating system failed to prosper due to a lack of applications written for it.

Concerns about the future of OS/2 arose at least three years ago.

OS/2, which was the first Intel-based 32-bit multitasking operating system aimed at the PC market, currently has fewer than 80 customers that hold more than 10 licenses, Eisenstadt said.

[AuriRahimzadeh]

Open Source OS/2

OS/2 was a great operating system, even though its installers left much to be desired. Open-sourcing OS/2 may give it a good life of its own. The memory and process protection was awesome. Thanks for a good run, IBM.<br /><br />---<br />Seen my book, Geek My Ride? <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.GeekMyRide.net" target="_newWindow">http://www.GeekMyRide.net</a>

[nmcphers]

Yes, I've seen your book

I borrowed a copy from a friend, made photocopies and gave to a bunch of people. It would have been easier if I made it into a PDF though.

[202578300049013666264380294439]

Unlikely

MS helped write the earliest 1.x versions of OS/2 so they've probably still got rights to any source based on that and I can't see them giving permission for the source to be "opened". In short it's unlikely that IBM can even do this.

[CharlesRovira]

The 'popularity' was coerced from OEMs.

That's what the anti-trust trial determined.<br /><br />The consumer was never involved.

[202578300049013666264380294439]

It's popularity was with developers

Mainly because inexpensive development tools were available for Windows but not for OS/2. MS also came out with MSDN early in that competitive time and that also made a huge impact on development.<br /><br />IBM was slow and late to respond to pricing pressure for the OS itself much less responsive in making less expensive development tools. By the time they caught on, there were so many applications available for Windows vs a relative dearth of OS/2 applications that when consumers were faced with the "which OS" question they usually chose Windows. <br /><br />That's not the whole story, the bundling MS did (basically, they sold DOS/Windows bundled for pretty much the same price as DOS alone) and you critisized did have some effect but it wouldn't have been popular with consumers if it hadn't had the applications to make it useful. Consumers wouldv'e just exited Windows and run DOS only if Windows didn't provide reasons to stay within it's bounds.

[anarkee]

Popularity was not coerced

Programmers, Developers and especially Network Analysts preferred it. I even used it at home it was so much better than win options. Had my mom use it and she is NOT computer literate....use was simple enough for her - setup was the pain.

[JonyR]

Bury OS/2?

They would need to exhume it first...

This Article Appears To Be Misleading!

&gt;&gt;&gt;"On Tuesday, IBM formally announced that it would cease marketing OS/2 at the end of next year.<br /><br />This might cause wry amusement among the operating system's remaining enthusiasts, who maintain that IBM really never started marketing OS/2 in the first place.&gt;&gt;&gt;". So reads another version of this IBM statement about its plans for the OS/2 Operating System from another independent news source: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.theregister.com/2005/07/15/os2_dead_again/" target="_newWindow">http://www.theregister.com/2005/07/15/os2_dead_again/</a><br /><br />The way this CNET News article appears to be written is in the same tone as what can be expected to come from the same group from Redmond (FEAR, UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT (FUD)) who quite recently settled with IBM for its role in disrupting the OS/2 momentum in the marketplace during its implementation in the 90's. As laws of motion states -- "an object will continue in that state of motion perpetually unless acted on by another force." Given this understanding, it will appear then that their was a conspiracy to "kill" and "bury" OS/2 some ten years or so ago. For those who are not aware OS/2 's after life (if the conspirators can succeed) is already secured in eComStation. (see link: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ecomstation.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.ecomstation.com/</a> ).<br /><br />As for the discontinuance of support for OS/2... does anyone think that after the "death" announcement of OS/2 some ten years ago that it will be quite easy for Windows or Linux to displace OS/2 "in the twilight world of embedded networking systems, where OS/2 has lived on" then they should think again! How many times have someone gone had problems when ever they use an ATM or US General Elections Voting Machines? From an international perspective the logical choice of Operating System would be the one that the Russians would recommend. After all, they finished 2nd and 3rd respectively in that competition as we all know so they should at least know what they are talking about -- don't you think?<br /><br />Strange enough, since the period of time of the "conspiracy" to bury OS/2 it continues to live on after all these years-- Long Live OS/2! <br /><br /><br />;-)

[PCCRomeo]

No wonder it isn't popular..

"We haven't released a new version of OS/2 in nine years.".....Maybe had they updated it, like Microsoft has atleast done with Windows, it would be more popular. You don't see us still using Windows 95 do you??

You Should Try And Do Some More Reading!

&gt;&gt;&gt;"Around this time (circa 1990), Microsoft's other project, Windows, now at version 3.0, was starting to gain popularity with some users. Previously, Windows had been little more than a task-swapping shell for DOS applications, and was intended to compete with QuarterDeck's DesqView. Users found it appealing becaused it contained some of the GUI elements that were being developed for OS/2. A decision was made to drop all support for OS/2, and go strictly with Windows. However, because of the history they had with IBM, and because they still used so much of their technology (Object Linking and Embedding [OLE] aka ActiveX and Component Object Model [COM] are derived from Dynamic Data Exchange [DDE]), Microsoft to this day maintains a broad-ranging cross-licensing agreement with them. Windows NT was partially based on the OS/2 work that they did for IBM, and Windows 95 also borrows heavily from this code.&gt;&gt;&gt;".<br /><br />Here is the link to some of OS/2's history: <br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2Warp.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2Warp.html</a> <br /><br />Don't you realise that the Windows OSes may be basically a "clone" of the superior OS/2 platform? You should at least try and do some research before you opt to compare any crash-prone, bloated and in-secure products ($$ for the upgrade + Anti-Virus Software costs) with others which are more robust, reliable, multi-tasking and time tested. Why upgrade products and spend your $$ on somethings that are superior and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is much more economical!

FEAR, UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT (FUD)

You said; "Maybe had they updated it, like Microsoft has atleast done with Windows, it would be more popular. You don't see us still using Windows 95 do you?" Well, read the following:-<br /><br />OS/2 Warp 4.5 (codename "Aurora") was released in 1999, as a server release. It featured a bootable install CD, a new 32-bit TCP/IP stack, a journaling file system (JFS), and a logical volume manager. A desktop release, deemed "Convenience Pak for Warp 4" was released as version 4.51 in late 2000, along with a corresponding update for the server version. "Convenience Pak 2" was released as version 4.52 in early 2002. These Convenience Paks are primarily for "convenience," as they include new features and fixes as part of the initial installation, rather than needing to apply numerous patches and updates.<br /><br />Around the same time as the first Convenience Pak, a company called Serenity Systems announced that they were licensing OS/2, and would be reselling it as eComstation. The 1.0 version, released in 2001, was based on Convenience Pak 1, and featured a (buggy) replacement installer, and integration of some useful third party tools and addons. The 1.1 version, released in 2003, was based on Convenience Pak 2, and featured a vastly improved replacement installer, and further integration of useful third party tools and addons." <br /><br />Breakup<br /><br />"The collaboration between IBM and Microsoft unravelled in 1990, between the releases of Windows 3.0 and OS/2 1.3. Initially, at least publicly, Microsoft continued to insist the future belonged to OS/2. Steve Ballmer of Microsoft even took to calling OS/2 "Windows Plus". It was not only the public, however, decided it wanted Windows, not OS/2. The increasing popularity of Windows prompted Microsoft to shift its development focus from OS/2, and IBM grew concerned about delays in development of OS/2 2.0. Initially, the companies agreed that IBM would take over maintenance of OS/2 1.0 and development of OS/2 2.0, while Microsoft would continue development of OS/2 3.0, then known as "NT OS/2", which supposedly stood for New Technology. However, Microsoft decided to recast NT OS/2 as Windows NT, leaving all future OS/2 development to IBM. Windows NT's OS/2 heritage can be seen in its initial support for the HPFS filesystem (although write support was dropped in Windows NT 4.0 and read support was dropped in Windows 2000) and text mode OS/2 1.x applications (support dropped in Windows XP)." From: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2</a><br /><br />So you can see from the above -- Windows 95 was history! Who needed that crash-prone crap anyway?

This Is What IBM Actually Said About OS/2!

Contrary to the headline (IBM to bury OS/2) and the contents of this article... this is what was announced by IBM -- "Effective December 31, 2006, IBM will withdraw standard support for the following products licensed under the IBM International Program License Agreement. Fee-based service offerings will continue to be available. These offerings will provide support beyond December 31, 2006, via a services contract. For information about the extended support offering, contact your IBM representative." Read it all here: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www-306.ibm.com/fcgi-bin/common/ssi/ssialias?infotype=an&#38;subtype=ca&#38;appname=Demonstration&#38;htmlfid=897/ENUS905-163" target="_newWindow">http://www-306.ibm.com/fcgi-bin/common/ssi/ssialias?infotype=an&#38;subtype=ca&#38;appname=Demonstration&#38;htmlfid=897/ENUS905-163</a>

[evilspam]

Open Source OS/2 Petition to IBM

Everybody that is interest can sign the Petition to Open Source OS/2 that will be sent to IBM.<br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.os2world.com/petition" target="_newWindow">http://www.os2world.com/petition</a>

I feel you

Releasing as opensource would be beneficial for both OSS and OS/2. But it would be best for the enduser. I always wanted to spend more time with OS/2 but never got around it. If it would re-surface as OSS I'd install it without hesitation.

[evilspam]

OS/2 Warp Server for e-business released on 1999

Thats strange. OS/2 Warp Server for e-business was released on 1999.<br /><br />Convenience Pack 2 (OS/2 Warp 4.52 and OS/2 Warp Server for e-business 4.52) was released on April 2002.<br /><br />That IBMer that made that statements was on crack.

The Funny Thing About This IBM's Position On OS/2 Is!

&gt;&gt;&gt;"Fee-based service offerings will continue to be available. These offerings will provide support beyond December 31, 2006, via a services contract.&gt;&gt;&gt;". Questions, Questions, Questions for IBM -- How can a product be "buried" and yet in its after-life offer services for it -- isn't that really funny! OS/2; in future OS/3 (Warp 5) is a an "IDEA" supported by mind-share (brain power)... it was not OS/2 that sold the PC Business to Lenovo -- it was IBM. Lest we forget the evolving Sarbanes-Oxley Act with regards to technical compliance?<br /><br />If anything, those who are in a dream world to see an OS/2 "Funeral" should mind there "economics". Since neither the Windows/Office nor the Lamp Stack can at this time deliver on the coversion of Internal Rate of Return (IRR) to Economic Rate of Return (ERR) functionalities when conducting an international project evaluation. Have we heard from the (OS/2 Loving) Russians as yet -- they were the 2nd and 3rd place winners in the not so long ago held international inter-collegiate computer competition!<br /><br />Companies may fade away but "IDEAS" and "PHILOSOPHIES" live on for ever.<br /><br />We Have Only Just Begun: Long live OS/2 -- Enter OS/3 (Warp 5)(Third Generation) and IBM Workplace with ERR (Killer) Functionalities.<br /><br />;-)

Oh, Oh - Oops!

Oh, Oh! Sorry about that typo: "Their" instead of "there" <br /><br />;-)