***********************
* Failed Technologies *
* Andy Bennett        *
* 17/11/2002          *
***********************

Plagiarizing heavily from Dan:

 In this report on my researched topics I have tried to focus on 3 main areas:

 ·	Why the technology failed in the first place
 ·	What could have been done to stop the technology failing
 ·	Whether it could have been predicted that this technology would fail at the time or today



OS/2
====
In 1982 the Personal Computer revolution was still in its infancy.
IBM had started the ball rolling with its PC-XT that came with a
choice of three operating systems. - CP/M-86, UCSD Pascal P-System
and MS-DOS, licensed from Microsoft as PC-DOS. In 1983 Microsoft
started development of Windows and in 1984 IBM released its 80286
based machine, known at the PC-AT. By this time MS-DOS had become
the dominant operating system in the IBM and IBM compatible PC
market: A significant part of Microsoft's business was in
licensing MS-DOS to the PC manufacturers. 1984 also saw the start
of the collaboration between Microsoft and IBM on a new operating
system that would become OS/2. OS/2 was supposed to be a joint
effort between both companies, but each had their own ideas about
how they wanted things to evolve. IBM was insistent that the new
operating system was compatible with its mainframe systems such as
System/360 and System/370. At one point an IBM representative on
the project requested that fonts be removed from the product: IBM
shipped a mainframe printer that could not handle fonts. Microsoft
was insistent that the new operating system be compatible with
existing MS-DOS programmes. While there is nothing wrong with
trying to maintain compatibility with existing products and
systems, as time went by each companies confidence in the other
slowly eroded. In 1986, shortly after the company was made public,
Steve Ballmer offered IBM a 30% share in Microsoft. By this time
however, IBM were no longer interested. IBM continued development
of OS/2 alone, eventually releasing OS/2 4.0, more commonly known
as OS/2 Warp 4, in September 1996 - 9 years after the release of
the original OS/2.

OS/2 failed due to a lack of cooperation and an inability on the
part of both companies to define similar goals. Both companies
seeked to shape OS/2 into something that was good for themselves
and that fitted into their existing structures. Microsoft was also
interested in promoting its own Windows "Operating System", which
it believed to be smaller and lighter than OS/2 Warp. - Microsoft
believed that OS/2 Warp was becoming unwieldy and too much like a
mainframe operating system for "ordinary" people. IBM wanted to be
able to set the standards in the PC market like it had been doing
in the mainframe market. - On one hand, IBM wanted to offer its
customers the features of its mainframes and on the other, IBM did
not want the PC to overtake mainframes and push them out of the
market. Microsoft was not interested in the mainframe arena and
wanted to spread the use of its own programmes even further in the
PC arena. Bill Gates believed that "IBM promoted all good
programmers into management." and that IBM were Haunted by a
successful past and unsuited to the new, fast changing pc world.

OS/2 could have been made to succeed if the companies has worked
better together and had been willing to compromise on some of
their requirements. Ineffective teamwork and a lack of
communication meant that the project did not fulfill its potential
and neither party ended up with what they wanted. Both companies
had their own agendas for pursuing the project and Microsoft
especially did not wants its Windows "Operating System" to fail as
a result. - Microsoft were primarily interested in bringing the
graphical features and ease of use of the Macintosh system to the
PC and they thought that working with IBM on the project may prove
fruitful. However, in the end, it was more profitable for them to
develop Windows on their own, and it quickly became popular in the
market place.

At the time, it was not hard to see that the project was not
working as hoped. Today, one wonders why it was attempted in the
first place since Windows is so popular today. However, it must be
remembered that Windows was not properly accepted until version
3.0 and before this Microsoft may have been worried that they
would be unable to get a foothold in the graphical software
market. Joining forces with the biggest player in the field must
have seemed like a safe option. The failure cannot be blamed on
the arrogance of the two companies alone: The PC revolution was
still in its infancy. IBM was using tactics that has consistently
worked for it before and was just beginning to find out that it
was hard to fend off competition in a market where everyone was a
beginner. - IBM only had the lead because they shipped the first
PC. Microsoft was still a relatively new, small and inexperienced
company and they had made a lot of money from the license
agreement with IBM to ship MS-DOS for a low fee with the PC-XT and
then the PC-AT. They, quite understandably, thought that working
with IBM was going to be a "winner" however, they found more
successful avenues to explore on their own and as such their
relationship was almost doomed to fail.

http://www.osdata.com/oses/os2.htm
Bill Gates - The Road Ahead