[AnimalMuppet]

> It tried to recover with OS/2. It was a pretty good platform but they couldn't get the details right. This was was fizzing as well.

Well, it locked up the PS/2 hardware with patents, so nobody could clone it. So non-PS/2 hardware was a lot cheaper, because there were a hundred companies trying to sell it. But that cheaper hardware didn't run OS/2 (at least initially).

But when Microsoft was able to keep pace (more or less) with Windows, nobody wanted the PS/2, because Windows on commodity hardware was good enough, and less expensive.

[cturner]

    > Well, it locked up the PS/2 hardware with patents, so nobody could clone it. 

The "IBM Compatible" was already well-established though. PS2 architecture plays were an attempt for them to get relevant again, and it didn't work. The main technology that they had was EISA, and there wasn't much edge from having that.

    > cheaper hardware didn't run OS/2

I don't think that's quite right. A mate had a PS2 that was bundled with OS/2 4 in 1996. We found that the OS/2 install disks that were bundled with his PS2 wouldn't install to other systems. But I never had trouble getting shrinkwrapped os/2 running on commodity ISA or VESA bus hardware - 2.0, 2.1, 3, 4. I ran it as my main desktop for five years. You did have a poor experience if you didn't have a well-supported video card, and almost nothing was well-supported.

[AnimalMuppet]

I stand corrected.

[cturner]

Had a wake-at-4am. The prop IBM arch wasn't EISA, it was Micro Channel. (thanks)