[JdeBP]

One IBM dealer not being willing/permitted to sell you OS/2 pre-loaded on anything other than a PS/2 is a very different thing to OS/2 requiring a PS/2. That you continue to conflate the twain is an error, and a repetition of a long since debunked myth.

This was written in 1995, and was far from the first debunking of this myth:

* http://www.mit.edu/activities/os2/faq/os2faq0201.html

The unwillingness of that one IBM dealer was almost certainly far more to do with the structures of the Microsoft licensing deals for pre-loaded systems than any mythical requirement of a PS/2. This came to light some years later; around the time of the US DOJ anti-trust case.

To learn how for a quarter of a century you've erroneously been ascribing things to the myth that OS/2 required a PS/2 when in fact your one IBM dealer was merely part of a larger and complex picture of licensing deals and royalty payments involving pre-loading Windows on IBM machines versus pre-loading anything else, start here:

* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/368660.stm

* http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/06/04/ibm_witness_the_insi...

There is a lot more to read than just those two, of course.

[pjmlp]

Fair enough, I will look into them.