That requires IBM to have been willing to make the PS/2 models 50 and 60 significantly more expensive, by giving them 386 processors (rather than 286) and more RAM (4MB rather than 2MB)
The ones I worked on -- quite a few of 'em -- came with only 1MB.
I have idly speculated on this before. The 50 & 60 sold well: they were relatively affordable, for PS/2s, but they were proper ones, not like the Model 30 & 30-286, which weren't real PS/2s at all, being ISA-based.
None of the customers I dealt with wanted OS/2 at all. In the longer run, IBM could have given free planar upgrades to every PS/2 50 & 60 owner who bought OS/2 & a RAM upgrade. It would have made more of a profit from the more successful OS.
(There are some wrinkles to work out here: how to limit it so that freeloading chancers don't order OS/2 just so as to get a free upgrade. But IBM was smart. They could have done it.)
IBM crippled the product, and in the end destroyed its own PC business and handed the OS market to MS, just to honour a pledge its customers didn't care about.
In the IT press at the time, there was speculation as to which partner wanted it to run on the 386,
but in hindsight, the answer is clear.
Because MS was already working on 386 versions of the OS. Decades later, they leaked.
The original MS-DOS 4, the multitasking version, released only in Europe:
https://www.os2museum.com/wp/multitasking-ms-dos-4-0-lives/
A Goupil version:
https://www.os2museum.com/wp/multitasking-ms-dos-4-0-goupil-oem/
A prototype, "Sizzle", with 386 code:
https://www.os2museum.com/wp/before-os2-was-os2/
Which became the 386-specific "Football":
https://www.os2museum.com/wp/playing-football/
It's out there.
MS was working on adding 386 enhancements and support for 386 V86 multitasking to DOS, using prototype Compaq kit.
In the light of that, I think it's easy to deduce which of the 2 partners wanted the new OS to run on the 286.
To be fair it is only in hindsight that it is so clear which was the right direction. At the time, it wasn't so clear. The 286 was called a superchip when it came out, as I reference here:
https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/04/the_many_derivatives_of_cpm/
Direct link to InfoWorld:
https://books.google.cz/books?id=ZjAEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA4&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false
(Reversing order for clarity)
That requires Jack Tramiel to have died or become incapable of running Atari in about 1986. He was very focussed on consumer systems, and wasn't very interested in flexibility.
Well that might be so, but I had a specific machine in mind, and it was the 1990 Atari TT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_TT030
The OS that I was thinking of was MiNT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiNT
Which later shipped with the TT replacement, the 1992 Falcon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Falcon
... which I submit shows that Atari had some awareness it needed a better OS.
I worked for Perihelion Hardware while they were trying to turn the Atari Transputer Workstation into something saleable, as opposed to demonstrable, and Jack did not seem interested.
If I knew that, I had forgotten! Did you see my article about Parhelion HeliOS?
no subject
The ones I worked on -- quite a few of 'em -- came with only 1MB.
I have idly speculated on this before. The 50 & 60 sold well: they were relatively affordable, for PS/2s, but they were proper ones, not like the Model 30 & 30-286, which weren't real PS/2s at all, being ISA-based.
None of the customers I dealt with wanted OS/2 at all. In the longer run, IBM could have given free planar upgrades to every PS/2 50 & 60 owner who bought OS/2 & a RAM upgrade. It would have made more of a profit from the more successful OS.
(There are some wrinkles to work out here: how to limit it so that freeloading chancers don't order OS/2 just so as to get a free upgrade. But IBM was smart. They could have done it.)
IBM crippled the product, and in the end destroyed its own PC business and handed the OS market to MS, just to honour a pledge its customers didn't care about.
In the IT press at the time, there was speculation as to which partner wanted it to run on the 386, but in hindsight, the answer is clear.
Because MS was already working on 386 versions of the OS. Decades later, they leaked.
The original MS-DOS 4, the multitasking version, released only in Europe: https://www.os2museum.com/wp/multitasking-ms-dos-4-0-lives/
A Goupil version: https://www.os2museum.com/wp/multitasking-ms-dos-4-0-goupil-oem/
A prototype, "Sizzle", with 386 code: https://www.os2museum.com/wp/before-os2-was-os2/
Which became the 386-specific "Football": https://www.os2museum.com/wp/playing-football/
It's out there.
MS was working on adding 386 enhancements and support for 386 V86 multitasking to DOS, using prototype Compaq kit.
In the light of that, I think it's easy to deduce which of the 2 partners wanted the new OS to run on the 286.
To be fair it is only in hindsight that it is so clear which was the right direction. At the time, it wasn't so clear. The 286 was called a superchip when it came out, as I reference here: https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/04/the_many_derivatives_of_cpm/
Direct link to InfoWorld: https://books.google.cz/books?id=ZjAEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA4&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false
(Reversing order for clarity)
Well that might be so, but I had a specific machine in mind, and it was the 1990 Atari TT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_TT030
The OS that I was thinking of was MiNT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiNT
Which later shipped with the TT replacement, the 1992 Falcon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Falcon
... which I submit shows that Atari had some awareness it needed a better OS.
If I knew that, I had forgotten! Did you see my article about Parhelion HeliOS?
https://www.theregister.com/2021/12/06/heliosng/