Lets continue Computer Topics from DBSForums...

Looks like any "off topic" discussions about OS/2 and Microsoft are going to have those posts deleted on Dbsforums, so might as well bring them over here.

RLW and Steve Jay Shem mentioned OS/2 over there, which is always a topic full of robust statements :D

I actually supported OS/2 for a long time, and it wasn't a bad OS. But as Steve pointed out, it was not very easy to pick up for the uninitiated. And early on it was designed to only run on IBM PCs and wasn't guaranteed to run on anything else (I remember the side of the box saying something like only supported on IBM 386, IBM PS/2 Model 70, 80...., etc) Only later did IBM try to push it to everyone including clones.

And all the software vendors were ready to go OS/2 (Harvard Graphics, Wordperfect, Lotus 1-2-3, DBase and a whole bunch of other products that few remember) But MS released Windows 3 at the right time and everyone switched gears. All of a sudden there was little reason to use OS/2. And the "killer Apps" that were supposed to make it the OS of the decade never appeared or at least were for limited audience.

Actually alot of people wanted OS/2, but the MS-Hardware vendor agreements said that even if a vendor puts OS/2 on a machine, they still have to pay MS for DOS/Windows. Many vendors didn't want to do that, so OS/2 never made it to many vendor offerings. So only IBM put OS/2 on their machines that they sold, thus it never got the exposure it needed.

But I do remember that if OS/2 blew up somewhere, it was often unfixable. And every time I called IBM Corporate Support they would say "Reformat the drive and reinstall". Not exactly building confidence when that was always their 2nd option of repair if the 1st option didn't work.

The Company I work for is European Owned and last year they finally switched over from OS/2 to NT/W2K on their servers and W2KPro on the workstations. Life got a little easier.

I can't hate OS/2 as myself being the only person who knew it opened alot of career doors in the mid 90s. But of course the software I work with thanks to those openings stopped having OS/2 as the preferred platform years ago. So for me OS/2 rests on Hallowed ground :D

In previous message when I said "I was the only one who knew OS/2" I meant i was usually the only one who knew OS/2 in many companies I worked at.

Leave out one or two words and the sentence takes on a whole new meaning :D

Heres my post from DBSForums.
I had it, and it sucked! IMO. OS/2 came with my first PC an IBM Aptiva with a 100Mhz Pentium processor. When I turned that computer on for the first time with absoutly no TechKnowlegde, I got a menu that said 'Which Operating system do you want to use OS/2 or Windows 3.1' I chose OS/2 mainly because it thought it was a cool name. After gaining some TechKnowlegde I realized that Windows 3.1 was much better, but to make a long story short IBM never really installed Windows 3.1 on the system so if I would have chosen Windows 3.1 when I booted up for the first time, I would have been greated by a bunch of error messages. We sent the PC back to RatShack and they took care of it. I had so many other problems with that machine it turned me off of IBM forever.

Thats for creating this thread Gcutler. :)

Steve

Is OS/2 still around? I still have my old recovery disks for my IBM (currently running WIN95), one day If Im really bored I'll take it back to factory set up. Iv increased the RAM from 4MB to 80MB when I had WIN95 installed, so the extra RAM should helpout the overall performance. But I might keep WIN95 on the IBM and install some cheap networking cards on both my PCs and exparement with home networking.

Steve

There were lots of people who liked OS/2 in the Corporate world, and many in the home market hated MS and were very happy with OS/2.

At the time (1988-1993, or so, before NT and WIN95) OS/2 was the only true 32-Bit OS being used by most people on the PC. And Windows 3.x was really an Operating Environment running on top of DOS (so not really a true 32-bit os) So OS/2 was attractive to many people.

I remember working at Metlife in 1991-1994 and being involved in the arguments of which should be the official OS for the department I was in (I was a Windows 3 proponent). For the average user, they wanted Windows 3, the techies all wanted OS/2.

Since later versions of OS/2 ran Windows 3 based programs, they both could be used to run most Software. But eventually when most "Everyday" apps came out only for Windows 3.x, the need to run OS/2 was lessened. Eventually it seemed the only people left running OS/2 were those who were anti-MS or those who still ran OS/2 only applications (and those #s started to dwindle when NT Workstation came out)

Had MS not come out with NT for corporate users and Win95 for home users, perhaps we would all be using a form of OS/2 today???

Actually the first time I saw NT 3.1, I thought, this is OS/2 with a MS face. It was a simplistic thought, but since MS did alot of the development on OS/2 for IBM there is some truth to it :D

Actually Steve, OS/2 was the better OS:) It was more like Windows NT3.5 than Windows 3.1 or 3.11 (and 3.11 was way better than 3.1). OS/2 BARELY still exists:) : www-3.ibm.com/software/os/warp/ (http://www-3.ibm.com/software/os/warp/)

But around the time Win95 came out I believe IBM had all but given up on Warp for the desktop. You may still be able to find the software...

You can still get it
www2.warehouse.com/produc...781&cat=pc (http://www2.warehouse.com/product.asp?pf%5Fid=OP0781&cat=pc)

But with all the new hardware out there, the drivers needed may not be out there so on a newer machine it may not run very well, but on an older machine (around mid 90s) it would probably run ok.

I love it when some folks can't see the forest for the trees. 'like comparing a used 486 to a Cray...'

I wonder if Microsoft has found a niche?:D

Ah, yes. Good ole 3.11 Windows for Workgroups. I was so glad to get my systems moved over to NT 4.0 WS to get decent resource management and get rid of QEMM. This conversation is like a trip down memory lane, no pun intended.:)

With each other at the time.

Sherlock,

From 1990 to 1995, OS/2 competed directly with Win 3 (and all its variations)

From 1995-????, OS/2 competed with Win 95.

From 1993-????, OS/2 Server competed with NT server and OS/2 client competed with NT workstation.

Granted OS/2 lost all 3 battles miserably, but What is so "Some People..." about that. Comparing these OSes is not the same as comparing a used 486 to a Cray.

Microsoft spent alot of time early on convincing people that Windows 3 and NT were better than OS/2. I don't think Cray ever tried to tell people that a 486 was not as good as a cray

Dude, it's me, Greg M.

I was referring to Ford's comment at the other site to my example of how MS can bring value and isn't gouging for their products. Oracle rapes us for their software and consulting. 9i finally moves away from the 'power unit' model, but talk about spending tons of money for licensing...

Sherlock said: Dude, it's me, Greg M.

:eek: :

:eek: :

:eek: :

If you're surprised by that, you've been asleep at the switch.;)

your post lost context and seemed to be saying something about the posts here.

Silly rabbit, segues are for kids!
;)

Sorry. I didn't mean to confuse you.

Brain Stem, I need segues for the segues. :D