On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 21:25 -0700, Stewart Stremler wrote: > > > Then OS/2 came out. But Microsoft's FUD went into high gear to make > > people believe that a few months later Windows 94 (IIRC) would blow the > > doors off of OS/2 and caused everyone to hold off. A few months turned > > into several, and Windows 94 was in danger of turning into Windows 96. > > But by the time it was finally released, it was called Windows 95 > > (barely). And it barely held a candle to OS/2. OS/2 was solid. > > I never could run OS/2 on my hardware. My 386 was too weak, and OS/2 > ran like a dog. A friend of mine had a faster system, and he loved > OS/2. > > I found it interesting that OS/2 was a joint M$/IBM project.
Early on it was a joint project, then M$ went and came out with NT (both used the same file system). As for the Win vs OS/2 battle, IBM lost only because M$ threatened them. It came out in the DoJ case against M$ that M$ told IBM that if they pushed OS/2 hard on the marketing front, M$ would cancel IBM's Windows licensing. IBM decided they could not take the hit in revenues that would cause. IBM more or less put OS/2 on the back burner and only really marketed it to their top corporate customers (there was a time that nearly all banks used it for their ATMs). I liked OS/2 Warp 4 and VoiceType as I could navigate the entire system without ever touching the keyboard or mouse. It also ran faster than Windows, worked great on our production line at TV/COMM, had far better multitasking (it was a true preemptive system), and was the first object oriented OS (maybe it's still the only one?) designed that way from the ground up. If IBM had continued to support it, improve it, and update it as Linux has been, I would be running OS/2 today. PGA -- Paul G. Allen BSIT/SE Owner/Sr. Engineer Random Logic Consulting www.randomlogic.com -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
