My background: I started doing OS/2 development in the early nineties and built my career around it until the OS/2 consulting business dried up. Phil M Perry wrote: > As I recall, OS/2 was started as a joint IBM-MS project as a high end > fully pre-emptive multitasking 32 bit OS, rather than continuing to
Sort of - the first versions of the OS (1.X) were written for segmented 286 architecture. IIRC, that's the code that was a IBM/MS cross-venture. The later versions had a new kernel with a 32-bit view of memory. That's what became Warp. No idea how much of the original codebase was used to preserve the legacy API, but any amount could account for any MS licensing issues. > fiddle with the DOS-based Windows. There was some sort of falling out > between the partners, and MS went on to use its OS/2 work as the core of > a new line -- Windows NT. IBM just didn't know how to do PC operating > systems (build them, or market them), and OS/2 just kind of fizzled out. > Eventually, the DOS-based Windows fizzled out too (after Win ME) and > NT's successors are still with us (currently Win 7). > > OS/2 (circa Warp) was quite nice in its time, but by then, MS had an > insurmountable lead in the marketplace. I can't imagine anyone in their > right mind wanting to bring it back -- its cousin Win 7 is so much > better than Warp was, and any current Linux distribution is far > superior. What would be the point? There are no legacy applications to There were a number of companies who had staked their strategy on OS/2 in the mid-nineties and had a lot of in-house software for it. In the US, every OS/2 company I knew about was rewriting their systems for Windows. Apparently that wasn't the case in overseas, because there were still a lot of OS/2 devotees there long after everyone I knew had given up on it. I think this and a small community of enthusiasts accounts for the OS's continued presence. > speak of, so it would have to have full Windows and Linux compatibility > -- now, if IBM were to offer a Linux with full Windows compatibility > (better than WINE, and no license fees to MS), and call it OS/2, that > might be something interesting. Maybe a VM under the covers with Linux > and Windows preloaded? That would still require paying MS, unless > someone has a really, really good Win clone. After the PS/2 / > Microchannel / OS/2 fiascoes of the late '80s, I don't think IBM would > want to get back into a commodity OS market. It just won't be able to do > it cheaply enough, unless they rebrand Linux. The market doesn't care > any more about IBM -- it's buying Microsoft that will never get you fired. > > _______________________________________________ > Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org > http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug > > Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium > Aug 4 - Samba > Sep 1 - BOINC > Oct 6 - Creating Firefox Extensions > ============================================================================= michaelMuller = [email protected] | http://www.mindhog.net/~mmuller ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not willing to control your own mind, there are plenty of other people who are willing to do it for you. ============================================================================= _______________________________________________ Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium Aug 4 - Samba Sep 1 - BOINC Oct 6 - Creating Firefox Extensions
