"Austin L. Denyer" wrote:
> > Jeff Malka wrote:
> >
> > > > Well...maybe Linux isn't for everyone, but then no OS is for
> everyone,
> > > IMO. Choice is good...
> > >
> > > It is, but for an OS to survive it must attract and "keep" a
> sufficient
> > > audience, Otherwise it might have the same fate as OS/2 which is
> also an
> > > excellent multiuser stable OS. Do not ask why I am leaving OS/2,
> because I
> > > am not really, just learning a new OS and noting how it appears to a
> non
> > > programming guru.
> >
> > Well...that's a very different situation. OS/2 declined because IBM
> made a
> > corporate decision to stop developing and supporting it, not because
> of any
> > lack on its part.
>
> OS/2 was not as hot as it could have been. I seem to recall having to
> set up endless parameters in config settings for every application.
> This was WAY beyond the novice.
Wow. I didn't have to do any of that. My workstation had it preinstalled,
but I found settings were easier to change and and configure than in
Windows. It was much more intuitive for me.
(I should mention, though, that OS/2 is *not* a multi-user OS, contrary to
what Mr Malka wrote above.)
> As for the decline, I seem to recall that the next release (which would
> have been FAR better) was originally a joint IBM/Micro$oft project. The
> two had a problem seeing eye to eye and Micro$oft pulled out.
> (Micro$oft then proceeded to remove all IBM code from OS/3, replaced it
> with Micro$oft code, re-named it Win95 and the rest is history...).
Yup, yup, yup.
> There never was much support for OS/2. Comparatively few applications
> were ever ported, and (compared to the competition at the time) was a
> real resource hog.
To what are you comparing it, specifically? Boot time was far quicker than
Windows, IIRC.
> Just my $0.02 (Florida residents add 6.5% Sales Tax)
>
> Regards,
> Ozz.
*digs in her pockets, coming up with 2 cents and pocket lint* ;)
Kathleen,
OS addict
