** Brett Parker iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk [2006-10-23 14:20]:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:11:40PM +0100, Paul Tansom wrote:
** cl@isbd.net cl@isbd.net [2006-10-23 11:16]:
Are there any OS/2 enthusiasts on this list, or does anyone know of any local (i.e. East Anglian) OS/2 user groups? I have some OS/2 bits and pieces (software and books) that I'd like to clear off my shelves.
** end quote [cl@isbd.net]
Yup, I used to work at IBM and OS/2 was the reason I even considered getting a PC since at the time Windows was such a primitive lash together (hmm, some things never change!) that was light years behind my Amiga. I only came in as 2.0 was released iirc, although worked on many 1.2 and 1.3 machines. I worked with the beta of 2.1 and still have my Merlin beta (aka Warp 4). In fact if any of those bits are a full copy of Warp 4 I'm all ears. Sadly my copy was sent down to a development group and never returned :(
Interestingly, of course, OS/2 v1 was a Microsoft product, the rights where bought by IBM when Microsoft decided that windows was a better product.
** end quote [Brett Parker]
It was actually a joint development between IBM and MS. Originally the idea was, iirc, to provide a replacement for DOS that was truly 32bit (although my memory is getting a bit hazy these days). MS pulled out and used some of the development work in Windows NT (as in you will find that NTFS is very close to HPFS). Once IBM took over and developed the Workplace Shell OS/2 really became a nice platform to work with. It was OS/2 2.0 that really made OS/2 nice to work with.
I remember the first thing I tried doing with Windows 3.x was to create a folder/drawer to put documents in. Of course in Windows these were actually Program Groups and totally incapable of having sub folders/groups or containing anything other than links to programs. At which point I realised that all it was was a pretty menu system with a standard graphics library.
My suspicion is that MS decided that an inferior product with Windows compatibility was a better marketing proposition than the better OS without. Windows didn't come close to being as good as OS/2 until NT4 and then was still lacking. XP has added eye candy and from my experience less stability than NT4 - that said on my old NT4 workstation I had to reinstall every few months to fix it (bugs like all the icons vanishing in the control panel).
OS/2 suffered the same problems as Linux did initially - lack of applications (in some areas Linux still does). Sadly with a single financial entity behind it OS/2 was marginalised more easily (although it is still going as eComstation even now). You can keep taking out Linux companies, but Linux will still be there :)
Anyhoo...