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.
** 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 :(
Anyway, let me know (off list) what you have and I may be interested. I'm not local, but should be heading Suffolk way sometime soon. I also plan to be at the Linux show later this week - all things being equal, which they frequently aren't!
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.
Cheers,
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 02:14:00PM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
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.
Wasn't it actually developed by both of them and when MS ditched it IBM bought the part that MS owned.
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 02:33:57PM +0100, cl@isbd.net wrote:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 02:14:00PM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
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.
Wasn't it actually developed by both of them and when MS ditched it IBM bought the part that MS owned.
If it was, then IBM didn't have any mention what so ever in the (c) notice of v1 (I used to maintain an OS/2 v1 server that was remote booting Windows 3.1 workstations...). Fairly sure that IBM were paying MS to develop the OS up until MS said "ha, right, windows is working now, screw you hippies!".
Cheers,
** 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...
On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 16:36 +0100, Paul Tansom wrote:
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).
I recall reading public statements even from BG himself saying that OS/2 was the future. I think in the end it might have been disagreements between MS and IBM killed the collaboration project and IBM went alone.
I think the breakup started because OS/2 was originally designed for the IBM PS/2* and a lot of PS/2's were sold on the promise that they would run future versions of OS/2.However Microsoft were pushing to develop and OS that took advantage of the 80386, this was a problem for IBM because all those PS/2 machines were 286.
The breakup agreement was that both companies would split and develop OS/2 to their own means whilst retaining some degree of compatibility (starting to sound like a Unix now isn't it)
Then Microsoft got lucky by hiring a key VMS architect (I forget who) and therefore NT became more of a Microsoft interpretation of VMS rather than Microsoft's version of OS/2 (there is a strong rumour I heard once that internal beta builds of NT actually still carried the OS/2 name in certain parts of the OS) The agreement stood however and NT was capable of running (to varying degrees) OS/2 applications, talk to OS/2 boxes and access HPFS volumes etc
IBM countered a year or so later by offering OS/2 2.0 which could run a modified copy of Windows 3 in a DOS window, I think in subsequent versions it was even possible to run Windows and OS/2 applications side by side in the same workspace. Funnily enough the minimum requirements for 2.0 were indeed a 80386 which just goes to show that even IBM didn't know what they were doing sometimes.
* The PS/2 suddenly starts to make a bit more sense when you look at it in this context. As a regular PC it was a little strange as it had dropped lots of legacy PC features and replaced them with incompatible alternatives (3.5" floppy, PS/2 KB/Mouse ports, Microbus rather than ISA) etc etc. The point was that these machines were supposed to be a whole new platform and not as they ended up just a revision to DOS/Windows PC's
Right (possibly inaccurate) history lesson over..I am sure there is someone reading this far and still awake
Wayne Stallwood wrote:
[SNIP]
Then Microsoft got lucky by hiring a key VMS architect (I forget who)
Dave Cutler.
and therefore NT became more of a Microsoft interpretation of VMS rather than Microsoft's version of OS/2 (there is a strong rumour I heard once
It's a shame that it didn't. VMS was (and probably still is) a really good OS. I spent many years programming on VMS (and RSTS/E, and RT11, etc.)
Cheers, Laurie.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 10:58:02AM +0100, Laurie Brown wrote:
Wayne Stallwood wrote:
[SNIP]
Then Microsoft got lucky by hiring a key VMS architect (I forget who)
Dave Cutler.
and therefore NT became more of a Microsoft interpretation of VMS rather than Microsoft's version of OS/2 (there is a strong rumour I heard once
It's a shame that it didn't. VMS was (and probably still is) a really good OS. I spent many years programming on VMS (and RSTS/E, and RT11, etc.)
It had annoying command line syntax, the "shell" was frustrating, and the best tools where (as always) already Open Source projects by the time I was using VMS ;)
Otherwise, yeah - lovely OS - rock solid, neat evil features to hack it when you've forgotten the root password (god that was fun, MDs forgetting the password... here - fix this will you? Oh how I laughed.)
Cheers,
-
Brett Parker -
cl＠isbd.net -
Laurie Brown -
Paul Tansom -
Wayne Stallwood