What was OS/2?

BobSutan

BobSutan

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 5, 2000
Messages
12,121
One of the new guys at work was doing a CBT and he came across something that mentioned OS/2. When he asked me if it was an old version of Windows I kinda laughed. But then I started thinking about it. Since I never used it, what was it really like? Considering I've never actually seen it first-hand, for all I know it really could have really been like an old version of Microsoft Windows. IIRC, I think it was IBM's GUI OS that was competing with Windows 3.1. And considering its age, does anyone know when it was given up on?

So, is there anyone around that has some fond memories of OS/2? Perhaps some old-timers that can fill me in on this one?
 
it was similar to Windows 3.1, but it was more advanced. I think it had the ability of long filenames etc. I don't know the exact specifics on it. We used it at work about 9 years ago for a Token-Ring network monitoring program. I never really delt with the OS itself, just the program that ran on top of it.
 
Originally posted by Kriegführung
it was similar to Windows 3.1, but it was more advanced. I think it had the ability of long filenames etc. I don't know the exact specifics on it. We used it at work about 9 years ago for a Token-Ring network monitoring program. I never really delt with the OS itself, just the program that ran on top of it.
Click to expand...

i remember the debate between OS/2 and windows 95. OS/2 lost out be cause it lacked stuff like dial up networking and some other things that i cannot remember. i even remember the OS/2 commerials.... "its a warped world" or something...
 
It mainly lost to Windows 95 because the hardware requirements to run it were so high for the time. But to be honest it was a better Windows 95 than Windows 95 was.
 
OS/2 lost because the PC division of IBM betrayed it...The PC division wanted Win95 to be preinstalled, not OS/2, because customers had no idea what OS/2 was and the PC division didn't want to upset the great Microsoft.
 
OS/2 was a nice OS, from what I remember. It could emulate windows well enough to run a lot of software and the core of the OS was closer to NT than it was to 9x. Very powerful, good for workstations.


You still see it sometimes, NCR was using it for ATM machines for a while, so you know it was stable and secure.
 
I still have a box containing OS/2 Warp sitting on the shelf 5 feet to my left ...

Originally, IBM and Microsoft were jointly developing OS/2 (which they each released under their own brand names, exactly like IBM used to release their own brand name DOS), which was mainly a replacement for LAN Manager, a network server OS that IBM/MS also jointly developed. Then Gates & Company decided that they could make a lot more money by dumping IBM and creating their own network server OS, and they took the core of the version they were writing to replace OS/2 r2.1 and turned it into Windows NT 3.1 (the first version of Windows NT).

- Qualm
 
Originally posted by Qualm
I still have a box containing OS/2 Warp sitting on the shelf 5 feet to my left ...

Originally, IBM and Microsoft were jointly developing OS/2 (which they each released under their own brand names, exactly like IBM used to release their own brand name DOS), which was mainly a replacement for LAN Manager, a network server OS that IBM/MS also jointly developed. Then Gates & Company decided that they could make a lot more money by dumping IBM and creating their own network server OS, and they took the core of the version they were writing to replace OS/2 r2.1 and turned it into Windows NT 3.1 (the first version of Windows NT).

- Qualm
Click to expand...

Not exactly true. IBM didn't want PC servers cutting into their Mainframe business, so they tried very hard to cripple the OS/2 without crippling it, so it wouldn't compete with their mainframe biz. Microsoft and IBM decided they both had different goals and split the agreement. OS/2 Programs will run on NT4, since they have an os/2 subsystem.
 
Back when I worked very low level support, I worked for a company who used exclusively OS/2 with terminal emulation into an IBM mainframe. I can't say much about the system but I do know that it was unheard of for it to go down. I do know that OS/2 felt a lot like win95 to me at that time.
 
Man, I used to love OS/2 (I still run Warp 3 and Merlin on Virtual PC, just for fun :( )

It was a "real" 32-bit OS. The best part about it was the Windows 3.1 subsystem, you could run native windows apps without a hitch (in some cases, even better)

The main problem with it was like said before. It was a great OS, but IBM didn't push it. In all honesty it could have competed head on with Windows 95 (and probably would have won, Merlin was great) but the powers that be didn't strive for it.
(For the desktop world, anyhow)

I know a few banks that still run OS/2 LanMan servers. Scary thought about "legacy" but they are really friggin stable.
 
I used it some, I liked it, as others mentioned it was like 95, but better. You could also order OS/2 for free at one point and they would ship it to you on ~21 floppies. Not bad considering the cost of floppies at the time, I knew people who ordered it just to format the disks. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top