wtf is OS/2?

[Demont]

what is os/2 or os2 or whatever?

[RED Hot Machine]

It was an os simalar to windows 95 developed by IBM.

[NYC37]

it's and old(relatively) IBM operating system, meant to rival windows. but it failed, its defunct now, some people still use it, and it may come back, because some people want to re-release it, of course an updated version of it.

[flounder43]

Originally posted by Demont
what is os/2 or os2 or whatever?

Once again, I am reminded of my age...

[eobard]

Originally posted by RED Hot Machine
It was an os simalar to windows 95 developed by IBM.

I disagree, OS/2 actually worked. I'd compare it's stability to 98. It was good for it's day, it's day has come and gone.

[Demont]

when exactly was "its day"?

[Demont]

Originally posted by flounder43


Once again, I am reminded of my age...

well i knew sort of what it was i just didnt feel like looking for crap about it on the internet, im at work, this is less time consuming. i've been on computers since the 80s so dont think you're all tough just cause you're older, flounder! :D

("80s"=1989...when i was in kindergarden :D)

[flounder43]

Originally posted by Demont


well i knew sort of what it was i just didnt feel like looking for crap about it on the internet, im at work, this is less time consuming. i've been on computers since the 80s so dont think you're all tough just cause you're older, flounder! :D

("80s"=1989...when i was in kindergarden :D)

1989=Junior in High School

[eobard]

1994-1998.

[Demont]

flounder wins

[el]

a cruel joke?

[eobard]

Originally posted by el
a cruel joke?

Nope. That applies to 95. OS/2 was a good os, the problem was IBM's marketing of it. OS/2 WARP v3 hit the streets about 15 months before the original 95 AND it was a hell of a lot more stable, then IBM ran it into the ground, just like they did micro channel architecture in 87.

[dugans]

Originally posted by Demont



("80s"=1989...when i was in kindergarden :D)


1989= 2 years after I got out of the military:p

Never had os2 on a system, but I did use one with it a few times-

good os for its day, but couldn't beat MS juggernaut.

[Ploaf]

Class of '89 here. :) , but then I only used Macs and my trusty old C64 back then.

[William]

OS/2 was the joint effort between microsoft and IBM to develop the next desktop OS. The relationship wasn't good at all as the two groups had entirely different personalities. Three programmers at microsoft "solved" memory protection and microsoft jumped ship to make Win 3.1. Keep in mind that Microsoft did not screw IBM at all, the both were looking for a reason to seperate on the project as it wasn't working out.

[Yodums]

Originally posted by William
OS/2 was the joint effort between microsoft and IBM to develop the next desktop OS. The relationship wasn't good at all as the two groups had entirely different personalities. Three programmers at microsoft "solved" memory protection and microsoft jumped ship to make Win 3.1. Keep in mind that Microsoft did not screw IBM at all, the both were looking for a reason to seperate on the project as it wasn't working out.

So whats better OS/2 or Win 3.1?

[eobard]

Here's a rough equivalency translation:

OS/2 v1.3 = WIN286
OS/2 v2.2 = WIN 3.1
OS/2 WARP3 = WIN 95
OS/2 WARP4 = WIN 98


OS/2 (assuming it's WARP) beats win3.1 any day. It comes with 3.1 built in or with coding to meld 3.1 into it. The version I have takes an existing 3.1 install and integrates it into the OS/2 system (if that's what I want) and yet still gives me the option to boot native true DOS & win 3.1. The problem was OS/2 WARP couldn't run 95 code and IBM made no true effort to push third parties to make software for the average user for their os so Microsoft killed them with ease.