Technology

59605 readers

3501 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

134

Unreleased preview of Microsoft’s OS/2 2.0 is a glimpse down a road not taken (arstechnica.com)

submitted 8 months ago by leo@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show to c/technology@lemmy.world

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 47 points 8 months ago (12 children)

I remember in 1994 a friend had purchased OS2 for his 386dx with 8 (!!!) mind blowing megabytes of extended memory. OS2 took nearly 18 minutes to get to an interface you could use - not to install, to boot. went back to DOS lol.

[–] mindlight@lemm.ee 21 points 8 months ago (2 children)

If it was OS/2 from IBM it was true multitasking and the OS in full control of memory allocation, something Microsoft only were able to offer after creating a new operating system from scratch (Windows NT).

If you thought OS/2 took forever to boot on a 386DX with only 8MB of ram, imagine how long it would take to boot Windows NT 3.5 on that same machine....

[–] krimson@feddit.nl 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

My dad ran IBM OS/2 Warp for a while on our PC. Rock stable. Shame it never really took off.

[–] mindlight@lemm.ee 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

OS/2 3.0 "Warp" was a little too much ahead of its time and had the exact same problem that Windows Mobile had: no applications.

IBM tried to solve that with Windows emulation but it was a headache from the start and often have a buggy experience.

It didn't help that the real world hardest requirements were off the charts as compared to Windows 95 (still 16-bit MS-Dos based and not even close to what OS/2 was).

IBM did everything right from an engineering perspective but failed miserably on what the market wanted.

It never stood a chance. IBM had always been great at delivering solutions that was well engineered. What IBM has n-e-v-e-r been good at is marketing and understanding the volume market.

[–] Llewellyn@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

duideverything

English isn't my first language. Could you please tell, what that word means? Is it slang?

[–] liquefy4931@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Typographical error: Mindlight probably meant to type "did everything," but didn't correct the mistake before submitting their comment.

[–] Llewellyn@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Thank you!

P.S. It wasn't my comment with the funny word, but mindlight@lemm.ee 's

[–] liquefy4931@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Whoops, thanks!

[–] bus_factor@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Windows NT came out of the failed collaboration with IBM and was originally meant to be OS/2 3.0. MS switched the APIs from OS/2 compatible to Windows compatible after Windows 3.0 took off, and it caused the collaboration to fall apart.

load more comments (9 replies)