3 ms·

Microsoft and IBM co-wrote OS/2 initially, then Microsoft unveiled Windows using a lot of the ideas they came up with together. Classic Microsoft! When they sp

by magoon 10y ago

Microsoft and IBM co-wrote OS/2 initially, then Microsoft unveiled Windows using a lot of the ideas they came up with together. Classic Microsoft! When they split, IBM kept the 286 fork (which became 2.0) while Microsoft kept the 386 fork (which became Windows NT).

pavlov 10y ago
Sorry to be the pedant complaining about ancient trivia, but neither of those claims is quite what happened. Windows was a Microsoft product already before the OS/2 development deal happened. The plan was always to have a more or less unified GUI in Windows and OS/2, following UX standards defined by IBM. This did happen -- Windows 2 and OS/2 1.2 had almost the same look and feel, as well as very similar APIs (both 16-bit). 2.0 was always intended to be a 32-bit operating system, and Microsoft was responsible for its development initially. NT was a new kernel that was supposed to become OS/2 3.0 for a while.
- lobster_johnson 10y ago
  You're probably thinking of OS/2 1.1, which was very close to Windows 2.0 in look and feel, i.e. flat and mostly monochrome, although it had a proportional system font where Windows still used monospace (Fixedsys). Comparison: http://toastytech.com/guis/os211cpl.png http://toastytech.com/guis/os211cpl.png https://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/muiseum/systems/win2/01.gif https://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/muiseum/systems/win2/01.gif OS/2 1.2 added the style that would become Windows 3.0's, with beveled buttons and so on, while Windows 3.0 upgraded to the proportional font (System) that OS/2 had been using.
  - pavlov 10y ago
    Right! 1.1 was the version I was thinking of. (I remember using 1.3 which had the proportional font and pseudo-3D widgets, and assumed the look was introduced in that version.)
- JdeBP 10y ago
  Actually, to a programmer the APIs, both the CP API and the PM API, were not very similar. Somewhat is a fairer assessment. They shared a common ancestry, and some common ideas (such as the idea of sharing modes for open file handles, for starters), but they were in some respects markedly dissimilar to those of DOS+Windows.

by magoon 10y ago

pavlov 10y ago

Sorry to be the pedant complaining about ancient trivia, but neither of those claims is quite what happened. Windows was a Microsoft product already before the OS/2 development deal happened. The plan was always to have a more or less unified GUI in Windows and OS/2, following UX standards defined by IBM. This did happen -- Windows 2 and OS/2 1.2 had almost the same look and feel, as well as very similar APIs (both 16-bit). 2.0 was always intended to be a 32-bit operating system, and Microsoft was responsible for its development initially. NT was a new kernel that was supposed to become OS/2 3.0 for a while.

lobster_johnson 10y ago
You're probably thinking of OS/2 1.1, which was very close to Windows 2.0 in look and feel, i.e. flat and mostly monochrome, although it had a proportional system font where Windows still used monospace (Fixedsys). Comparison: http://toastytech.com/guis/os211cpl.png http://toastytech.com/guis/os211cpl.png https://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/muiseum/systems/win2/01.gif https://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/muiseum/systems/win2/01.gif OS/2 1.2 added the style that would become Windows 3.0's, with beveled buttons and so on, while Windows 3.0 upgraded to the proportional font (System) that OS/2 had been using.
- pavlov 10y ago
  Right! 1.1 was the version I was thinking of. (I remember using 1.3 which had the proportional font and pseudo-3D widgets, and assumed the look was introduced in that version.)
JdeBP 10y ago
Actually, to a programmer the APIs, both the CP API and the PM API, were not very similar. Somewhat is a fairer assessment. They shared a common ancestry, and some common ideas (such as the idea of sharing modes for open file handles, for starters), but they were in some respects markedly dissimilar to those of DOS+Windows.