4 ms·
I did, but I worked at IBM at the time. Recall downloading the beta tests repeatedly, over a dozen 1.44Mb disk images, over the internal SNA network. Had to t
by epc 15y ago
I did, but I worked at IBM at the time.
Recall downloading the beta tests repeatedly, over a dozen 1.44Mb disk images, over the internal SNA network. Had to transfer them to my local mainframe, then down to my PC, then cut to a disk. Typically did that one night and the install the next night. Depending on how good or bad the beta was it would take a couple of hours, or all night (since I HAD to have a working system the next day). Was the first time the PC/OS2 folks allowed anyone outside of Boca to participate in the beta testing.
Coming from a Mac/XWindows background at the time, I didn't think OS/2 1.3 was all that special. 2.0 "felt" much better than either Win 3.1 or System 7 at the time. But it was so tied to IBM's PS/2 systems that even if you wanted to run it on your home system you were likely out of luck.
Compatibility improved over time, but not quickly enough to counter Windows. Plus the PC/PSG folks did anything and everything they could to require "most favored nation" status with OS/2, while at the same time courting Microsoft to ensure Windows '95 ran well out of the gate on the Aptivas, Thinkpads and whatever other brands I can't recall.
One of the potential advantages that OS/2 had, which IBM blew, was its TCP/IP stack was pretty good, much, much, much better than what was on Windows at the time ('92-94). Even then, IBM initially made it a separate package (I have no idea how much it cost) because as we all know, the future is LU6.2 networking over SNA.
IBM employee desktops were required to be OS/2 well into 1998-1999. But since IBM killed off WebExplorer, and Netscape Navigator for OS/2 was always just a little bit too off to be considered serious, many of us were using Windows '95 by late 1996 or early 1997. I finally made the switch over to Windows '95 permanently in mid-1998 when I realized I couldn't see the ibm.com homepage redesign we were launching.
- yuhong 15y agoOS/2 2.0 was not tied to PS/2 systems and clones was officially supported.
- flomo 15y agoPS/2 was perceived to be an attempt to take control of the clone industry through licensing the Microchannel bus. (The original PC had much more liberal FRAND licensing.) So, IBM was seen to be the "bad guy" in a lot of technical circles. Even though OS/2 had little to do with this, IMO it was tainted by the branding association. And while OS/2 2.0 supported clones, it didn't really recognize them. (e.g. the printer list was full of IBM models only).
- yuhong 15y agoYea, this was one of the result of the JDA break-up. Traditionally MS licensed OS/2 1.x to OEMs just like DOS with each OEM version of OS/2 supporting the OEM's own systems. Only with 1.3 MS finally released a packaged product for OS/2, despite most systems being fully AT compatible from the beginning.