100% this. Great summary. Smaller, cheaper, faster, much better UI, vastly better driver and app support. No, the multitasking wasn't as good, but it was pret

100% this. Great summary. Smaller, cheaper, faster, much better UI, vastly better driver and app support. No, the multitasking wasn't as good, but it was pretty good TBH. Compared to Windows 3.x it was amazing. As a loyal OS/2 user who spent £300 odd on boxed copies of OS/2 2.0 and then 2.1, I switched to the unfinished beta version of Windows 95 because it was that much better. A trivial but telling example: On HPFS, OS/2's native filesystem, you got long file names. But DOS didn't. A DOS VM under OS/2 could see HPFS drives (just as if they were network drives) but any file or folder that was not an 8.3 character name was just... invisible. I made a folder called `D:\DOCUMENTS` (note, 9 letters) instead of my old DOS `D:`DOCS` and put a file into it, and I couldn't open it in Word 6 because it could only see names up to 8 letters. No way round. IBM never thought of this. On VFAT in NT 3.5 and Win95 and all later versions, long filenames are automatically truncated and a short name shown to DOS and Win16 API calls. The name was truncated to 6 characters, then a tilde `~`, then a 1 for the first long name with that 6 letters, then ~2 for the second, ~3 for the third. (I never found out what happened if there were >9.) If you installed MS Office 95 it went into Program Files (PROGRA~1) as OFFICE. But if you installed Office 97, they leant in to their new long filenames: C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office From dos: C:\PROGRA~1\MICROS~1. That's why I sometimes use MICROS~1 as a cynical nickname for Microsoft. It's from their own product on their own OS. Microsoft thought about what would happen if a DOS app accessed a LFN. IBM didn't.