3 ms·
> the strength of a PC operating system is not how reliable, memory safe and performant it is Didn't OS/2 fail because it wasn't performant enough, compared to
by BlueTemplar 3y ago
> the strength of a PC operating system is not how reliable, memory safe and performant it is
Didn't OS/2 fail because it wasn't performant enough, compared to Windows/DOS which could run on pretty shitty PCs ?
- beachy 3y agoAs I remember it, OS/2 failed mainly because IBM were a day late and a dollar short with presentation manager, the gui for OS/2. Customers unfavourably compared the dull character mode appearance of OS/2 to the flashiness of Windows.
- timbit42 3y agoOS/2 v2 and later versions had replaced Presentation Manager with Workplace Shell. It was great. Fully object-oriented. Very powerful.
- Blackstrat 3y agoOS/2 ran circles around Windows NT. It's API was one of the best defined that I had worked with. Certainly better than anything for Windows. I worked for an IBM subsidiary in the early 90s. IBM was just never sufficiently committed to OS/2 IMO. Hence it ultimately went away. But programming on Warp was a great experience. And for a while at least, OS/2 was very well established in the banking industry.
- BlueTemplar 3y agoBut wouldn't the banking industry have been able to afford the (relatively) powerful computers to run it well ?
- Blackstrat 3y agoWe were running the same hardware as the rest of the world - nothing high end. OS/2 always outperformed NT regardless of the hardware. And it didn’t need to be rebooted everyday.