2 ms·
Can you be a bit more explicit in describing what the problems were? I don't immediately see why that wouldn't apply way more to Windows at the time. I did not
by Tor3 2y ago
Can you be a bit more explicit in describing what the problems were? I don't immediately see why that wouldn't apply way more to Windows at the time.
I did not use OS/2 much, but.. I did write some communication software so that we could work on a remote computer (this was via X.25, which was the option at the time for companies staying connected), and that was easy. Modern, I would say. Thread model easy to work with. I wrote a DMA driver as well. Again, a great API to work with, and overall a good experience.
The user interface (GUI)? Any problems? A roadblock for the future? Can't really remember how it worked, but again - compared with Windows (even NT, which came about later), I can't recall anything "worthless garbage" with no path forward.
- nradov 2y agoThe most fundamental problem with OS/2 is that it wasn't designed as a multi-user OS from the start. It had some multi-user functionality but there were core architectural problems that made it impossible to move forward without a complete rewrite. On the UI side it also had a single input queue. Which was such a stupid design decision that I can't imagine what they were thinking. Fixing that would have also required a major rewrite.
- pavlov 2y agoIt sounds like the grandparent poster is maybe talking about OS/2 1.x, which was definitely hamstrung by 286 compatibility. But OS/2 2.0 was practically a 32-bit rewrite of the entire system with a new GUI too. It certainly was competitive with the first versions of Windows NT.