3 ms·

The gist of it: IBM botched the "extend" part of embrace and extend. OS/2 was better but not by enough to migrate and stay. It had no "killer app" that drew the

The gist of it: IBM botched the "extend" part of embrace and extend. OS/2 was better but not by enough to migrate and stay. It had no "killer app" that drew the crowd and developers kept targeting Windows which OS/2 supported. Also IBM f*ed up the OEM deals. OEMs preferred Microsoft which wasn't a direct competitor in the PC business.

cloudsec9 2y ago
By the time OS/2 came out, IBM wasn't a serious competitor for most OEMs -- they were high end, so were mostly competing with the likes of Compaq. The big issue that no one is mentioning is that OS/2 needed 8MB of RAM to run decently, preferably more, but this was when most machines were 2-4MB and extra RAM was still a big cost.
- invalidname 2y ago
  100%. I ran it on 4mb and IMHO it was fine but it did need 8mb to shine.
- lproven 2y ago
  > OS/2 needed 8MB of RAM to run decently, That's OS/2 2. OS/2 1 is the one that flopped, and nobody had 286 computers with 8MB of RAM. Hell, the IBM 286 PS/2 machines shipped with 1MB and they cost $6-7K in '87-'88!
lproven 2y ago
Nope. You're thinking of OS/2 2. OS/2 1.x is what flopped and OS/2 1 didn't run Windows apps because there were no Windows apps worth a damn yet.
- invalidname 2y ago
  I am talking about 2.0 which was the IBM product mentioned in the post. 1.0 was still a joint product with Microsoft prior to the split.
  - mrspuratic 2y ago
    When I was a student, around 1992-93, I did shift work for a few months in an MS production facility in Dublin. When it was slack I got assigned to degaussing floppies - most of them were "Microsoft OS/2 Version 1.0" install media. I never kept any for posterity :/
    - lproven 2y ago
      You can download it here if you're nostalgic. ;-) https://winworldpc.com/product/os-2-1x/10 https://winworldpc.com/product/os-2-1x/10 No, I get your point, and in that position I'd have wished I kept a set, too, but it was not lost to history. FWIW a beta of Microsoft OS/2 2.0 was found earlier this year and I wrote about it. https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/11/trying_ms_prerelease_os2_2/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/11/trying_ms_prerelease_... Yes, Microsoft 32-bit OS/2 two, not a typo.
  - lproven 2y ago
    OK, just checking. My point is, Letwin was wrong: it was not the apps that sank OS/2. The 16-bit version killed its changes, and that did have some big-name native apps. And it didn't need 8MB -- although it would not have objected.
    - lproven 2y ago
      * killed its chances

cloudsec9 2y ago

By the time OS/2 came out, IBM wasn't a serious competitor for most OEMs -- they were high end, so were mostly competing with the likes of Compaq. The big issue that no one is mentioning is that OS/2 needed 8MB of RAM to run decently, preferably more, but this was when most machines were 2-4MB and extra RAM was still a big cost.

invalidname 2y ago
100%. I ran it on 4mb and IMHO it was fine but it did need 8mb to shine.
lproven 2y ago
> OS/2 needed 8MB of RAM to run decently, That's OS/2 2. OS/2 1 is the one that flopped, and nobody had 286 computers with 8MB of RAM. Hell, the IBM 286 PS/2 machines shipped with 1MB and they cost $6-7K in '87-'88!

lproven 2y ago

Nope. You're thinking of OS/2 2. OS/2 1.x is what flopped and OS/2 1 didn't run Windows apps because there were no Windows apps worth a damn yet.

invalidname 2y ago
I am talking about 2.0 which was the IBM product mentioned in the post. 1.0 was still a joint product with Microsoft prior to the split.
- mrspuratic 2y ago
  When I was a student, around 1992-93, I did shift work for a few months in an MS production facility in Dublin. When it was slack I got assigned to degaussing floppies - most of them were "Microsoft OS/2 Version 1.0" install media. I never kept any for posterity :/
  - lproven 2y ago
    You can download it here if you're nostalgic. ;-) https://winworldpc.com/product/os-2-1x/10 https://winworldpc.com/product/os-2-1x/10 No, I get your point, and in that position I'd have wished I kept a set, too, but it was not lost to history. FWIW a beta of Microsoft OS/2 2.0 was found earlier this year and I wrote about it. https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/11/trying_ms_prerelease_os2_2/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/11/trying_ms_prerelease_... Yes, Microsoft 32-bit OS/2 two, not a typo.
- lproven 2y ago
  OK, just checking. My point is, Letwin was wrong: it was not the apps that sank OS/2. The 16-bit version killed its changes, and that did have some big-name native apps. And it didn't need 8MB -- although it would not have objected.
  - lproven 2y ago
    * killed its chances