3 ms·

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