4 ms·

I’m not sure how targetting a processor which was very expensive and available in low quantity from a single source at the time would have made OS/2 1.0 a succe

by tssva 2y ago

I’m not sure how targetting a processor which was very expensive and available in low quantity from a single source at the time would have made OS/2 1.0 a success. 386 systems didnt start landing on regular users desk until a couple of years later when prices fell and the chips became available in quantity including being available from non-Intel foundries. Even Compaq who introduced the 1st 386 systems sold many more 286 based systems for years after introducing the Deskpro 386. Tieing OS/2 1.0 to the 386 at the time would have just condemned it to failure in a different manner. That doesn’t even take into account that OS/2 was supposed to be the OS for the new PS/2 systems introduced at the same time which consisted mainly of 286 based systems.

lproven 2y ago
Here's how I put it in 2010: What if OS/2 v1 had been a 386 product? I think it might have done quite well. OTOH, and I loved OS/2 - I have spent more cash on OS/2 than all other PC software put together in my entire computing life; possibly more than on anything except Spectrum games, and maybe more even than that! - but even as a fan, it was a pig to install, a pig to network, a pig to install drivers, etc. etc. When I tried the Windows 4 beta, I was dazzled. THIS is how it should be. It Just Worked, and setup & tweaking was a dream. Explorer, so elegant! Device Manager - I nearly wept for joy. No 2000-line CONFIG.SYS file! No separate windows for the directory tree and the directory contents! WPS, elegant & sophisticated? My arse it was. Half-assed Mac ripoff. And for all OS/2's alleged reliability, Fractint could kill it easily, the whole machine. Win95 was no better, and as the 32-bit apps & shonky drivers piled up, considerably worse. Then came the horrors of Win98. And SE. And ME. But at first, even the beta of Windows 4 was about as good. And DOS drivers worked at a push. And DOS games and things. The long-filenames-on-FAT hack was a hack, but it worked. Make a long filename on HPFS, look for it from a DOS window or WinOS2 - gone! Invisible! You can't have it, mate, tough. Then they hacked that to give us FAT32, and lo, it worked and was just like the old days. Incremental steps, no big bangs. But when the state of the art was the horrors of Windows 3.x on DOS - even DR-DOS, optimised until it bled with QEMM - or the driver-less and app-less incompatible nightmare of NT 3.1 or 3.5 (if you could afford a £2500 PC to run it well) - OS/2 really actually was "a better DOS than DOS, a better Windows than Windows". But I still wonder... If OS/2 1 had been a 386 OS, and had swept away Quarterdeck QEMM and DesqVIEW, killed the infant BSD4.4-Lite on 386, ensured that Windows 3.0 had been aborted... If it had used V86 mode to flawlessly multitask DOS apps, boot DOS and its drivers off a floppy for those troublesome programs for near-perfect compatibility... Well... Program Manager and File Manager, which in the 1990s everyone thought were Windows 3.0 innovations but actually came from OS/2 1... They weren't so bad. I kinda liked them, actually. Had them tuned for a very efficient, convenient GUI. Loads of custom hotkeys for launching and switching apps, which always damned well worked, unlike on Explorer when if Windows was narked it would just ignore you, or launch 876 extra copies of your app then fall to its knees and die. It coulda been a contender. In 1987, we knew no better. We might have gone for it. But knowing what I do now about OS/2 2 compared to Windows 95... I am not sure that we were not a whole lot better off with what we got than what might have been. I remember impotently screaming abuse at a Warp Connect box, just trying to get it on my LAN and on the Internet via dial-up at the same time. Either Win95 or NT 3 were vastly better than that. OS/2 was, in a horrible way, more DOSsy than DOS. Everything was hand-configured in a vast ASCII config files, which you had to hand-massage into perfection with excruciating care. Then, if you were particularly masochistic, optimise for performance. I never did get Warp 3 to drive the graphics cards and the sound cards of my two 486 laptops at the same time. One or the other, but not both. And one of them was a bloody IBM! I would in an odd way have liked to see OS/2 thrive, but you know... Despite my irrational nostalgia for it, on the whole, when Windows 95 gave us plug-and-pray, I mean, plug-and-play, and power management and suspend/resume and so on, and then NT4 gave us a vaguely modern GUI... Then Windows 2000 brought it all together into a single whole, which if not exactly seamless by any means, did slap enough makeup on Frankenstein's Monster to make it look presentable... Sorry to say it, but I think we were better off. I know, heresy, praise for Microsoft from one of the "Linux Taleban". Shocking. Of course, after that it all went a bit wrong. I know everyone loves XP in hindsight, but with all the bloat, I wasn't and am not so sure. Themes? Really? Do I need that? I know, I can oh-so-intuitively switch to Windows Classic in Display Preferences, then run SERVICES.MSC and stop the THEMES service and disable it... But I can't uninstall Movie Maker or IE or any of the other cruft, no way José. I can't move the hibernation file to another drive or partition. Then came Vista and we learned to love XP. Then came 7, and everyone loves Windows again, except for those of us who found it handy to run a command-line app full-screen occasionally. I think I'll stick to Linux, thanks. https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/22311.html https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/22311.html
- tssva 2y ago
  "It coulda been a contender. In 1987, we knew no better. We might have gone for it." Again how could it have been a contender in 1987 targeting 386 systems which for the most part didn't exist and didn't exist in quantity at a reasonable price for a few more years after?
  - lproven 2y ago
    The way the industry developed is this: First, in the early to mid 1980s, cheap PCs were all 8088/8086 machines (we called the XT class hardware). That was the baseline even when you could buy faster because it was so expensive. Then, from the mid-1980s, 80286 PCs came along (called AT-class kit). DOS couldn't really do anything much more on a 286 than it could on an 8086, so 286s were just used as faster XT-class boxes. There were 3 OSes that could use the 286: Digital Research's Concurrent DOS, SCO Xenix, and IBM/MS OS/2 1.x. Xenix was a hit. The others not so much. Then came the 386DX. Via UMBs and improved DOS memory management, 386s could do way more in plain old DOS. There were memory managers like QEMM386 and 386Max. (Now FOSS: https://github.com/sudleyplace/386MAX https://github.com/sudleyplace/386MAX ) For power users they could multitask. There was a brief flowering of multitasking DOS extensions and replacements: Concurrent DOS 386, DESQview, DESQview/X, PC-MOS 386, TSX-32, and others. Most aimed at multiuser stuff because 386DX kit was expensive. (PC-MOS is FOSS now. https://github.com/roelandjansen/pcmos386v501 https://github.com/roelandjansen/pcmos386v501 ) This drove the market towards the 386. It could do more, even just for DOS and DOS users. I made a good living optimising the memory management of DOS PCs. Once it was established, the much cheaper 386SX came along and made 386 PCs cheap. The tech and the software and the skills were already there. But OS/2 1.x couldn't do any of it. It could barely run DOS at all. If you were a DOS user OS/2 gave you nothing worth having. NT was a hit by aiming at the PCs of the near future. That's what OS/2 should have been targeted at as well. Then gradually, incrementally, Windows 3 took over because it worked on XTs and ATs but on 386s it gave you DOS multitasking and copy-and-paste between DOS apps. It gave you the good stuff you got from DESQview. AND you got new apps. OS/2 1.x was gradual developing. It got a GUI after 1 version. It got a decent GUI next. Then it got smaller and faster. NT was incremental too. 3.1 worked but was huge. 3.5 got VFAT and was smaller and faster with better networking. 3.51 got smaller and faster and stabler and started ditching the OS/2 legacy stuff. The point being, OS/2 1.0 should have gone up against DESQview and Concurrent DOS as a DOS multitasker for rich power users, then OS/2 1.1 against Windows 2, then OS/2 1.3 would have taken the place of Windows 3.

by tssva 2y ago

lproven 2y ago

Here's how I put it in 2010: What if OS/2 v1 had been a 386 product? I think it might have done quite well. OTOH, and I loved OS/2 - I have spent more cash on OS/2 than all other PC software put together in my entire computing life; possibly more than on anything except Spectrum games, and maybe more even than that! - but even as a fan, it was a pig to install, a pig to network, a pig to install drivers, etc. etc. When I tried the Windows 4 beta, I was dazzled. THIS is how it should be. It Just Worked, and setup & tweaking was a dream. Explorer, so elegant! Device Manager - I nearly wept for joy. No 2000-line CONFIG.SYS file! No separate windows for the directory tree and the directory contents! WPS, elegant & sophisticated? My arse it was. Half-assed Mac ripoff. And for all OS/2's alleged reliability, Fractint could kill it easily, the whole machine. Win95 was no better, and as the 32-bit apps & shonky drivers piled up, considerably worse. Then came the horrors of Win98. And SE. And ME. But at first, even the beta of Windows 4 was about as good. And DOS drivers worked at a push. And DOS games and things. The long-filenames-on-FAT hack was a hack, but it worked. Make a long filename on HPFS, look for it from a DOS window or WinOS2 - gone! Invisible! You can't have it, mate, tough. Then they hacked that to give us FAT32, and lo, it worked and was just like the old days. Incremental steps, no big bangs. But when the state of the art was the horrors of Windows 3.x on DOS - even DR-DOS, optimised until it bled with QEMM - or the driver-less and app-less incompatible nightmare of NT 3.1 or 3.5 (if you could afford a £2500 PC to run it well) - OS/2 really actually was "a better DOS than DOS, a better Windows than Windows". But I still wonder... If OS/2 1 had been a 386 OS, and had swept away Quarterdeck QEMM and DesqVIEW, killed the infant BSD4.4-Lite on 386, ensured that Windows 3.0 had been aborted... If it had used V86 mode to flawlessly multitask DOS apps, boot DOS and its drivers off a floppy for those troublesome programs for near-perfect compatibility... Well... Program Manager and File Manager, which in the 1990s everyone thought were Windows 3.0 innovations but actually came from OS/2 1... They weren't so bad. I kinda liked them, actually. Had them tuned for a very efficient, convenient GUI. Loads of custom hotkeys for launching and switching apps, which always damned well worked, unlike on Explorer when if Windows was narked it would just ignore you, or launch 876 extra copies of your app then fall to its knees and die. It coulda been a contender. In 1987, we knew no better. We might have gone for it. But knowing what I do now about OS/2 2 compared to Windows 95... I am not sure that we were not a whole lot better off with what we got than what might have been. I remember impotently screaming abuse at a Warp Connect box, just trying to get it on my LAN and on the Internet via dial-up at the same time. Either Win95 or NT 3 were vastly better than that. OS/2 was, in a horrible way, more DOSsy than DOS. Everything was hand-configured in a vast ASCII config files, which you had to hand-massage into perfection with excruciating care. Then, if you were particularly masochistic, optimise for performance. I never did get Warp 3 to drive the graphics cards and the sound cards of my two 486 laptops at the same time. One or the other, but not both. And one of them was a bloody IBM! I would in an odd way have liked to see OS/2 thrive, but you know... Despite my irrational nostalgia for it, on the whole, when Windows 95 gave us plug-and-pray, I mean, plug-and-play, and power management and suspend/resume and so on, and then NT4 gave us a vaguely modern GUI... Then Windows 2000 brought it all together into a single whole, which if not exactly seamless by any means, did slap enough makeup on Frankenstein's Monster to make it look presentable... Sorry to say it, but I think we were better off. I know, heresy, praise for Microsoft from one of the "Linux Taleban". Shocking. Of course, after that it all went a bit wrong. I know everyone loves XP in hindsight, but with all the bloat, I wasn't and am not so sure. Themes? Really? Do I need that? I know, I can oh-so-intuitively switch to Windows Classic in Display Preferences, then run SERVICES.MSC and stop the THEMES service and disable it... But I can't uninstall Movie Maker or IE or any of the other cruft, no way José. I can't move the hibernation file to another drive or partition. Then came Vista and we learned to love XP. Then came 7, and everyone loves Windows again, except for those of us who found it handy to run a command-line app full-screen occasionally. I think I'll stick to Linux, thanks. https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/22311.html https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/22311.html

tssva 2y ago
"It coulda been a contender. In 1987, we knew no better. We might have gone for it." Again how could it have been a contender in 1987 targeting 386 systems which for the most part didn't exist and didn't exist in quantity at a reasonable price for a few more years after?
- lproven 2y ago
  The way the industry developed is this: First, in the early to mid 1980s, cheap PCs were all 8088/8086 machines (we called the XT class hardware). That was the baseline even when you could buy faster because it was so expensive. Then, from the mid-1980s, 80286 PCs came along (called AT-class kit). DOS couldn't really do anything much more on a 286 than it could on an 8086, so 286s were just used as faster XT-class boxes. There were 3 OSes that could use the 286: Digital Research's Concurrent DOS, SCO Xenix, and IBM/MS OS/2 1.x. Xenix was a hit. The others not so much. Then came the 386DX. Via UMBs and improved DOS memory management, 386s could do way more in plain old DOS. There were memory managers like QEMM386 and 386Max. (Now FOSS: https://github.com/sudleyplace/386MAX https://github.com/sudleyplace/386MAX ) For power users they could multitask. There was a brief flowering of multitasking DOS extensions and replacements: Concurrent DOS 386, DESQview, DESQview/X, PC-MOS 386, TSX-32, and others. Most aimed at multiuser stuff because 386DX kit was expensive. (PC-MOS is FOSS now. https://github.com/roelandjansen/pcmos386v501 https://github.com/roelandjansen/pcmos386v501 ) This drove the market towards the 386. It could do more, even just for DOS and DOS users. I made a good living optimising the memory management of DOS PCs. Once it was established, the much cheaper 386SX came along and made 386 PCs cheap. The tech and the software and the skills were already there. But OS/2 1.x couldn't do any of it. It could barely run DOS at all. If you were a DOS user OS/2 gave you nothing worth having. NT was a hit by aiming at the PCs of the near future. That's what OS/2 should have been targeted at as well. Then gradually, incrementally, Windows 3 took over because it worked on XTs and ATs but on 386s it gave you DOS multitasking and copy-and-paste between DOS apps. It gave you the good stuff you got from DESQview. AND you got new apps. OS/2 1.x was gradual developing. It got a GUI after 1 version. It got a decent GUI next. Then it got smaller and faster. NT was incremental too. 3.1 worked but was huge. 3.5 got VFAT and was smaller and faster with better networking. 3.51 got smaller and faster and stabler and started ditching the OS/2 legacy stuff. The point being, OS/2 1.0 should have gone up against DESQview and Concurrent DOS as a DOS multitasker for rich power users, then OS/2 1.1 against Windows 2, then OS/2 1.3 would have taken the place of Windows 3.