4 ms·

OS/2 was created by the biggest computer company in the world at the time, yet even it couldn't get enough traction. In the world of OSes, "the same as what ev

by kitd 1y ago

OS/2 was created by the biggest computer company in the world at the time, yet even it couldn't get enough traction. In the world of OSes, "the same as what everyone else is using" is much more important than "new takes on old concepts".

piokoch 1y ago
It came a few years to early. I remember my shock when I get [1] my OS/2 copy and it was on 10 (yes, ten!) 3.5 inch Floppy Disk, while Windows needed two (one for main OS, one for some utilities). [1] This was 1987 still communistic Poland, so I bought a pirated copy on a famous Warsaw computer bazaar on Grzybowska street.
- sixothree 1y ago
  Agreed. Their timing was not right. But once Windows 95 hit, it was over. Also, the RAM requirements made it pretty much impossible for people to recommend to their friends and family. I really had a special fondness for OS/2. But using it today, it really is a quirky thing. Maybe if it had won I wouldn't be thinking that way.
  - lproven 1y ago
    > Their timing was not right. I agree. https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/05/microsoft_os2_flop_future/ https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/05/microsoft_os2_flop_fu... I think OS/2 1.x should have targeted the 386, in the 1980s. > Also, the RAM requirements made it pretty much impossible for people to recommend to their friends and family. I bought OS/2 2.0 with my own cash, and ran it on several different 386SX machines in 4MB of RAM. It was usable on that spec. Any good spec of machine for Windows 3.0 could run OS/2 2.x usefully without being unpleasant.
- lproven 1y ago
  I don't think you are remembering correctly. > It came a few years to early. I remember my shock when I get [1] my OS/2 copy and it was on 10 (yes, ten!) 3.5 inch Floppy Disk Not so bad, really. > while Windows needed two (one for main OS, one for some utilities). No version of Windows came on 1 floppy. Windows 1.01 took 4 360k disks -- here's a picture: https://www.firstversions.com/2015/05/microsoft-windows.html https://www.firstversions.com/2015/05/microsoft-windows.html Windows 2 took 8 360k disks: https://archive.org/details/microsoft-windows-v2.0 https://archive.org/details/microsoft-windows-v2.0 Windows 3 took 8 even on DS DD 720kB disks: https://archive.org/details/windows_3.00_english_with_ms-dos_6.22_eng https://archive.org/details/windows_3.00_english_with_ms-dos... By Windows 95 it was up to 27 high density 1.4MB disks: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/uopb1n/the_27_installation_disks_of_windows_95/ https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/uopb1n/t... 10 is not bad at all for a full preemptive multitasking x86-32 OS with a GUI, IMHO.
pjmlp 1y ago
Of course, when it was more expensive than MS-DOS 5/Windows 3.1 combo hardware requirements, what to expect. In today's money, going with OS/2 instead would have cost me 1000 euros more when I bought my 386 PC.

by kitd 1y ago

piokoch 1y ago

It came a few years to early. I remember my shock when I get [1] my OS/2 copy and it was on 10 (yes, ten!) 3.5 inch Floppy Disk, while Windows needed two (one for main OS, one for some utilities). [1] This was 1987 still communistic Poland, so I bought a pirated copy on a famous Warsaw computer bazaar on Grzybowska street.

sixothree 1y ago
Agreed. Their timing was not right. But once Windows 95 hit, it was over. Also, the RAM requirements made it pretty much impossible for people to recommend to their friends and family. I really had a special fondness for OS/2. But using it today, it really is a quirky thing. Maybe if it had won I wouldn't be thinking that way.
- lproven 1y ago
  > Their timing was not right. I agree. https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/05/microsoft_os2_flop_future/ https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/05/microsoft_os2_flop_fu... I think OS/2 1.x should have targeted the 386, in the 1980s. > Also, the RAM requirements made it pretty much impossible for people to recommend to their friends and family. I bought OS/2 2.0 with my own cash, and ran it on several different 386SX machines in 4MB of RAM. It was usable on that spec. Any good spec of machine for Windows 3.0 could run OS/2 2.x usefully without being unpleasant.
lproven 1y ago
I don't think you are remembering correctly. > It came a few years to early. I remember my shock when I get [1] my OS/2 copy and it was on 10 (yes, ten!) 3.5 inch Floppy Disk Not so bad, really. > while Windows needed two (one for main OS, one for some utilities). No version of Windows came on 1 floppy. Windows 1.01 took 4 360k disks -- here's a picture: https://www.firstversions.com/2015/05/microsoft-windows.html https://www.firstversions.com/2015/05/microsoft-windows.html Windows 2 took 8 360k disks: https://archive.org/details/microsoft-windows-v2.0 https://archive.org/details/microsoft-windows-v2.0 Windows 3 took 8 even on DS DD 720kB disks: https://archive.org/details/windows_3.00_english_with_ms-dos_6.22_eng https://archive.org/details/windows_3.00_english_with_ms-dos... By Windows 95 it was up to 27 high density 1.4MB disks: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/uopb1n/the_27_installation_disks_of_windows_95/ https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/uopb1n/t... 10 is not bad at all for a full preemptive multitasking x86-32 OS with a GUI, IMHO.

pjmlp 1y ago

Of course, when it was more expensive than MS-DOS 5/Windows 3.1 combo hardware requirements, what to expect. In today's money, going with OS/2 instead would have cost me 1000 euros more when I bought my 386 PC.