3 ms·
If we ignore the fact that it required 1000 euros more in additional hardware, thus most folks went with DOS/Windows 3.x instead, and when Windows 95 came aroun
by pjmlp 8mo ago
If we ignore the fact that it required 1000 euros more in additional hardware, thus most folks went with DOS/Windows 3.x instead, and when Windows 95 came around it was already too late for adoption.
- hamburglar 8mo agoTo pick a nit, I highly doubt you bought your OS/2 hardware with euros. :D
- pjmlp 8mo agoIf I used Escudos it would be useless for the folks reading my comment.
- hamburglar 8mo agoIt’s ok. The pedantry was unavoidable.
- mikestorrent 8mo agoNot so, now I know the pre-EU denomination of Portguese currency
- Shebanator 8mo agoExactly: it depends on what you mean by "better". OS/2 had a much more modern basis, but: * it was painful to program compared to Windows * it required a lot more hardware (and thus money) to achieve the same level of performance. * the UI was terrible