Re: Is This Group Active - OS2

This is a discussion on Re: Is This Group Active - OS2 ; On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 00:00:36 UTC, Bob Campbell wrote: -> In article , -> "Mark Dodel" wrote: -> You quoted Eric's text as if it were from me. -> > They did have the option until microsoft strong armed ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Re: Is This Group Active

  1. Re: Is This Group Active

    On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 00:00:36 UTC, Bob Campbell wrote:

    -> In article ,
    -> "Mark Dodel" wrote:
    ->

    You quoted Eric's text as if it were from me.

    -> > They did have the option until microsoft strong armed IBM and forced
    -> > them to kill their own opeating system in favor of the inferior
    -> > windows. When Warp came out, every month PC Magazine had a list of
    -> > the 10 best selling software for the month. OS/2 was always at the
    -> > top, so what happened? PC Magazine dropped the feature. Millions
    -> > every month were paying for OS/2 to replace the crappy windoze on
    -> > their machines.
    ->
    -> comp.sys.mac.advocacy removed since this has nothing to do with Macs!
    ->

    The thread was in part about the freak troll that was being discussed
    now hangs out in the Mac groups. The Mac community should be aware of
    the creep.

    -> The above is completely wrong. If you think MS was in a position to
    -> "strong arm" IBM in 1995 you are simply crazy. IBM had to sell Windows
    -> if they wanted to sell PCs because no one wanted OS/2.

    Fact is they did. It was part of the testimony at the microsoft
    monopoly trial.

    ->
    -> OS/2 was usually IN the PC Mag top 10 list, it was never at the top.
    -> The feature disappeared for a month or 2, but it came back.
    ->

    Interesting this thread from 1997 tends to agree with me, not you -
    http://groups.google.com/group/comp....se_thread/thre
    ad/d5b39407366ed82/005a931775cd13cc?hl=en&lnk=st&q=%2B%22OS%2F2%22+%2B
    %22PC+Magazine%22+%2Btop+%2Blist#005a931775cd13cc

    -> The fact is, IBM ****ed up OS/2 on their own - they didn't need any help
    -> from MS.

    No doubt IBM did screw up but it was microsoft's criminal behavior
    that pushed it over the edge.

    ->
    -> First of all, IBM insisted on making the first version a 286 OS, so it
    -> would run on all the IBM ATs that had been sold. When Windows 3.0 (and
    -> later 3.1) hit the market, using the 386 CPU features, OS/2 1.0 looked
    -> completely ridiculous.
    ->

    Agreed, IBM had its own agenda for OS/2 and had made promises to major
    clients. IBM continues to support OS/2 for a number of large clients
    today because of promisesthey made 15+ years ago.

    -> Second, the name didn't help AT ALL. It was perceived as an IBM
    -> attempt at lock-in (PS/2, OS/2), and along with the PS/2's micro channel
    -> expansions slots was rejected by the market place.
    ->

    Agreed. Many equated OS/2 with only running on IBM hardware. Which
    was completely wrong, but then many hardware manufacturers refused to
    make drivers for OS/2. IBM had to do it. Why develope windoze
    drivers only? Especially back then, when OS/2 had a bigger market
    share then wincrap.

    -> Third, when Windows 95 and NT4 hit the market - with 32 bit apps - it
    -> was all over. IBM was still chasing 16 bit Windows with OS/2 2.1's and
    -> 3.0's ability to run 16 bit Windows apps. No one cared about 16 bit
    -> Windows any longer. In 1996 when Will Zachmann threw in the towel, you
    -> knew OS/2 was dead.

    windoze95 was not 32bit. It was a GUI on top of 16bit DOS. That was
    done to defeat the terms of the first microsoft anti-trust trial
    settlement. Intel then had to cripple the 32bit Pentium Pro line
    because windoze had such poor performance on a real 32bit CPU. I know
    this because I bought a damn dual Pentium Pro system and then Intel
    killed off the Pentium Pro, so the best I could ever upgrade it to was
    a ****amamie 333MHz overdrive.

    NT was a piece of crap until 4.0, and even that never had half the
    features or the multitasking ability of the concurrent OS/2 releases.

    ->
    -> Yes, OS/2 was technically superior - and 2.1 and 3.0 were absolutely
    -> stunning achievements - but that doesn't matter. It's marketing,
    -> marketing, marketing. IBM - for some unknown reason - forgot how to
    -> market. Look at the original IBM PC. Nothing special about it AT
    -> ALL. Off the shelf parts in a plain beige box. But it had an
    -> extremely clever and sophisticated marketing plan behind it. The
    -> Charlie Chaplin ads were ****ing BRILLIANT!

    They put a cracker/cigarette peddler in chargeof the company. He had
    no clue as to the quality of products he had. He decided to make IBM
    a service company, and now other than the mainframe and high end
    servers, IBM has little real product left. IBM used to be the largest
    software developer in the world. Its sad. It also was a major problem
    that other IBM divisions saw OS/2 as a competitor. Both the IBM AIX
    and mid-systems, and the PC company took every opportunity to snub
    OS/2.

    ->
    -> FWIW, I ran OS/2 2.0 and 2.1. They got me thru the dark days of
    -> Windows 3.1. But in August 1995, when Windows 95 was released I
    -> switched and never looked back. I still have an eCS 1.0 (OS/2 4.5)
    -> install running under VPC in Vista that I fire up occasionally when I'm
    -> feeling nostalgic. But OS/2 is a classic example of missed
    -> opportunities and hubris.

    I have worked with OS/2 since 1.3. And that was a real piece of crap,
    but mostly because the hardware wasn't up to the real requirements.
    2.0 was when it began to shine, with 2.1 being almost a piece of art.
    I've run every version since then, including eComStation 2.0 RC3 today
    on my Thinkpad.

    Mark


    --
    From the eComStation of Mark Dodel

    Warpstock 2007 - Toronto, Ontario, Canada: http://www.warpstock.org
    Warpstock Europe - Valkenswaard close to Eindhoven, the Netherlands:
    http://www.warpstock.eu

  2. Re: Is This Group Active

    In article ,
    "Mark Dodel" wrote:

    > -> Third, when Windows 95 and NT4 hit the market - with 32 bit apps - it
    > -> was all over. IBM was still chasing 16 bit Windows with OS/2 2.1's and
    > -> 3.0's ability to run 16 bit Windows apps. No one cared about 16 bit
    > -> Windows any longer. In 1996 when Will Zachmann threw in the towel, you
    > -> knew OS/2 was dead.
    >
    > windoze95 was not 32bit.


    Windows95 absolutely WAS 32 bit. It ran the very same 32 bit apps that
    NT4 ran.

    Yes, Win95 ran "on top of DOS", sort of. Once you were running 32 bit
    apps, DOS was no longer involved, however. It only "ran on top of
    DOS" so you could continue to run your 16 bit Win and DOS apps and
    drivers. You didn't need any of that to run 32 bit apps.

    OS/2 had none of that. OS/2 1 had terrible backwards compatibility.
    Most DOS apps would not run. The "DOS penalty BOX" was called that for
    a reason!

    OS/2 2.x had MUCH better 16 bit DOS and Win support, and in fact OS/2
    2.1 was THE BEST environment ever to run 16 bit Windows 3.1 and DOS
    apps. Hell, you could even boot DOS games in OS/2 2.1 from floppy
    disks using the excellent DOS VM! Those would never run in Windows.

    The 32 bit Windows apps were a major cause of the downfall of OS/2.
    The new 32 bit Windows apps that came in 95, 96 and 97 (and since) would
    not run on OS/2. That and IBM's incredible ineptitude at marketing
    OS/2 killed it.

    Bob Campbell

  3. Re: Is This Group Active

    On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 05:15:12 UTC, Bob Campbell wrote:

    -> In article ,
    -> "Mark Dodel" wrote:
    ->
    -> > -> Third, when Windows 95 and NT4 hit the market - with 32 bit apps - it
    -> > -> was all over. IBM was still chasing 16 bit Windows with OS/2 2.1's and
    -> > -> 3.0's ability to run 16 bit Windows apps. No one cared about 16 bit
    -> > -> Windows any longer. In 1996 when Will Zachmann threw in the towel, you
    -> > -> knew OS/2 was dead.
    -> >
    -> > windoze95 was not 32bit.
    ->
    -> Windows95 absolutely WAS 32 bit. It ran the very same 32 bit apps that
    -> NT4 ran.

    This could go on forever "was so", "was not". The fact is Intel ended
    the true 32bit Pentium Pro line and replaced it with a crippled
    Pentium II just because win95 ran poorly on a 32bit CPU.

    ->
    -> Yes, Win95 ran "on top of DOS", sort of. Once you were running 32 bit
    -> apps, DOS was no longer involved, however. It only "ran on top of
    -> DOS" so you could continue to run your 16 bit Win and DOS apps and
    -> drivers. You didn't need any of that to run 32 bit apps.
    ->
    -> OS/2 had none of that. OS/2 1 had terrible backwards compatibility.
    -> Most DOS apps would not run. The "DOS penalty BOX" was called that for
    -> a reason!

    Yeah and the printer drivers microsoft wrote didn't work, and it only
    used FAT which fragmented badly. At least IBM recognized the problems
    and fixed them in later versions. As to the "penalty box" that was
    because of the requirement to run on a 286 which couldn't virtualizea
    DOS session. That was imposed on IBM by contracts with large clients.
    So stupidity goes beyond IBM.

    ->
    -> OS/2 2.x had MUCH better 16 bit DOS and Win support, and in fact OS/2
    -> 2.1 was THE BEST environment ever to run 16 bit Windows 3.1 and DOS
    -> apps. Hell, you could even boot DOS games in OS/2 2.1 from floppy
    -> disks using the excellent DOS VM! Those would never run in Windows.
    ->

    And it could pre-emptive multitask, something the 16 bit based windows
    couldn't do. And it was much better at it thenthe NT variant as well.

    -> The 32 bit Windows apps were a major cause of the downfall of OS/2.
    -> The new 32 bit Windows apps that came in 95, 96 and 97 (and since) would
    -> not run on OS/2. That and IBM's incredible ineptitude at marketing
    -> OS/2 killed it.
    ->

    Actually IBM did write a win32 subsystem for OS/2. In fact there were
    two ways to run win32 apps on OS/2. OS/2 could use the microsoft
    win32s API which was for 16bit win-OS/2 to run 32bit windoze apps.
    And there was OPEN32 (originally named DAPIE or DAX) which allowed
    running PE executables natively under OS/2. This was later open
    sourced as the Odin project, started by Innotek, and now run by
    Netlabs http://odin.netlabs.org OPEN32 was used to port the win32
    source of Lotus Smartsuite to OS/2. Odin was used to port Opera and
    OpenOffice.org 1.1.x to OS/2. IBM had given up on OPEN32 when they
    realized that microsoft kept changing the win32 API. Now microsoft
    defeats things like Odin and Linux's WINE by requiring things like IE
    calls from windoze programs. microsoft also adds a requirement that
    programs developed with their tools can't be run on anything but
    windoze. That was why Macromedia wouldn't allow an updated Flash to
    be run on OS/2 using Odin.

    I agree that IBM's complete lack of marketing OS/2 didn't help, but
    why didn't they market their own product? They actually had an OS/2
    director of marketing up until recently. I have no idea how he
    justified his paycheck. But it was microsoft's predatory activities
    that made/make it impossible to compete.


    Mark

    --
    From the eComStation of Mark Dodel

    Warpstock 2007 - Toronto, Ontario, Canada: http://www.warpstock.org
    Warpstock Europe - Valkenswaard close to Eindhoven, the Netherlands:
    http://www.warpstock.eu

+ Reply to Thread