It is currently Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:47 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: How good was IBM OS/2 in 90s
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:01 am
Posts: 1087
I knew of IBM OS/2 from the 90s but I never saw it in action nor worked with it. I see it on YT.

How good was IBM OS/2 compared to windows 3.1, 95 and NT 4.0?

Was the hardware requirements too steep back in the day?

I am well aware that M$ had a role in preventing OS/2 success.

How does OS/2 compare with Mac OS 7?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How good was IBM OS/2 in 90s
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:49 pm
Posts: 1255
Location: UK
OS/2 shares most in common with Windows NT. Remember of course that it wasn't until Windows 2000 that Windows NT was really ready for the everyday user. Before then it's hardware requirements were also too steep and lack of DOS compatibility was also a major problem. In some ways OS/2 was too early but they had to launch early to try and see off Windows NT. If things had worked out a little differently I'm sure many people would be using a descendant of OS/2 now.

_________________
Silverstone SG03B: E8200, Asus P5E-VM HDMI, 2Gb RAM, Leadtek 9600GT+S1 rev. 2, Samsung 500Gb, Seasonic X-400, 2x Akasa 120mm, Scythe Zipang 2 fanless


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How good was IBM OS/2 in 90s
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 3:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 11:23 am
Posts: 688
Location: Germany
OS/2 had a lot of improvements and advantages to bring to the table, even when compared to NT 3.5.1 or NT4. But it had one fatal disadvantage: It wasn't adopted into business client pc world, because it didn't fit within the Soft- and Hardwarearchitectures back then.

You couldn't just take the advantages of OS/2 and integrate it into your NDS oder NT environment and profit.

If you compare OS/2 on it's own to WfW 3.11, W95 or NT4, it's the better system, flat out. But commercial success didn't happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How good was IBM OS/2 in 90s
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:01 am
Posts: 1087
edh wrote:
OS/2 shares most in common with Windows NT. Remember of course that it wasn't until Windows 2000 that Windows NT was really ready for the everyday user. Before then it's hardware requirements were also too steep and lack of DOS compatibility was also a major problem. In some ways OS/2 was too early but they had to launch early to try and see off Windows NT. If things had worked out a little differently I'm sure many people would be using a descendant of OS/2 now.



Pappnaas wrote:
OS/2 had a lot of improvements and advantages to bring to the table, even when compared to NT 3.5.1 or NT4. But it had one fatal disadvantage: It wasn't adopted into business client pc world, because it didn't fit within the Soft- and Hardwarearchitectures back then.

You couldn't just take the advantages of OS/2 and integrate it into your NDS oder NT environment and profit.

If you compare OS/2 on it's own to WfW 3.11, W95 or NT4, it's the better system, flat out. But commercial success didn't happen.



reminds me of an 80's pop star Tiffany's could've been, along with Amiga, Apple IIgs, Atari ST, Tandy 1000 and IBM PS/2.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How good was IBM OS/2 in 90s
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 3:38 am
Posts: 43
Location: Free Union, VA, USA
We ran Gupta's SQLBase (client/server SQL server) and 3Com's LAN Manager on OS/2 in the early days, and I mean early days. We developed one of the very first true Windows-based client/server apps using Gupta's SQLWindows as the client-side front-end on Windows 2.0 and Windows386....ah the good old days. When SQLBase came for Netware, it was screaming fast compared to OS/2, but not as stable. We moved to ORacle shortly thereafter.

OS/2 as the database platform was amazingly solid for what we were doing then (OLTP), I wish I could say the same for real-mode DOS network drivers in Windows. HIMEM.SYS was your best friend. Thx for the memory-jog of the past (no pun intended), been a while since I've thought back to any of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How good was IBM OS/2 in 90s
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:01 am
Posts: 1087
noee wrote:
We ran Gupta's SQLBase (client/server SQL server) and 3Com's LAN Manager on OS/2 in the early days, and I mean early days. We developed one of the very first true Windows-based client/server apps using Gupta's SQLWindows as the client-side front-end on Windows 2.0 and Windows386....ah the good old days. When SQLBase came for Netware, it was screaming fast compared to OS/2, but not as stable. We moved to ORacle shortly thereafter.

OS/2 as the database platform was amazingly solid for what we were doing then (OLTP), I wish I could say the same for real-mode DOS network drivers in Windows. HIMEM.SYS was your best friend. Thx for the memory-jog of the past (no pun intended), been a while since I've thought back to any of that.


is it true the UI of os/2 is the least user-friendly?

btw do u remember GEM, deskmate, pc tools?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How good was IBM OS/2 in 90s
PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 3:38 am
Posts: 43
Location: Free Union, VA, USA
dan wrote:

is it true the UI of os/2 is the least user-friendly?

I guess that would depend somewhat on your point of reference. I found it suitable for the times, given what we were doing with it. When NT4 came out (the Win95 GUI on top of NT), I remember thinking OS/2 and NT4 "felt" very similar, fwiw.
Quote:
btw do u remember GEM, deskmate, pc tools?


GEM - maybe, was that a front-end tool? Was deskmate a PC-based database? That sounds familiar. I remember doing research on where the tech was going back in the late 80's and almost nobody was doing true client/server, SQL backend. Not even Oracle, at the time. Certainly not Sybase. Everyone was moving that direction, but no one actually had it except, strangely enough, Gupta.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How good was IBM OS/2 in 90s
PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 11:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 1:51 pm
Posts: 686
Location: Gefle, Sweden
I only used OS/2 in its short prime that was version 3(Warp), but I used it a lot because it was great. It came out before Windows 95 and with a little extra RAM in the machine it ran almost all Windows 3.1 applications as well or better than Windows itself. I even ran some CD based DOS games better than under pure DOS. While technically superior to Windows 95 and at least to me as easy to use, the explosion of applications developed specifically for Windows 95 made it almost necessary to switch as a regular user. After that it was pretty much done as a home OS. I never even tried version 4.

One user inteface aspect that OS/2 heralded as feature of core importance was drag-and-drop, that might seem like nothing special today but I actually see less and less drag-and-drop interoperability in between software today than I saw in the OS/2 days. Developers don't care because Microsoft doesn't encourage them to do anything in that field anymore. In fact with Windows 8 they're practically killing drag-and-drop as a concept.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How good was IBM OS/2 in 90s
PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:01 am
Posts: 1087
noee wrote:
dan wrote:

is it true the UI of os/2 is the least user-friendly?

I guess that would depend somewhat on your point of reference. I found it suitable for the times, given what we were doing with it. When NT4 came out (the Win95 GUI on top of NT), I remember thinking OS/2 and NT4 "felt" very similar, fwiw.
Quote:
btw do u remember GEM, deskmate, pc tools?


GEM - maybe, was that a front-end tool? Was deskmate a PC-based database? That sounds familiar. I remember doing research on where the tech was going back in the late 80's and almost nobody was doing true client/server, SQL backend. Not even Oracle, at the time. Certainly not Sybase. Everyone was moving that direction, but no one actually had it except, strangely enough, Gupta.


i am thinking of end-user. gem desktop was an alternative to DOS as was deskmate.

thing is, they both used 640k dos limit and they each used like 100-200k for the gui leaving like 300k for the program.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How good was IBM OS/2 in 90s
PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:01 am
Posts: 1087
mkk wrote:
I only used OS/2 in its short prime that was version 3(Warp), but I used it a lot because it was great. It came out before Windows 95 and with a little extra RAM in the machine it ran almost all Windows 3.1 applications as well or better than Windows itself. I even ran some CD based DOS games better than under pure DOS. While technically superior to Windows 95 and at least to me as easy to use, the explosion of applications developed specifically for Windows 95 made it almost necessary to switch as a regular user. After that it was pretty much done as a home OS. I never even tried version 4.

One user inteface aspect that OS/2 heralded as feature of core importance was drag-and-drop, that might seem like nothing special today but I actually see less and less drag-and-drop interoperability in between software today than I saw in the OS/2 days. Developers don't care because Microsoft doesn't encourage them to do anything in that field anymore. In fact with Windows 8 they're practically killing drag-and-drop as a concept.


it seemed to me though that the best os experience was os/2 prior to 95 if u could afford the ram


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How good was IBM OS/2 in 90s
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 2:40 pm 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:52 am
Posts: 114
dan wrote:
pc tools?


Whoa.... Throwback... I remember using it a lot, but don't remember why.... that predated OS/2, Win 95 though.

edh wrote:
OS/2 shares most in common with Windows NT. Remember of course that it wasn't until Windows 2000 that Windows NT was really ready for the everyday user.


That was OS/2's biggest problem. Hardware compatibility. IBM made OS/2 to sell its own hardware. Microsoft made win 95 to sell win 95. It was hard to get non-IBM hardware to play nice with OS/2. Heck, a lot of hardware did not work on the NT kernel until Win XP.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How good was IBM OS/2 in 90s
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 1:51 pm
Posts: 686
Location: Gefle, Sweden
Blood wrote:
It was hard to get non-IBM hardware to play nice with OS/2. Heck, a lot of hardware did not work on the NT kernel until Win XP.

Yeah, I had a painful realisation that I had to move from Windows 2000 to Windows Millennium back in the day. Win2000 was so nice not having used any previous versions of NT at home, but it was just a bit too early. I've been in love with the mouse pointer shadow ever since. ;-D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How good was IBM OS/2 in 90s
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:01 am
Posts: 1087
Blood wrote:
dan wrote:
pc tools?


Whoa.... Throwback... I remember using it a lot, but don't remember why.... that predated OS/2, Win 95 though.

edh wrote:
OS/2 shares most in common with Windows NT. Remember of course that it wasn't until Windows 2000 that Windows NT was really ready for the everyday user.


That was OS/2's biggest problem. Hardware compatibility. IBM made OS/2 to sell its own hardware. Microsoft made win 95 to sell win 95. It was hard to get non-IBM hardware to play nice with OS/2. Heck, a lot of hardware did not work on the NT kernel until Win XP.

mkk wrote:
Blood wrote:
It was hard to get non-IBM hardware to play nice with OS/2. Heck, a lot of hardware did not work on the NT kernel until Win XP.

Yeah, I had a painful realisation that I had to move from Windows 2000 to Windows Millennium back in the day. Win2000 was so nice not having used any previous versions of NT at home, but it was just a bit too early. I've been in love with the mouse pointer shadow ever since. ;-D


i'm not entirely sure os/2 will work w/ ps/2 since ps/2 includes 8086 and 286, and memory expansion limitations as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How good was IBM OS/2 in 90s
PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:46 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:04 am
Posts: 601
Location: UK
El Reg ran an excellent set of articles on OS/2 round about this time last year.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/23/why_os2_failed_part_one/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/26/os2_final_fail/ (part two)

Also

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/27/the_os_wars_os2_25years_old/

_________________
You can't get a sun-tan on the moon, but I wouldn't mind a holiday there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How good was IBM OS/2 in 90s
PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:01 am
Posts: 1087
blackworx wrote:


back in the day in the 80s i used dos win 3.0 and mac os on a mac se

all were very crash prone. i heard of os/2 and how it was crash proof but my pc and others didn't have the mem to run it and it was a time when vga monitors were like $800 and memory was like $800 per mb


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group