I seem to recall UPS widely deploying OS/2 internally back in the 90s, with custom (internal) apps written for it.
Probably all Windows by now...
Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
21–30 of 191 posts
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#22Incredible that companies like Apple (Mac), Atari (ST) and Commodore (Amiga) weren't able to fully capitalise on their leading position in GUI based OSes of the time, which were miles ahead of both MS and IBM.
One reason: stigma.
All I recall from childhood/teen years is "IBM compatible PC" a mantra on every TV commercial IBM or others produced.
A PC was for business and you were rich or a fool to spend thousands on something so useless to a regular Joe.
Apple was even more expensive and even less common than a PC and even so Apple was quirky and drew pictures, ATARI and Commodore were for games.
They were in totally different worlds. Back then I wouldn't have even thought to have one computer that did everything.
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#23A previous HN thread on OS/2.
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#24If anyone wants an insider's view, here's a Usenet post from one of the early Microsoft employees, Gordon Letwin: http://gunkies.org/wiki/Gordon_Letwin_OS/2_usenet_post Somewhere in the Usenet archive is Gordon trolling the OS/2 users for weeks (or months?) on end. I can't remember the exact details, but he had a bet with several people that Windows would have multitasking, or that OS/2 wouldn't have some sort of mul…
As I mentioned in a comment on a os2museum blog post, keep in mind Letwin left in 1993, before MS did many of the unethical attacks against OS/2 that is not mentioned in this article.
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#25OS/2 had many flaws but its multitasking was unseen on a PC at the time. I remember formatting a floppy while running two 16-bit Windows sessions (which were communicating with each other) and multiple DOS windows, thinking I was in the future. Even Windows 95 was limited by many system calls being funneled through single threaded BIOS or DOS 16-bit land.
I remember installing it from the 15 billion floppies it came on and thinking much the same thing.
It seems like it was on 5-1/4" disks. Can that be right?
And REXX! Ha. REXX.
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#26Great read. In the end, it seems like a classic failure to resolve the innovator's dilemma. IBM decided that the future of computing would revolve around mainframes because they liked mainframes , not because that's where the facts led them. And ultimately they paid the price for it.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who'd grown up on mainframes. The systems you're used to are fabulously expensive, sure, but their operating systems have sophisticated architectures that allow them to easily juggle multiple users running multiple programs while maintaining the security of the system overall. They are the completest expression ever realized of forty…
The market doesn't give out points for foresight.
Indeed; in fact I'd argue the market (and society in general) flat out punishes foresight, especially when it's right. What's that old Heinlein quote about Cassandra? And I think this is why so many nerds/engineers are "unsuccessful", at least by market definitions, or why they end up bitter: they'd rather be right than rich. Just look at the deriding RMS gets, and yet "Right to Read" has more or less come to pass.
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#27A previous HN thread on OS/2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3785819
Also see these threads with my comments:
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#28Great read. In the end, it seems like a classic failure to resolve the innovator's dilemma. IBM decided that the future of computing would revolve around mainframes because they liked mainframes , not because that's where the facts led them. And ultimately they paid the price for it.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who'd grown up on mainframes. The systems you're used to are fabulously expensive, sure, but their operating systems have sophisticated architectures that allow them to easily juggle multiple users running multiple programs while maintaining the security of the system overall. They are the completest expression ever realized of forty…
This is the cycle of our industry.
A beautiful thing is created. It is very expensive. It is sold to very few customers at very high margins. The very high margins subsidise the further perfection of the beautiful thing.
An ugly thing is created. It is very cheap. It is sold to very many customers at very low margins. The very large revenues subsidise the further papering-over of the flaws of the ugly thing.
Eventually, the ugly thing utterly supplants the beautiful thing. A few wistful old high priests mutter about the beautiful thing. Meanwhile, billions of dollars and millions of hours are wasted working around the flaws of the ugly thing and reinventing, poorly, the features of the beautiful thing.
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#29OS/2 had many flaws but its multitasking was unseen on a PC at the time. I remember formatting a floppy while running two 16-bit Windows sessions (which were communicating with each other) and multiple DOS windows, thinking I was in the future. Even Windows 95 was limited by many system calls being funneled through single threaded BIOS or DOS 16-bit land.
Couldn't the Amiga already do all that multitasking on a 256KB machine, years before?
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#30I remember my dad getting a promotional shirt for OS/2 with the caption "Flight 4.0 to Chicago has been delayed, I'm taking off with OS/2"
The idea being that Windows 95 was internally called Windows 4.0 with the codename Chicago.
I keep on searching for it but can't find it anywhere.
And Bill Gates on OS/2 in 1987: "I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and possibly program, of all time."