Live data from Hacker News

25 years of OS/2: the legendary failure that refuses to die.

techland.time.com

41–50 of 62 posts

Re: 25 years of OS/2: the legendary failure that refuses to die.

#41
I used to be the Editor In Chief of the OS/2 e-Zine! (http://www.os2ezine.com), although I began as just a contributor. The e-Zine was started by Trevor Smith, who slowly handed over more responsibilities until eventually retiring to do other things.

I have fond memories of that era, and of constantly working to keep your chin up as IBM's support grew more and more reluctant. Probably the most important lesson I walked away with was understanding how deep the roots of zealotry can go, how something as cosmically unimportant as an operating system can get woven into a person's identity until the two are indistinguishable.

Re: 25 years of OS/2: the legendary failure that refuses to die.

#42

I really liked OS/2. I could run several varieties of DOS under it and early Windows - very flexible when I needed to develop using several operating systems. The real reason OS/2 was not widely adopted? Maybe this: the first time OS/2 was booted after an install, the bootup time took a very, very long time. I was once in a computer store and some guy was practically screaming at the sales people. He had bought OS/2,…

I wonder how often something similar to this scenario has happened when new Linux users have to wait a long time for their system to finish fscking on every 30 reboots, and asking how to skip it or keep it from happening gets responses along the lines of "ura luser", "lol you turn off your computer?", and "xyz has been banned from #linux (go back to Windows)".

Re: 25 years of OS/2: the legendary failure that refuses to die.

#43

Wow, this brings back memories. I was a total OS/2-Head until about 1993 or 1994 when I got both an Yggdrasil Linux CD for my 486, and, a NeXTCube; and from there, ended up a Unix fan. The problem with installation, was that all development was done on PS/2s. The developers never did much testing on non-MCA (MicroChannel Architecture, a pre-PCI intelligent bus design) hardware. That is why, for instance, when install…

Hey, nice to meet you .. I also had Yggdrasil (and SLS!) systems back in the days of OS/2, which I very briefly flirted with (IBM compilers, yay!) then seguéd back to MIPS and RISC/OS and Irix and SGI (grr.. why you no make laptop, SGI?!! wtf..) with a bit of a dodgy diversion from Linux in the 90's through NextstepX86, sustained a lusty affair with a BeBox, until .. like a lot of other people .. here I am with my 'best unix workstation ever', an Apple.

Apropos the living-on factor of OS/2 nuts keeping it running, its a good, healthy thing to 'not-abandon' technology.

There is a scale to this.

I personally really like the guys at forum.Defence-force.org, burning the machines in current glory with new code. The Oric-1/Atmos is still a computer, and its values during its market period rose (and fell!), but yet the working machines, today, are still getting new code written for them.

It is actually some sort of utter joy to have new titles for a very old, memorable machine or system, which can still be enjoyed!

Computers don't die. Their users do. Lets hope the kids can still turn every single one, on ..

Re: 25 years of OS/2: the legendary failure that refuses to die.

#44
OS/2 Warp has a nice system. Too bad IBM refused to support it.

They had a golden opportunity, when it was clear that PCs would be transitioning from 16-bit operating systems to 32-bit operating systems. Microsoft had WinNT for 32-bit, Win3.x for 16-bit. WinNT didn't do a good job at the time running people's existing 16-bit Win3.x applications, so migrating to NT was a tough sell. This put MS in a hard place, because they needed something that ran existing Win3.x stuff reasonably well but supported 32-bit for the future--in other words they needed a transition system.

That transition system was to be Win95, but it was months away when Warp came out.

Warp had excellent Win3.x compatibility. In fact, it arguably ran Win3.x applications better than Win3.x ran them. And it had excellent 32-bit support.

IBM should have aggressively pushed Warp as the 32-bit successor to Win3.x. They could argue that instead of waiting for Win95, switch now and you'll get the benefit of 32-bit, and you'll get a better 3.x experience than you have now (or that you'll have under Win95).

What would Microsoft be able to do? If they countered by downplaying the importance of 32-bit, they'd just make people reluctant to switch to Win95 when that came out.

Instead, IBM basically just made Warp available, and then ignored it. Here are some examples of how they ignored it.

1. They didn't spend any money promoting it in stores. A lot of consumers do not realize this, but in retail stores shelf positioning is for sale. When you see a product featured in an end cap, or on a shelf at eye level, or in a high traffic location, it is because the manufacturer of that item paid to have it put there. If the manufacturer doesn't pay for good placement, their product goes on in inconvenient shelf in a less trafficked part of the store.

Guess where OS/2 was in Egghead and CompUSA? Someplace in back, where the lighting was poor, sitting on the bottom of a shelf.

2. They didn't give a fuck about existing developers. I recall reading a column by, I think, Jerry Pournelle, where he went to a trade show. First he went to the IBM booth, told them he'd heard about OS/2, and would like to develop for it. He asked what he needed to do.

They have him a form to fill out. It was an application to apply for developer status. It asked all kinds of details about what he planned to develop, his business plan for it, and so on, and there was an application fee.

Then he went to Microsoft's booth, and said he'd heard about Win95, and asked what he had to do in order to develop for it.

They gave him the SDK and tools right there.

3. They didn't give a fuck about beginning developers. Flash forward to after Win95 was released. Microsoft made developer tools available IN THE RETAIL MARKET. They were for sale at places like Egghead.

Think about that. Some kid playing with Win95 gets an idea for a game, and wants to start programming. He could go out to his local software store, and get everything he needs to start being a Win95 programmer!

Could you do the same for OS/2? Well, actually you could--but not from IBM. Watcom C/C++ was available in retail shops and could build OS/2 applications, and even had some licensed libraries from IBM included. However, Watcom really was aimed at the professional developer. The licensed documentation wasn't as complete as the Microsoft documentation for Win95.

4. They didn't give a fuck about developers who actually developed for OS/2. If you persevered, and actually made OS/2 software, you were on your own. They wouldn't help promote your application. They wouldn't feature it in any ads or provide any co-marketing funds to help you promote it.

Re: 25 years of OS/2: the legendary failure that refuses to die.

#45

I really liked OS/2. I could run several varieties of DOS under it and early Windows - very flexible when I needed to develop using several operating systems. The real reason OS/2 was not widely adopted? Maybe this: the first time OS/2 was booted after an install, the bootup time took a very, very long time. I was once in a computer store and some guy was practically screaming at the sales people. He had bought OS/2,…

I wonder how often something similar to this scenario has happened when new Linux users have to wait a long time for their system to finish fscking on every 30 reboots, and asking how to skip it or keep it from happening gets responses along the lines of "ura luser", "lol you turn off your computer?", and "xyz has been banned from #linux (go back to Windows)".

Probably not that often. Usually it tells you to press a key to skip it. If they bothered to read that it's fscking then they would know how to skip it in the majority of cases. (I know that GNOME and XFCE do this. Pretty sure KDE does too when I used it.)

In the case of OS/2 This sounds like a problem that could have been solved with a well placed printf call during the boot routine. (Like say; at the the beginning.)

Re: 25 years of OS/2: the legendary failure that refuses to die.

#46
I was at IBM in the mid-90s and OS/2 was my first prolonged exposure to GNU tools. I got in deep with TCP/IP as part of practicing to become a "Certified Engineer." We ran NCSA httpd and cgi scripts on it. Mucking with OS/2 and its configurability on a PS/2 tower (that you could about crawl inside of) lead directly to mucking with Slackware and working our S. American teams who'd created an MCA patch for the earlier Linux kernels. (Getting DOOM to run on that PS/2 386 was a banner evening.)

Marketing was always an uphill battle. Fans didn't like the Betamax analogy, but it was apt (w/r/t stronger specs and weaker sales). MSFT already knew how to market a dung pile.

I didn't realize NYC Transit used it. I still see it in ATMs and know UPS had a huge install, enmeshed base.

Re: 25 years of OS/2: the legendary failure that refuses to die.

#47

I really liked OS/2. I could run several varieties of DOS under it and early Windows - very flexible when I needed to develop using several operating systems. The real reason OS/2 was not widely adopted? Maybe this: the first time OS/2 was booted after an install, the bootup time took a very, very long time. I was once in a computer store and some guy was practically screaming at the sales people. He had bought OS/2,…

I wonder how often something similar to this scenario has happened when new Linux users have to wait a long time for their system to finish fscking on every 30 reboots, and asking how to skip it or keep it from happening gets responses along the lines of "ura luser", "lol you turn off your computer?", and "xyz has been banned from #linux (go back to Windows)".

OS/2 was nowhere close to being as stable as Linux. There were all kinds of normal usage scenarios which cause the system to lock or crash. (OS/2 had the same "49.7 day bug" as Windows and nobody noticed for years.)

Re: 25 years of OS/2: the legendary failure that refuses to die.

#48
The title is a bit misleading. OS/2 (especially Warp) wasn't a failure from a technical standpoint. Rather, IBM treated it like a redheaded stepchild which detracted from its core systems of mainframes and AS/400s, because--you know--this pc on every desktop thing is just hype.

As an aside, this reminded me of an old Dilbert from that timeframe (mid-1995): http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/...

Re: 25 years of OS/2: the legendary failure that refuses to die.

#49
post #44

OS/2 Warp has a nice system. Too bad IBM refused to support it. They had a golden opportunity, when it was clear that PCs would be transitioning from 16-bit operating systems to 32-bit operating systems. Microsoft had WinNT for 32-bit, Win3.x for 16-bit. WinNT didn't do a good job at the time running people's existing 16-bit Win3.x applications, so migrating to NT was a tough sell. This put MS in a hard place, becaus…

An IBMer once shared a joke with me:

"Q: How do you rid the world of illegal drugs?

"A: Legalize them and put IBM in charge of marketing."

I can relate as a one-time business partner. Our biggest competitor was IBM Global Services. Once we even had a teleconference to discuss going after an opportunity. We dialed in, but no IBM. After waiting for 15 minutes, we called someone who was to be on the call. "Oh... we decided to do it ourselves." Didn't even bother to tell us.

Re: 25 years of OS/2: the legendary failure that refuses to die.

#50

OS/2's big problem was it needed 8MB of RAM to run acceptably. 4MB (the stated minimum requirement) was just enough to boot it up and, maybe, run one very light weight application (with the HD thrashing trying to swap memory in and out). Things where worse with Win-OS/2, which was a full copy of Windows 3.1 running in a VM. You really needed 16MB to take true advantage of OS/2 multitasking capabilities. IBM should ha…

That's exactly why Windows 95 succeeded. At the time 4mb of RAM was a lot. But pure 32-bit OSes like NT and OS/2 ran 16-bit apps in their own full VMs. Which is great from a design perspective but lousy for end-user performance on average hardware since it meant about 4mb of overhead per app. Win95 ran all 16-bit apps in a shared VM and used a few other quick and dirty tricks to keep RAM usage low even if you were running lots of 16-bit apps. The end result was a system that traded maintenance cost and stability for better support for older apps on more modest hardware. In the end it turned out to be one of the most successful software products in history, even though it gave MS so much technical debt it took them nearly a decade to work through it.
Post reply on HN