OS/2 and micro$oft
grom
> OS/2 was an Operating System developed by IBM. It was originally intended
> as the successor to MS-DOS; it supported multi-tasking. The first 1.x
> release supported multi-tasking and Intel 80286 protected mode (providing
> for up to 16 megabytes of memory). A later release added a graphical user
> interface (GUI), similar in appearance to early versions of Microsoft
> Windows. OS/2 also introduced a new filesystem, HPFS?, as a replacement
> for FAT.
>
> Originally IBM and Microsoft collaborated on OS/2, but the relationship
> unravelled around the time of the development of version 2.0. Version 2.0
> introduced a new object-oriented GUI, based on IBM's System Object Model
> (SOM), and provided a desktop (similar to that eventually featured in
> Microsoft Windows 95). Version 2.0 was fully 32-bit and could take
> advantage of the 4 gigabytes of memory provided by the Intel 80386.
> Microsoft wanted to develop similar features in Windows, instead of OS/2.
> Microsoft and IBM originally compromised that IBM would develop OS/2 2.0,
> while Microsoft would develop OS/2 3.0; but the deal then completely fell
> apart, and Microsoft renamed OS/2 3.0 then under development to Windows
> NT. Microsoft released [Windows 3.1]? as its response to OS/2 2.0; but
> Windows 3.1 lacked most of the important features of OS/2, such as
> long-file names, a desktop, or being 32-bit. These features were later
> added to Windows in Windows 95.
>
> OS/2 failed to catch on, and is today little used outside business.
kevin wilcox
> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/OS/2
>
oh wow....thanks for that bit of info grom!
kw
--
Windows - A thirty two bit extension and gui shell to a sixteen bit
patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit
microprocessor and sold by a two bit company that can't stand one bit
of competition.
Erik Funkenbusch
"grom" <gro...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:3c494375$0$23895
> > Originally IBM and Microsoft collaborated on OS/2, but the relationship
> > unravelled around the time of the development of version 2.0.
Actually, it was around OS/2 1.3 that things started to unravel, but MS and
IBM kept their relationship until shortly before OS/2 2.0 was released.
> > Version 2.0 was fully 32-bit and could take
Actually, Version 2.0 (and even today's version 4.x) is part 32 bit, part 16
bit. The device driver interfaces have always been 16 bit and required 16 bit
drivers. Some driver developers created "wrapper" code to thunk 32 bit
drivers to the 16 bit interface, though and HPFS is still 16 bit code (except
the server versions which use a licensed version Microsoft's HPFS.386)
> > advantage of the 4 gigabytes of memory provided by the Intel 80386.
> > Microsoft wanted to develop similar features in Windows, instead of OS/2.
That's misleading. Microsoft and IBM agreed that Microsoft would develop
Windows as a bridge to help users move from DOS to OS/2 more easily.
> > Microsoft and IBM originally compromised that IBM would develop OS/2 2.0,
> > while Microsoft would develop OS/2 3.0; but the deal then completely fell
> > apart, and Microsoft renamed OS/2 3.0 then under development to Windows
> > NT.
While this statement is true, it doesn't say the whole picture. It was
originally called OS/2 NT, and was being redesigned from the ground up without
OS/2 code. OS/2 would run as a subsystem under the OS, much like Win32 does
today.
Some people take this "renamed" a bit too seriously and think that MS used
existing OS/2 code to develop NT, which is far from the truth.
> > Microsoft released [Windows 3.1]? as its response to OS/2 2.0;
Not really, MS had planned Windows 3.1 long before their deal fell apart.
> > but
> > Windows 3.1 lacked most of the important features of OS/2, such as
> > long-file names, a desktop, or being 32-bit. These features were later
> > added to Windows in Windows 95.
Again, this makes the mistaken claim that Windows 3.1 was a "response" to
OS/2. It wasn't.
Darren
<er...@visi.com> wrote:
> Some people take this "renamed" a bit too seriously and think that MS
> used existing OS/2 code to develop NT, which is far from the truth.
>
They just used VMS code instead.
mark
sums of money for development tools to build applications for the OS.
NB: I ran both OS/2 and Win3.1, OS/2 performed significantly better than
Win3.11 using half the RAM (4MB Vs 8MB).
In article <3c494375$0$23895$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, "grom"
Chris Ahlstrom
>> > Microsoft released [Windows 3.1]? as its response to OS/2 2.0;
>
> Not really, MS had planned Windows 3.1 long before their deal fell apart.
Windows 3.1 made the deal fall apart when MS realized how saleable it
was.
> Again, this makes the mistaken claim that Windows 3.1 was a "response" to
> OS/2. It wasn't.
It was Microsoft's Plan B, which they decide to make Plan A.
Chris
--
Living large and loving BSD!
Joe Blow
> <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> > Some people take this "renamed" a bit too seriously and think that MS
> > used existing OS/2 code to develop NT, which is far from the truth.
Oh really. Not one tiny bit of OS/2 code? Just a great big lie, eh,
Erik? What are the files called "OS2..." doing in NT, then, pray tell?
With the same filenames as in OS/2 itself? Coincidence?
Joe Blow
> One of the reasons OS/2 failed to catch on was due to IBM charging huge
> sums of money for development tools to build applications for the OS.
Well, truth is, it was killed by the M$ monopoly, like a million other things.
> NB: I ran both OS/2 and Win3.1, OS/2 performed significantly better than
> Win3.11 using half the RAM (4MB Vs 8MB).
OS/2 still runs better than any Windoze, or any Mac, or Novell, or even Linux,
IMO. OS/2 is faster than Linux, multitasks and multithreads better, is more
robust, and uses less resources.
Erik Funkenbusch
Huh? What are you talking about?
NT used to have an OS/2 subsystem that ran console mode 16 bit OS/2 apps, but
this wasn't much code and was primarily a translation layer between OS/2 api's
and NT API's.
Tim Smith
>One of the reasons OS/2 failed to catch on was due to IBM charging huge
>sums of money for development tools to build applications for the OS.
>
>NB: I ran both OS/2 and Win3.1, OS/2 performed significantly better than
>Win3.11 using half the RAM (4MB Vs 8MB).
Back when I had to write Win3 programs, I wrote them on OS/2.
Especially by the time Warp 4 came out, OS/2 was by far the best
Win3.x platform available. If you used the Watcom compiler, you could
run the OS/2 version of the development tools to build Win3.x
programs, and then run them under OS/2's Win3.x subsystem.
I never wrote a non-trivial OS/2 program on OS/2, though. The market
just wasn't there, and, as you say, the development kit from IBM was
too expensive for personal use.
IBM's mishandling of OS/2 was captured perfectly in a column Jerry
Pournelle wrote describing a visit to some trade show (Comdex?) where
both IBM and Microsoft were present. He went to the Microsoft booth,
and said something like "what do I need to develop for Windows?".
They handed him an SDK. He then went to the OS/2 booth, and said,
"what do I need to develop for OS/2?". They handed him an application
to fill out to apply for developer status. Only if he passed and was
deemed worthy would he be allowed to spend a large sum of money to
obtain the SDK.
Not too long after reading that column, I was browsing in Egghead
("in", not "at"...this was in the days when "browsing" was something
you did in stores rather than on the net, and Egghead was a chain of
stores, rather than a section at Amazon.com), and over in the
programming section, there was for sale, to anyone who wanted to walk
in off the street and fork over $100, subscriptions to the Microsoft
Developer Network Library, which basically has most of the developer
documentation. That and a copy of Visual C/C++ (which was right next
to it on the shelf), was all you needed to get fully into Windows
development. Were there any OS/2 development tools there? Only the
Watcom compiler, which did include a small subset of the IBM OS/2 SDK.
Is it any surprise that virtually no one developed for OS/2, when IBM
made it hard to get started? (The reason I blame IBM for the lack of
product at Egghead, and not Egghead, is because US retail software
sales doesn't work like you might expect. You might think that the
store decides what they want to carry, and then buys it from the
publisher, and then sells it to the consumer. Nope. Basically, the
stores rent shelf space to the publishers, who decide how to use it.
Egghead prominently displayed Microsoft development tools because
Microsoft bought shelf space for those tools. Egghead didn't have IBM
development tools because IBM didn't buy any space for them. This is
also why Windows was at eye level, or in separate racks that you could
not miss, and featured in the store ads, and OS/2 was in the bottom
shelf of the back row...Microsoft was willing to buy the good spots,
and IBM was only willing to put out for OS/2 the minimal amount
necessary to get a couple boxes into the stores).
--Tim Smith
GreyCloud
No, M$ hired Dave Cutler from DEC, the chief architect of VMS. Not one
ounce or line of code went into NT. But a lot of Daves' ideas from VMS
went in there tho. Notice the lack in NT of DCL.
Kano Ako
> mark wrote:
>
> > One of the reasons OS/2 failed to catch on was due to IBM charging huge
> > sums of money for development tools to build applications for the OS.
>
> Well, truth is, it was killed by the M$ monopoly, like a million other things.
>
It died to lack of committment from IBM. Certainly MS monopoly was
able to finish it off when it was dropped by IBM but the central fact
in the demise of OS/2 was IBM dropping its support for the system. It
was starting to get some major name applications developed for it and
the IBM about faced on OS/2 and let it fade away. OS/2 probably is
still running thousands of ATMs and some banks may be still be using
OS/2 for their tellers and such but in any event it is to OSs as Latin
is to languages.
I guess IBM did not want to hassle with the supporting/marketing to
small single license clients who typically have no clue what an
operating system is.
Anyway
KA
Joe Blow
> Joe Blow <j...@blow.com> wrote in message news:<3C4A4EC2...@blow.com>...
> > mark wrote:
> >
> > > One of the reasons OS/2 failed to catch on was due to IBM charging huge
> > > sums of money for development tools to build applications for the OS.
> >
> > Well, truth is, it was killed by the M$ monopoly, like a million other things.
> >
>
> It died to lack of committment from IBM. Certainly MS monopoly was
> able to finish it off when it was dropped by IBM but the central fact
> in the demise of OS/2 was IBM dropping its support for the system. It
> was starting to get some major name applications developed for it and
> the IBM about faced on OS/2 and let it fade away.
OS/2's sales peaked in April 1995, when it topped the best-seller list for OS's
worldwide. During this time, IBM was still promoting OS/2 very hard, and starting
to promote it as a desktop OS. Then the MS monopoly kicked in.
There is some truth to your other statements.
> OS/2 probably is
> still running thousands of ATMs and some banks may be still be using
> OS/2 for their tellers and such but in any event it is to OSs as Latin
> is to languages.
One estimate is 14 million seats.
> I guess IBM did not want to hassle with the supporting/marketing to
> small single license clients who typically have no clue what an
> operating system is.
This is partly true but the main problem, as revealed in the MS trial, was the MS
lockout of OEM's and MS' squeeze on IBM to force them to stop promoting, marketing,
etc. the OS. There was actually a contract in effect that forced IBM to do that.
T. Max Devlin
>Joe Blow <j...@blow.com> wrote in message news:<3C4A4EC2...@blow.com>...
>> mark wrote:
>>
>> > One of the reasons OS/2 failed to catch on was due to IBM charging huge
>> > sums of money for development tools to build applications for the OS.
>>
>> Well, truth is, it was killed by the M$ monopoly, like a million other things.
>>
>
>It died to lack of committment from IBM. Certainly MS monopoly was
>able to finish it off when it was dropped by IBM but the central fact
>in the demise of OS/2 was IBM dropping its support for the system.
It sounds like you were just a bit behind the curve in knowing when the demise
was, Kano.
>It
>was starting to get some major name applications developed for it and
>the IBM about faced on OS/2 and let it fade away.
They tried to champion it with a few major names which belatedly pledged to
support it (despite the fiscal and engineering difficulties of doing so while
trying to stay compatible with Microsoft's OS/2 killers, Windows and Windows),
but, well, names don't make products. OS/2 was long gone before it faded
away.
>OS/2 probably is
>still running thousands of ATMs and some banks may be still be using
>OS/2 for their tellers and such but in any event it is to OSs as Latin
>is to languages.
It is also still used on tens of thousands of desktops (out of hundreds of
millions; it ain't that big a deal) and thousands of servers, as well. It is
the next best thing to a rock-solid PC OS that isn't proprietary. ;-)
>I guess IBM did not want to hassle with the supporting/marketing to
>small single license clients who typically have no clue what an
>operating system is.
IBM sells computers. They aren't in business to fight holy wars. The cost
and price of software licenses would have plummeted regardless of whether MS
had maintained monopoly pricing for WinDOS and its spawn.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***