How the OS/2 Flop Went On To Shape Modern Software


“It’s fair to say that by 1995, OS/2 was dead software walking,” remembers a new article from the Register (which begins with a 1995 Usenet post from Gordon Letwin, Microsoft’s lead architect on the OS/2 project).

But the real question is why this Microsoft-IBM collaboration on a DOS-replacing operating system ultimately lost out to Windows…?

If OS/2 1.0 had been an 80386 OS, and had been able to multitask DOS apps, we think it would have been a big hit…. OS/2’s initial 1980s versions were 16-bit products, at IBM’s insistence. That is when the war was lost. That is when OS/2 flopped. Because its initial versions were even more crippled than the Deskpro 386…

Because OS/2 1.x flopped, Microsoft launched a product that fixed the key weakness of OS/2 1.x. That product was Windows 3, which worked perfectly acceptably on 286 machines, but if you ran the same installed copy on a 32-bit 386 PC, it worked better. Windows 3.0 could use the more sophisticated hardware of a 386 to give better multitasking of the market-dominating DOS apps…

IBM’s poor planning shaped the PC industry of the 1990s more than Microsoft’s successes. Windows 3.0 wasn’t great, but it was good enough. It reversed people’s perception of Windows after the failures of Windows 1 and Windows 2. Windows 3 achieved what OS/2 had intended to do. It transformed IBM PC compatibles from single-tasking text-only computers into graphical computers, with poor but just about usable multitasking…

Soon after Windows 3.0 turned out to be a hit, OS/2 NT was rebranded as Windows NT. Even the most ardent Linux enthusiast must c\oncede that Windows NT did quite well over three decades.
Back in 1995, the Register’s author says they’d moved from OS/2 to Windows 95 “while it was still in beta.

“The UI was far superior, more hardware worked, and Doom ran much better.”



Source link