I remember in 1994 a friend had purchased OS2 for his 386dx with 8 (!!!) mind blowing megabytes of extended memory. OS2 took nearly 18 minutes to get to an interface you could use - not to install, to boot. went back to DOS lol.
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
134 points (96.5% liked)
Technology
59429 readers
2831 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I used it in a necromanced college laptop... 486DX2 at 40MHz, no L2 cache, but admittedly 20Mb of RAM. It was slower to boot than DOS, but reasonably usable. By 3.0 they included half-decent pack-in software, while Windows still had just Write (not even Wordpad)
If it was OS/2 from IBM it was true multitasking and the OS in full control of memory allocation, something Microsoft only were able to offer after creating a new operating system from scratch (Windows NT).
If you thought OS/2 took forever to boot on a 386DX with only 8MB of ram, imagine how long it would take to boot Windows NT 3.5 on that same machine....
Windows NT came out of the failed collaboration with IBM and was originally meant to be OS/2 3.0. MS switched the APIs from OS/2 compatible to Windows compatible after Windows 3.0 took off, and it caused the collaboration to fall apart.
My dad ran IBM OS/2 Warp for a while on our PC. Rock stable. Shame it never really took off.
OS/2 3.0 "Warp" was a little too much ahead of its time and had the exact same problem that Windows Mobile had: no applications.
IBM tried to solve that with Windows emulation but it was a headache from the start and often have a buggy experience.
It didn't help that the real world hardest requirements were off the charts as compared to Windows 95 (still 16-bit MS-Dos based and not even close to what OS/2 was).
IBM did everything right from an engineering perspective but failed miserably on what the market wanted.
It never stood a chance. IBM had always been great at delivering solutions that was well engineered. What IBM has n-e-v-e-r been good at is marketing and understanding the volume market.
duideverything
English isn't my first language. Could you please tell, what that word means? Is it slang?
Typographical error: Mindlight probably meant to type "did everything," but didn't correct the mistake before submitting their comment.
At least it was stable and didn't have to be constantly rebooted like DOS and windows.
Are your talking about the ibm version? I liked it and it was great for work because it could really multitask. I had a pretty good system though so no really long boots. my issue was that it couldn't handle any gaming, so back to dos for me as well. crazy that it's been all these years with windows, some good some bad, and now windows is shooting itself in the foot just as Linux is becoming a system that can finally handle anything.
I ran wing commander2 in os/2. It wasn't quite as fast as in dos (or was it for Windows already?) but it was quite playable.
That was on a 486dx50 btw.
Think of the confusion with Don’t Just Do It, PS/2 It.