tenser wrote to Nightfox <=-

The rest is history. Ironically, OS/2 got much better, but by
then the die was cast.

So OS/2 was the Pontiac Fiero of the operating systems.


... If an experiment works, something has gone wrong
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (21:1/616)

On 15 May 2023 at 01:08p, Nightfox pondered and said...

Re: Re: The Downfall of OS/2
By: Vorlon to paulie420 on Mon May 15 2023 02:48 pm

Yeah, but it did cover so many things about why it failed and how IBM themselfs in the foot so many times.

I always thought it was a shame that OS/2 failed. I thought it was a
nice OS overall, and the way it was able to run software for a few different environments really well (OS/2, DOS, Windows 3.1) was really nice.

Meh. There's an old axiom in military circles: you are
always planning for the last war.

OS/2 is kind of like that: it was a classic second system.
DOS was the quick hack they needed to ship the IBM PC, but
I doubt that anyone _liked_ it. Of course, IBM expected
to ship CP/M, but talks broke down with Digital Research
and that fell through; the "Quick and Dirty" QDOS was
available and ran on the 8086, Microsoft licensed it for
a song, turned it into PC DOS, and the rest of that part
of the story is history.

OS/2 emerged as a strategic direction to replace the anemic
and hacky DOS with a "real" operating system, but when it
first appeared at the end of 1987, MS-DOS was fairly entrenched,
and the Macintosh had taken the PC world by storm, and
clones of the IBM PC had deep market penetration. OS/2,
therefore, needed to be backwards compatible _and_ offer
something superior to entice customers.

OS/2 was very similar to DOS, but better. But OEMs were leery
of any software operating environment intrinsically tied to
IBM hardware, and something that Bill Gates understood that
IBM did not was that backwards compatibility was a means to
an end, not an end to itself: he could leverage the near-monopoly
of DOS and the PC clone market to drive the industry towards
Windows, and then extend Windows far beyond anything that DOS
could have dreamed of doing. Hence, Windows NT was multiuser
from the start (thanks to its VMS heritage) and supported
virtual memory and preemptive multitasking (again, thanks to
VMS). While OS/2 made use of the MMU and supported multitasking,
it was basically a single-user OS, like DOS: this made it
rather unsuitable for the growing network environments that
became common throughout the 90s.

Put simply, OS/2 was not architecturally suited to the environment
it was launched in; it looked backwards, not forwards. It was
essentially what IBM _would_ have built if they'd started with
the 80286 instead of the 8088.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

This software developer did write an OS/2 native version (of
Synchronet), but it was met with a `phft'. I hitched my wagon to the
wrong horse that time. --
digital man (rob)

Yeah I remember os/2 always wanted to try it.. the warp commercials always got me jazzed up. but i stuck with DOS till 98 when I made the jump to windows fulltime.

_Darren_

... Marriage is one of the chief causes of divorce

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Windows/32)
* Origin: BBSing Canada (21:4/179)

Ogg wrote to Nightfox <=-

I embraced OS/2 primarily because it supported existing Win
programs.

I was a novell admin back in the 90s, and running lots of Novell admin
programs in DOS boxes. OS/2 did that very well.




... Observe the procedures of a general alert.
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: realitycheckBBS.org -- information is power. (21:4/122)

paulie420 wrote to Nightfox <=-

I remember taking a quick p0ke around OS/2 w/ my fathers PS/1, but I preferred my DOS games and regular shenanigans... Desqview/X was ran on
my system for a few years and I just l0ved it.

I always had crappy systems. Dr. Strangelove, sysop of Just Say Yes, had
a 386/33 with 8 megs of RAM, and he was able to run 2 dialup
Searchlight nodes plus a local node, with enough left over to run his
DOS apps. I was impressed.

I recall seeing him chatting with 2 callers at once. Pretty impressive
juggling skills for when we were all single-tasking...



... Apotheosis was the beginning before the beginning.
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: realitycheckBBS.org -- information is power. (21:4/122)

Dr. What wrote to tenser <=-

So OS/2 was the Pontiac Fiero of the operating systems.

Did the Fiero get better? :)



... Eval Day 1005
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: realitycheckBBS.org -- information is power. (21:4/122)

Re: Re: The Downfall of OS/2
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Ogg on Tue May 16 2023 06:29 am

I was a novell admin back in the 90s, and running lots of Novell admin programs in DOS boxes. OS/2 did that very well.

My high school had a computer lab that had (among other things) a set of PC clones with DOS (all built and set up the same), and when they booted up, I remember seeing a Novell network driver being loaded. (And I'm pretty sure they were running MS-DOS at least 5.0, maybe 6.0)

Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)

poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Dr. What <=-

So OS/2 was the Pontiac Fiero of the operating systems.

Did the Fiero get better? :)

Surprisingly, yes. The last model of the Fiero was what it should have been. Very reliable. No design problems. Sadly, by then it was too late and the name Fiero was in the same category as "Pinto".


... Compatible: Blows up a little later than Incompatible
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (21:1/616)

Nightfox wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

My high school had a computer lab that had (among other things) a set
of PC clones with DOS (all built and set up the same), and when they booted up, I remember seeing a Novell network driver being loaded.
(And I'm pretty sure they were running MS-DOS at least 5.0, maybe 6.0)

Novell managed DOS clients well. You would remote boot a diskless DOS
machine and store all of your files on a network drive - or have a
specific login script that was catered to your username, so you'd have
the same environment no matter where you logged into.

IPX
NETX

Were the earlier drivers - they were relatively big, which impacted your
DOS memory. I used to carry them on a floppy disk.



... RAW DATA FOR RAW NERVES
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: realitycheckBBS.org -- information is power. (21:4/122)

Ogg wrote (2023-05-15):

I really enjoyed using the FleetStreet/2 FTN message reader.

https://github.com/evs38/fleetstreet :)

⁂

---
* Origin: This site requires JavaScript (21:3/102)

Hi Guys,

came across this youtub video of why OS/2 failed. It's and Hour and 39
Minutes in length, but goes into great detail of how IBM shot themselfs in
the foot many times in OS/2 life...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAMT187GWd4

For someone that used OS/2 from the v3 days untill v4 connect, I can see
why thigs went downhill...

\/orlon
aka
Stephen

Rocking FSXnet with an Amiga 4000 and Zeus BBS.

--- Zeus BBS 1.5
* Origin: -:-- Dragon's Lair --:- dragon.vk3heg.net Prt: 6800 (21:1/195.5)

Re: The Downfall of OS/2
By: Vorlon to All on Sat May 13 2023 10:18 am

came across this youtub video of why OS/2 failed. It's and Hour and 39 Minutes in length, but goes into great detail of how IBM shot themselfs in the foot many times in OS/2 life...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAMT187GWd4

For someone that used OS/2 from the v3 days untill v4 connect, I can see why thigs went downhill...

I've heard some reasons why OS/2 failed. Having it run Windows 3.x software was a benefit, but that also meant software developers just made their software for Windows, resulting in few native OS/2 programs.. Also I think I'd heard IBM's software development tools were fairly expensive? And IMO, I don't think IBM marketed or advertised OS/2 well enough or pushed for it enough to get installed on OEM PCs.

Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)

Hello Nightfox!

I've heard some reasons why OS/2 failed. Having it run
Windows 3.x software was a benefit, but that also meant
software developers just made their software for Windows,
resulting in few native OS/2 programs.. Also I think I'd
heard IBM's software development tools were fairly
expensive? And IMO, I don't think IBM marketed or
advertised OS/2 well enough or pushed for it enough to get
installed on OEM PCs.

I embraced OS/2 primarily because it supported existing Win
programs. Even my favourite game at the time, Myst, was well
well supported in Win/OS2 mode. BUT.. I was raring to proceed
with native OS/2 and stick with it.

Sadly, there just didn't seem to be enough interest by software
developers to code OS2 native versions.


--- OpenXP 5.0.57
* Origin: (} Pointy McPointFace (21:4/106.21)

Vorlon wrote to All <=-

came across this youtub video of why OS/2 failed. It's and Hour and 39 Minutes in length, but goes into great detail of how IBM shot themselfs
in the foot many times in OS/2 life...

Ya, that matches what I saw when OS/2 came out.

When I first saw OS/2, it looked interesting. But time and time again, IBM kept putting blocks in the way of people adopting it.


... Get gun. Shoot computer. Turn off lights...
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A48 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Capital Station BBS * Telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (21:1/127)

came across this youtub video of why OS/2 failed. It's and Hour and 39 Minutes in length, but goes into great detail of how IBM shot themselfs
in the foot many times in OS/2 life...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAMT187GWd4

I watched this, too, and while a tad long in the tooth, it was a killer video.. just turn speed to 1.25x and enj0y!



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbs>>>20ForBeers.com:1337 (21:2/150)

I've heard some reasons why OS/2 failed. Having it run Windows 3.x software was a benefit, but that also meant software developers just
made their software for Windows, resulting in few native OS/2 programs.. Also I think I'd heard IBM's software development tools were fairly expensive? And IMO, I don't think IBM marketed or advertised OS/2 well enough or pushed for it enough to get installed on OEM PCs.

I was such a DOS kid - and being a sysOp, once I found Desqview - it was all I needed.

I remember taking a quick p0ke around OS/2 w/ my fathers PS/1, but I preferred my DOS games and regular shenanigans... Desqview/X was ran on my system for a few years and I just l0ved it.



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbs>>>20ForBeers.com:1337 (21:2/150)

Re: The Downfall of OS/2
By: Ogg to Nightfox on Sat May 13 2023 07:58 am

Sadly, there just didn't seem to be enough interest by software
developers to code OS2 native versions.

This software developer did write an OS/2 native version (of Synchronet), but it was met with a `phft'. I hitched my wagon to the wrong horse that time.
--
digital man (rob)

Rush quote #34:
We go out in the world take our chances fate's just the weight of circumstances Norco, CA WX: 63.4�F, 80.0% humidity, 0 mph SE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (21:1/183)

Re: Re: The Downfall of OS/2
By: paulie420 to Nightfox on Sat May 13 2023 05:33 pm

I was such a DOS kid - and being a sysop, once I found Desqview - it was all I needed.

I remember taking a quick poke around OS/2 w/ my fathers PS/1, but I preferred my DOS games and regular shenanigans... Desqview/X was ran on my system for a few years and I just l0ved it.

I learned a lot about computers from my dad (and older brother), and had heard about OS/2 but never had a chance to use it myself until I bought a copy around 1995 or so. There used to be a store in my area that sold used computer software (they closed down after a little while - I think the practice of a store selling used computer software was a legal grey area). I had bought a used copy of OS/2 there, and I remember it being on floppies and some of the disks were bad.. I later bought a new copy of OS/2 Warp 4 on CD-ROM from my local Egghead Software that used to be here.

I ran my BBS in Desqview for a bit once I learned how to set it up. I only had one phone line for my BBS, so I used the second node to log in locally when there was a user on my BBS already.

Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)

Hello Digital Man!

This software developer did write an OS/2 native version (of Synchronet), but it was met with a `phft'. I hitched my wagon to the wrong horse that time. --
digital man (rob)

I didn't quite dig in to the issues of OS/2's lack of adoption.
But I thought Win/OS2 was a wonderful world to play with. The
idea was to phase out Win stuff in favour of OS2 stuff, if
possible. But if not, it was cool to be able to run Win stuff
if necessary.

Rush quote #34:
We go out in the world take our chances fate's just the
weight of circumstances

And that can be said for anything, including OS2. But there were clearly other forces at play too.

I remember seeing RedSpine OS/2 reduced to $35 at Costco and
thinking.. "why isn't that flying off the shelf?" The public
(ie existing Win users or a firstime computer buyer) was simply
not convinced that they needed OS2. The ads seemed to go well,
ie Warp 3, but the campaign fizzled out.


--- OpenXP 5.0.57
* Origin: (} Pointy McPointFace (21:4/106.21)

There used to be a store in my area that sold used computer software Ni> (they closed down after a little while - I think the practice of a store Ni> selling used computer software was a legal grey area). I had bought a Ni> used copy of OS/2 there, and I remember it being on floppies and some of Ni> the disks were bad..

I sure miss the local-owned computer stores of yesteryear... data has basically changed everything. At every speed bump, we've gained so much compute - but lost a lot in that process, too.

I also miss the local computer clubs. In the 80/90s you could find one in almost every town and city across the United States... my 'contribution' was that I used to socially engineer AOL for disks - they'd send me 100 at a time, as I was to pass them out @ the computer club... little did they know that another guy supplied label-printing and we used those disks for sharing softwarez. :P The good ole days...

I ran my BBS in Desqview for a bit once I learned how to set it up. I only had one phone line for my BBS, so I used the second node to log in locally when there was a user on my BBS already.

Yep... DV finally gave me my computer back - well, actually it helped the bbS get a lot faster; I was running my bbS on an older 286 b/c I wanted the shiny fast 486 for my computer needs... after DV I ran the bbS in the background and could still use the PC - w00t w00t!!



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbs>>>20ForBeers.com:1337 (21:2/150)

Re: The Downfall of OS/2
By: Ogg to Digital Man on Sun May 14 2023 07:26 am

But I thought Win/OS2 was a wonderful world to play with. The
idea was to phase out Win stuff in favour of OS2 stuff, if
possible. But if not, it was cool to be able to run Win stuff
if necessary.

The Windows compatibility layer in OS/2 was pretty cool. It did make sense as a a way to phase out Windows in favor of OS/2 (and I think that was probably the original plan - Microsoft was originally working with IBM on OS/2, and Bill Gates himself even once said he thought OS/2 was the "platform for the 90s"). But with Windows continuing to exist in the market and becoming more popular, developers apparently thought it would be best to just make a Windows version of their software.

Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)

Hi Nightfox,

On Friday May 12 2023, Nightfox said to Vorlon:

came across this youtub video of why OS/2 failed. It's and Hour and 39
Minutes in length, but goes into great detail of how IBM shot
themselfs in the foot many times in OS/2 life...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAMT187GWd4

I've heard some reasons why OS/2 failed. Having it run Windows 3.x software was a benefit, but that also meant software developers just
made their software for Windows, resulting in few native OS/2 programs..
Also I think I'd heard IBM's software development tools were fairly expensive? And IMO, I don't think IBM marketed or advertised OS/2 well enough or pushed for it enough to get installed on OEM PCs.

All of what you typed was covered in the video... #->


\/orlon
aka
Stephen

Rocking FSXnet with an Amiga 4000 and Zeus BBS.

--- Zeus BBS 1.5
* Origin: -:-- Dragon's Lair --:- dragon.vk3heg.net Prt: 6800 (21:1/195.5)

Hi Dr. What,

On Saturday May 13 2023, Dr. What said to Vorlon:

came across this youtub video of why OS/2 failed. It's and Hour and 39
Minutes in length, but goes into great detail of how IBM shot
themselfs in the foot many times in OS/2 life...

Ya, that matches what I saw when OS/2 came out.

When I first saw OS/2, it looked interesting. But time and time again, IBM kept putting blocks in the way of people adopting it.

I had a introduction to 2.1, from another user and he said that v3 would be comming out soon, with lower memory requirements.

At the time I was working parttime at a local computer shop, and the owner
was very much into OS/2. When 3 did come out, I was given a copy. It wasn't long before my Desqview/Qemm system was changed to run OS/2..

\/orlon
aka
Stephen

Rocking FSXnet with an Amiga 4000 and Zeus BBS.

--- Zeus BBS 1.5
* Origin: -:-- Dragon's Lair --:- dragon.vk3heg.net Prt: 6800 (21:1/195.5)

Hi Paulie420,

On Saturday May 13 2023, Paulie420 said to Vorlon:

came across this youtube video of why OS/2 failed. It's and Hour and [...]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAMT187GWd4

I watched this, too, and while a tad long in the tooth, it was a killer video.. just turn speed to 1.25x and enj0y!

Yeah, but it did cover so many things about why it failed and how IBM shot themselfs in the foot so many times.


\/orlon
aka
Stephen

Rocking FSXnet with an Amiga 4000 and Zeus BBS.

--- Zeus BBS 1.5
* Origin: -:-- Dragon's Lair --:- dragon.vk3heg.net Prt: 6800 (21:1/195.5)

On 14 May 2023 at 02:06p, Nightfox pondered and said...

The Windows compatibility layer in OS/2 was pretty cool. It did make sense as a a way to phase out Windows in favor of OS/2 (and I think that was probably the original plan - Microsoft was originally working with
IBM on OS/2, and Bill Gates himself even once said he thought OS/2 was
the "platform for the 90s"). But with Windows continuing to exist in the market and becoming more popular, developers apparently thought it would be best to just make a Windows version of their software.

The book, "Showstopper!" about the development of Windows NT
gives a lot of color here. Basically, Microsoft wanted to
stop "riding the bear" that was IBM, DEC messed up by pissing
off Dave Cutler enough that he decamped for MSFT, and the
computing landscape was changing, with capabilities that had
been reserved for minicomputers and mainframes popping up on
workstations and PCs. OS/2 was an IBM thing, was mostly staffed
by second-rate engineers, Cutler wanted to do another operating
system building on what he'd learned at Dupont and DEC, and
Gates did what he did best: he saw an opportunity and took it.
The rest is history. Ironically, OS/2 got much better, but by
then the die was cast.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

Re: Re: The Downfall of OS/2
By: Vorlon to paulie420 on Mon May 15 2023 02:48 pm

Yeah, but it did cover so many things about why it failed and how IBM shot themselfs in the foot so many times.

I always thought it was a shame that OS/2 failed. I thought it was a nice OS overall, and the way it was able to run software for a few different environments really well (OS/2, DOS, Windows 3.1) was really nice.

Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)

Hi Nightfox,

On Monday May 15 2023, Nightfox said to Vorlon:

Yeah, but it did cover so many things about why it failed and how IBM
shot themselfs in the foot so many times.

I always thought it was a shame that OS/2 failed. I thought it was a
nice OS overall, and the way it was able to run software for a few different environments really well (OS/2, DOS, Windows 3.1) was really nice.

I was a big OS/2 user back in the day. The only reason for moving away was
that the hardware progressed and the os didn't.... By the time the recent
newer versions came out, like so many I'd moved on and no longer had/have a
use for it.

The oldest intel machine I own is a first gen P4, and I'm not going to spend $250AUD on a os that might not work or have a use for.


\/orlon
aka
Stephen

Rocking FSXnet with an Amiga 4000 and Zeus BBS.

--- Zeus BBS 1.5
* Origin: -:-- Dragon's Lair --:- dragon.vk3heg.net Prt: 6800 (21:1/195.5)

Hello Nightfox!

** On Sunday 14.05.23 - 14:06, Nightfox wrote to Ogg:

...But with Windows continuing to exist in the market and
becoming more popular, developers apparently thought it
would be best to just make a Windows version of their
software.

Maybe there was industry insider knowledge about the rift that
was building between MS and IBM, and the big software players
were reluctant to invest doubling up on two versions for their
products. And the consumer was none the wiser. But I do recall
that IBM made it cost prohibitive for their Developer Kit.

I really enjoyed using the FleetStreet/2 FTN message reader.


--- OpenXP 5.0.57
* Origin: (} Pointy McPointFace (21:4/106.21)