Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 3rd May 2007 18:52 UTC, submitted by e-co
Permalink for comment 237244
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-12
One reason OS/2 should continue to exist is educational (as the serious confusion in your above posting amply demonstrates).
So many folks who use only Windows or only Linux have no clue about the history of even relatively mainstream operating systems from the past, and they seem to think that everything out there was derived from either DOS, Windows, or UNIX.
That simply isn't true.
No, OS/2 isn't a "DOA brother of Windows NT" -- OS/2's 32-bit kernel was developed independently by IBM in the early 1990's after the split over OS/2 1.x while Cutler and friends wrote NT's new 32-bit kernel in parallel over at Microsoft.
The two are completely seperate developments, they do not share any code, and they are no more similar to each other than either one is to Linux or Solaris.
Yes, OS/2 has some level of compatibility with DOS and Windows at the API and command processor level, but it ends there.
What good is it? Try using it. Then you'll wonder why Windows and Linux are so slow on modern hardware while providing comparatively little in terms of basic desktop functionality.
Edited 2007-05-04 17:55