Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Nov 2013 17:32 UTC, submitted by toralux
OS/2 and eComStation

It was now 1984, and IBM had a different problem: DOS was pretty much still a quick and dirty hack. The only real new thing that had been added to it was directory support so that files could be organized a bit better on the IBM PC/AT’s new hard disk. And thanks to the deal that IBM signed in 1980, the cloners could get the exact same copy of DOS and run exactly the same software. IBM needed to design a brand new operating system to differentiate the company from the clones. Committees were formed and meetings were held, and the new operating system was graced with a name: OS/2.

Fantastic article at Ars Technica about the rise and demise of IBM's OS/2. OS/2 is one of those big 'what-ifs' of the technology world, along the lines of 'what if Apple had purchased Be instead of NEXT' or 'what if Nokia had opted for Android' (sorry). Our technology world could've been a lot different had OS/2 won over Windows 3.x/95.

I reviewed OS/2 as it exists today (eComStation) six years ago.

Permalink for comment 577431
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by kurkosdr
by kurkosdr on Mon 25th Nov 2013 23:07 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

From what I read in the article it might have meant that IBM had locked up the pc industry. They might have done even more damage than MS did.


Exactly. Microsoft pioneered the then-revolutionary idea of being able to choose from multiple OEMs and later being able to even build your own computer to run the OS. Everything other (well-known) OS in the personal computing arena back then was wedded to overpriced hardware.

And there is no reason to believe IBM wouldn't have done everything MS did, considering IBM's track record, with the addition of the wedded to hardware thing MS didn't do.

Edited 2013-11-25 23:07 UTC

Reply Score: 3