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 577439
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: There's already a rebuttal
by WereCatf on Tue 26th Nov 2013 07:46 UTC in reply to "There's already a rebuttal"
Member since:

I just read that so-called rebuttal, and, well, I only see him arguing with things because he either didn't read the article well-enough or he simply has a different opinion about something. Like e.g. the following snippet
Windows NT is presented as some kind of mythical software that magically ships a bug-free version 1.0. Most people don’t remember NT 3.1 as “multiplatform, ridiculously stable and fault-tolerant”, but rather as bloated, slow no-show that hardly anyone ever ran (NT 4.0 was certainly a different story!).

The article itself mentions that NT 3.1 never became popular, so I don't understand why this guy goes on a tangent about it. It's not a rebuttal of anything the article said about NT in the first place. It was exactly as the article says: stable, multiplatform and fault-tolerant, and yes, not exactly a smashing hit.

The only thing worth mentioning in that "rebuttal" is the mention of Microsoft's anti-competitive actions, like e.g. forcing OEMs to bundle Windows on PCs and not accepting competitors' OSes. That should've been mentioned in Ars's original article, but nothing else about this "rebuttal" hits the mark.

Reply Parent Score: 4