“It’s hard to believe that the course of PC computing was irrevocably changed 10 years ago. On March 31, 1992, IBM release OS/2 2.0. While OS/2 ultimately lost out to Windows, its impact on OS interface design was extraordinary. Many Windows users today may be surprised to find out just how much of today’s Windows interface was borrowed from OS/2 2.0.” Read Stardock’s Brad Wardell editorial which includes a brief history of OS/2.
Celebrating OS/2 2.0 10th Birthday
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
One thing I wish he would have mentioned was how much more advanced (and earlier released) OS/2’s early TCP/IP and internet applications were than Microsoft’s offerings. But that’s not the real point.
He proposes that it would have been great had the major vendors shipped OS/2 versions. However, much of the reason for this is obvious: OS/2’s Windows support was so good, why should a software company bother? Rather than spending a ton of money porting the application, why not create just a Windows version and hit two markets with one stone? Compatability can be a dangerous thing…
There was the fact that Microsoft had exclusionary contracts, or was in the process of implementing said contacts with just about every computer vender at the time. The contracts, basically tied the hands of computer venders from selling anything but Microsoft products.
“Many Windows users today may be surprised to find out just how much of today’s Windows interface was borrowed from OS/2 2.0”
Not that a surprise when you know Microsoft is a big player behind OS/2 8¬)
Since IBM and MS co-developed OS/2 until 1990, it’s not a big surprise MS “borrowed”
http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2History.html
wasn’t MS a part of os/2 v1.0 not 2.0?
I believed that MS was responsible for most of OS/2 2. The whole thing looks like a Windows 95 beta.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Bill Gates pulled another fast one on IBM and stated that MS could use whatever they wanted from OS/2 whenever they felt like it and IBM agreed. Just speculation on my part there though…
Well, the gui was actually (partly) borrowed from Amiga in exchange for the (a)Rexx implementation.
I used to run OS/2 2.1. Man, it was awesome. I was like around 13 then, and hated Windows 3.1. Refused to use it, because it blew so hard. Then my uncle bought a copy of OS/2, but decided he couldn’t use it for some reason or another, so he gave it to me. It was so much more usable than Windows, even on the 486 with a piddly 4 MB of RAM. I even had it set up to run Win 3.1 programs for my dad! Aww, the good old days.
Adobe, Word Perfect, Ashton-Tate, Lotus, Corel are all mentioned as companies that failed to come out with OS/2 native versions of their major programs. All of them, save Adobe, are, of course, ghostly shadows of their early-1990’s selves. But I seem to remember Lotus did come out with an OS/2 version of 123. They bet on OS/2 and this gave Excel the lead for good when Windows won out. Does anyone else remember things this way?
OS/2 is still one of the best operating systems for the x86
platform. I still have never seen the stability,
multitasking ability and interface that OS/2. I still
use it on one machine and am constantly impressed.
I was really sad when OS/2 slipped. The OS/2 HPFS
is still superior to NTFS and provided the only
non-clustering file system available in the early 90’s.
I think that IBM still sells Warp…wish there were
more apps for it. When I was in college, IBM was there
telling us that we should all write apps for OS/2…they
did not handle the objections well, although I still loved
the OS.
Happy 10 Years to the OS that still impresses me,
Dano.
I wonder how it would run on modern hardware? Probably
rip..
Actually,
OS/2 was a prototype for Windows NT. Just Microsoft
did not develop the interface and stability as musch.
As a matter of fact, NT could run some early OS/2 programs.
If you look closely at the file list of NT you can
come across an OS2.EXE file in there somewhere…
Dano.
Check this link out:
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/os/warp/strategy/
Like some of you guys, I lived through the trials and tribulations that are discussed in Brad’s article. Oh to be young again — but even better to be wise.
Let’s set the record straight —
1) OS/2’s REXX interpretive environment may execute the same language as Amiga’s AREXX, but the environment is not borrowed.
FACT: Mike Cowlinshaw of IBM’s Hursley Research Center developed REXX and it was part of IBM’s SAA. IBM interpreters can be found on OS/400, zOS, and even PC DOS.
2) Microsoft had little, if not zero direct involvement in OS/2 2.0’s production.
FACT: IBM and Microsoft even disagreed on the existence of OS/2 1.3, which IBM released with several improvements to OS/2 1.2 (most notably, bug fixes). As of OS/2 1.3, MS and IBM were in firmly different camps and pursuing unique agendas.
3) OS/2 2.x was in no way a “prototype” for NT.
FACT: Windows NT was originally referred to as OS/2 NT — MS OS/2 3.0, if you will. It was planned to be the successor to OS/2 2.0 and move away from the monolithic architecture used in the first two major releases of the product.
FACT: Windows NT still runs OS/2 applications to this day — OS/2 1.x 16-bit applications. Through NT 3.5 support for OS/2’s High Performance File System was also included.
FACT: Boot NT 4.0 with the wrong SCSI drivers, and you may just get an OS/2 TRAP 000E or TRAP 000D screen.
FACT: Cmd.exe was OS/2’s command interpreter.
FACT: Most NT commands use OS/2 syntax (e.g., FORMAT C: /FS:NTFS).
Happy Birthday, OS/2!
-Net
If you “love” OS/2, please read & sign the online petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/OS24FREE/
Thanks !
Was anybody else swayed by Howard Stern’s praise of OS/2 enough to switch to it straight from DOS 5.0 like I was? alt.fan.howard-stern was moonlighting as an OS/2 advocacy forum for a couple of years iirc. Regardless of his support, I thought OS/2 was the greatest thing at the time and I kept using it until 1996 – 1997 when IBM dropped the ball.
Netanyahu: great post!
You are indeed correct about NT: it was intended as OS/2 3.0 and when Windows 3.1 took off, MS decided to make it a Windows OS with the Win32 api and interface. (In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a great deal of simularities between the OS/2 and Win32 APIs.)
HPFS Support: I am not sure about Win2000 and Win2K but HPFS support is available in NT 4. You have to hack it into NT with the Registery Editor.
Other things I recall:
NT’s built in OS/2 emulation support is limited to version 1.3 applications (16bit ?). MS even offered a Presentation Manager add-on, for NT 3.5 if I recall correctly, so that graphical 1.3 apps could run.
I also remember a flap about how an OS/2 app could crash in such a way that it could freeze OS/2’s system input cue, leaving it unusable, even though the OS itself continued to run. NT’s cue was supposed to be immune to this kind of thing.
Jeff
I wonder if IBM will ever cut the reigns on the OS and
release the source code. I hear that the WIN OS/2 code
is the part that they can not release, but that is
probably a rumor.
Dano.
I loved OS/2. I would still run it today if IBM hadn’t killed it. If they put out a version 5 I would buy it.
Jeff,
You are absolutely correct. OS/2 PM sports a single input message queue (SIQ) for GUI events such as button clicks, window closes, and the like.
NT, however, supports an asynchronous message queue, which can make it a little more difficult to coordinate messages since they don’t always arrive in the same order they were generated.
OS/2’s SIQ architecture wasn’t much of a problem as long as application developers followed the spec and relegated lengthy processing activities to threads other than the one that handles the message queue.
If a “bad” application (like, umm, IBM’s System Editor, E.exe) didn’t follow the spec, then you got the clock icon while the application processed the message and input messages queued up. Obviously this was an edge case, and didn’t happen very often.
Still, IBM put a fix in place in OS/2 3.0’s FixPack 17 that would allow messages to be processed in spite of a bad application. The new feature was pretty good — hence, FP17 was installed on every OS/2 Warp box I ever saw.
I believe (but never confirmed) that OS/2 Warp Connect PowerPC Edition had either a asynchronous or multi- message queue as a longer-term fix to the above edge case.
Jeff, you have a good memory regarding HPFS on NT4. The NT4 user had to jump through a hoop and rename pinball.sys to something else — that would enable HPFS support.
Interesting since most of the HPFS development that deputed on OS/2 1.2 was done in-house at Microsoft. Gordon Letwin, I understand, was one of the chief architects behind the High Performance File System (doubly-linked, fragmentation-resistant, b-tree’d file structure), although some of the harder-core OS/2 advocates fiercly debated that for some reason.
Okay, I’m an old PC OS fart — I’ll admit it. These were fun times in the computer world, and I enjoyed being on the bleeding edge every minute of it. While I’m saddened by the outcome (that is, the MS choke-hold on the desktop), it was certainly fun while it lasted.
I’ll go sign that petition now. 🙂
-Netanyahu
Netanyahu,
I figured that the queue had been fixed but I never heard about the fix, only the problem. Thanks!
Here is a link that spells out how to enable HPFS in NT 4. Basically, it is a registery hack to enable the NT 3.5 HPFS driver in NT4, so you need a copy of 3.5 for it to work.
http://www.windows2000faq.com/Articles/Print.cfm?ArticleID=13711
-Jeff
Ahhh.. Good info, Jeff!
-Netanyahu
We manage our whole warehouse using OS/2 WSEB Servers and OS/2 WSOD Clients. Still rock’n strong! Happy B-Day OS/2
Jim
Jim,
Out of curiosity, do you guys use a homegrown WMS application, or is it off the shelf?
-Netanyahu
I’m still a big OS/2 user, and if you ask em in BeShare, I’m the guy to ask for OS/2 related things. But it is good to see something so big still affecting design and implementation today.
As far as some of the previous posts, an OS2 folder still does exist in NT, since it had a lot of OS/2 based things used in it.
Yes, both M$ and IBM worked on OS/2 2.0, however M$ didn’t do a lot for it’s design as they were working on Windows 95 projects at the time and did not want to add to OS/2’s popularity. So they held out in the R&D of OS/2, and they could see what it was and wasn’t since they were also working on it at the same time.
Anyway,
HAPPY BIRTHDAY OS/2!!!! =8-D
It’s good to see something last so long!