Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » Why did OS/2 fail?
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #381398 is a reply to message #380527] Sat, 23 February 2019 11:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Bud Frede

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:

>
> Linux devs seem to delight in playing with bells and whistles, to
> no particular benefit that I can see (the latest "great" idea seems
> to be not only to make it confusing as to which bits of the UI
> are buttons and which bits are decoration, but to hide the buttons
> completely (so-called X-Apps)), but are not interested in
> fixing fundamental issues; bugs sit on their reporting system(s) for
> years; MATE will still not play video without "tearing" artefacts.

I think that playing with bells and whistles or trying new things while
not fixing old bugs is not limited to any one group of devs. Some are
better and some are worse.

As for video playback, I've found that it depends greatly on the
graphics hardware and drivers, and also on the playback app. I haven't
had any problems playing videos recently. (I do use the MATE desktop
environment on Linux Mint.)


>
> IMNHO, they're all shit. Just in different ways. Given the pain I've
> just been through with the Mint migration, I suspect that if I live
> long enough to have to do it again, I'm going to get a Mac, and spend
> my declining years complaining about how shitty Finder is.

I've been using a Mac at work recently and it of course does some things
well and other things poorly.

Based on what's happened with Macs at work, there are problems with the
current hardware, and the latest version of the OS (Mojave) broke a lot
of stuff.

One thing I like about the Mac is that it uses the Command key for a lot
of things that use the Control key on other OSes. This means that the
Control key can, for example, be used for things in a terminal window without
conflicting with shortcuts for the GUI. Of course, this is also a thing
I don't like about the Mac, because I spend a lot of hours using the Mac
at work and some of these shortcuts have started to become automatic for
me and they don't work when I'm using Linux at home. :-)


>
> (FTAOD, I've never owned a Windows machine. My first "home computer"
> was a SPARCstation 1+ scrounged from work, and I stayed with Sun until
> Oracle took over, then I went to Ubuntu until they introduced Unity,
> then I switched to Mint.)

I used Solaris at work, but at home I used Debian. However, while I did
do some fiddling around with fonts and things, I was always a bit
unhappy with how the GUI looked in comparison to Solaris with its
Display Postscript (or with the Mac or Windows for that matter).

Ubuntu looked good, and I was happy with a lot of the defaults, so I
spent less time fiddling with the OS and more time just using my
computer.

When Unity came out, I tried LXDE and XFCE, but then when MATE was
announced and Mint started offering it I switched to Mint MATE. Gnome 2
and thus MATE isn't perfect, but it was and is something I found usable.
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #381399 is a reply to message #380967] Sat, 23 February 2019 12:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Bud Frede

Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> writes:

>
> I settled on FreeBSD as well. Simple config and with zfs and jails,
> the most Solaris like OS i've found so far. Still have Sun as well,
> posting this, but an M3000 in the rack with graphics card added.

ZFS is very nice, and I liked using it when I was a Solaris admin.

The most Solaris-like things about FreeBSD in my opinion were the quality
of the man pages and other docs, and that it all felt like it was
developed by one group of people with a common vision.

But some people might argue that that common vision and cohesiveness can
lead to stagnation. (This is an old argument and I tend to be on the
fence with it. Projects run like FreeBSD seem to do some things really
well, and projects run like the Linux kernel and overall ecosystem also
seem to do some things really well.)

>
> Linux gets more bloatware with every release, with the last straw
> being systemD. Only Linux here now is older versions of Suse...

You can use a very stripped-down distro or one with a lot of features.

I don't think I want to get into a discussion about systemd, because
it's been discussed ad nauseam in so many places already.

I'd just note that it has good points and bad points.

I do think that it's amazing that we have so many choices. Surely there
is an OS or distro for everyone's tastes. I prefer Linux and you prefer
FreeBSD. It's all good. :-)
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #381400 is a reply to message #381398] Sat, 23 February 2019 14:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> writes:

> One thing I like about the Mac is that it uses the Command key for a lot
> of things that use the Control key on other OSes. This means that the
> Control key can, for example, be used for things in a terminal window without
> conflicting with shortcuts for the GUI. Of course, this is also a thing
> I don't like about the Mac, because I spend a lot of hours using the Mac
> at work and some of these shortcuts have started to become automatic for
> me and they don't work when I'm using Linux at home. :-)

I don't know Mate, but my guess is that every Linux WM worth using
allows key customization. You should be able to use the same shortcuts
for both environments.

I miss my Sun keyboard front/open/copy keys so I've customized some keys
to act the same.

--
Dan Espen
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #381407 is a reply to message #381398] Sat, 23 February 2019 19:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>
>>
>> Linux devs seem to delight in playing with bells and whistles, to
>> no particular benefit that I can see (the latest "great" idea seems
>> to be not only to make it confusing as to which bits of the UI
>> are buttons and which bits are decoration, but to hide the buttons
>> completely (so-called X-Apps)), but are not interested in
>> fixing fundamental issues; bugs sit on their reporting system(s) for
>> years; MATE will still not play video without "tearing" artefacts.
>
> I think that playing with bells and whistles or trying new things while
> not fixing old bugs is not limited to any one group of devs. Some are
> better and some are worse.
>
> As for video playback, I've found that it depends greatly on the
> graphics hardware and drivers, and also on the playback app. I haven't
> had any problems playing videos recently. (I do use the MATE desktop
> environment on Linux Mint.)
>
>
>>
>> IMNHO, they're all shit. Just in different ways. Given the pain I've
>> just been through with the Mint migration, I suspect that if I live
>> long enough to have to do it again, I'm going to get a Mac, and spend
>> my declining years complaining about how shitty Finder is.
>
> I've been using a Mac at work recently and it of course does some things
> well and other things poorly.
>
> Based on what's happened with Macs at work, there are problems with the
> current hardware, and the latest version of the OS (Mojave) broke a lot
> of stuff.
>
> One thing I like about the Mac is that it uses the Command key for a lot
> of things that use the Control key on other OSes. This means that the
> Control key can, for example, be used for things in a terminal window without
> conflicting with shortcuts for the GUI. Of course, this is also a thing
> I don't like about the Mac, because I spend a lot of hours using the Mac
> at work and some of these shortcuts have started to become automatic for
> me and they don't work when I'm using Linux at home. :-)

Depending on what your shortcuts do, I think you can program them in Linux,
if you have the time and the inclination.

>
>
>>
>> (FTAOD, I've never owned a Windows machine. My first "home computer"
>> was a SPARCstation 1+ scrounged from work, and I stayed with Sun until
>> Oracle took over, then I went to Ubuntu until they introduced Unity,
>> then I switched to Mint.)

Ubuntu/Mate here.

--
Pete
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #381408 is a reply to message #381397] Sat, 23 February 2019 19:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> writes:
>
>> <https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
>> ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
>>
>> I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
>> software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
>> also ran Windows applications.
>
> I didn't read the linked article, but I can come up with some possible
> reasons on my own.
>
> 1. OS/2 itself. Microsoft and IBM had rather different ideas of what it
> was going to be, and to some extent OS/2 was designed by committee. I
> think the flaws could have been fixed (and some were), but Microsoft had
> abandoned it and IBM at the time was pretty dysfunctional and had some
> real problems producing software.
>
> 2. Microsoft abandoned it, and actively worked to kill it, although I
> think most of that was aimed at any non-MS operating system rather than
> specifically at OS/2.
>
> 3. Developers were slow to write for it. This might have ceased to be a
> problem if Microsoft hadn't pushed Windows and thus attracted a lot of
> developers that might have helped OS/2 grow.

Developers found OS/2’s threaded model “too hard”, so they wrote for the
brain-dead windows model. This software looked like sh%t to anyone
accustomed to real OS/2 software. It wasn’t until win nt that developers
wrote software that used threads, and it’s amazing that to this day I find
a lot of things not designed properly - I’m talking about you, Chrome.

--
Pete
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #381417 is a reply to message #380527] Sun, 24 February 2019 04:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 24 Feb 2019 09:00:23 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> Nothing should be "hidden" in a GUI,
> that's the whole fucking point.

<applause>

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #381459 is a reply to message #380800] Mon, 25 February 2019 18:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Bud Frede

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

>
> Microsoft once gave Apple $150 million to help Apple stay afloat. If
> Apple had gone down, Microsoft's relationship with the U.S. Department
> of Justice would would have gotten much more difficult than it already
> was. Microsoft needed Apple alive, but weak. Unfortunately for MS,
> Apple has gotten much stronger than they were supposed to be.

It's possible that a desire to see Apple stay in business was part of
MS's motivation, but MS also made money on selling software for the
Mac. In addition, as part of the agreement, IE was the default web
browser on Macs for a period of time.

Given that the Justice Dept. had been going after MS at least partly
because they had done things to prevent others from competing with IE,
it wouldn't seem to make sense to do something that would make it more
difficult to compete with IE on yet another platform if MS were truly
worried about the Justice Dept.

Apple really hasn't gotten much stronger in the areas that MS would have
been mainly concerned about at that time. MS would have been looking at
Windows on desktops and servers, Office and some of their other
application software, and perhaps Exchange and IIS.

Apple's big successes have obviously been with mobile devices. MS would
have liked to have been the big player in these markets too, but they
haven't been able to pull it off.

So I actually think that both Jobs and Gates were very shrewd about MS's
$150 million investment in Apple, and it did what they wanted it to
do.
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #381462 is a reply to message #381400] Mon, 25 February 2019 20:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Bud Frede

Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:

> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>
>> One thing I like about the Mac is that it uses the Command key for a lot
>> of things that use the Control key on other OSes. This means that the
>> Control key can, for example, be used for things in a terminal window without
>> conflicting with shortcuts for the GUI. Of course, this is also a thing
>> I don't like about the Mac, because I spend a lot of hours using the Mac
>> at work and some of these shortcuts have started to become automatic for
>> me and they don't work when I'm using Linux at home. :-)
>
> I don't know Mate, but my guess is that every Linux WM worth using
> allows key customization. You should be able to use the same shortcuts
> for both environments.

You can, of course, remap keys however you want. In this case, some
desktop environments step on the Emacs-style key shortcuts that bash
uses by default (via readline) for command-line editing.

I have remapped some things in MATE to get around this. I was just commenting
that on the Mac I haven't needed to.

>
> I miss my Sun keyboard front/open/copy keys so I've customized some keys
> to act the same.

Sun keyboards were really nice at one time. I still have a few Type 5
ones and an adaptor and I use them once in a while. The mice they came
with at that time were pretty awful though. :-)
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #381466 is a reply to message #381462] Tue, 26 February 2019 00:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2019-02-26, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I miss my Sun keyboard front/open/copy keys so I've customized some
>> keys to act the same.
>
> Sun keyboards were really nice at one time. I still have a few Type 5
> ones and an adaptor and I use them once in a while. The mice they came
> with at that time were pretty awful though. :-)

Physically they might have been OK, but they inherited some of the
same horrible layout tricks that plagued other keyboards such as the
original IBM Personal computer. I remember trying to do work on the
SPARCstation at a PPOE: go for a capital letter, get a backslash followed
by a lower-case version of the letter I was trying for, go for the
backspace key to erase it and try again, get whatever character was
where the backspace key should be, fling the keyboard at the wall...
(Actually, the final step was only a fantasy - I'd just go back to
my desk, telnet into the SPARCstation from my terminal on our SysV
box, and wonder why the ps command didn't work properly...)

--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ Fight low-contrast text in web pages! http://contrastrebellion.com
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #396449 is a reply to message #380527] Sun, 05 July 2020 15:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usenet is currently offline  usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sat, 02 Feb 2019 16:07:01 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> <https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
> ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.


I just stumbled upon this repost of an article from a few years ago that
recounts the story of OS/2 in great detail. It's a good read that should
interest most of the regular posters in alt.folklore.computers.


Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/11/half- an-operating-system-the-triumph-and-tragedy-of-os2/
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #396450 is a reply to message #380527] Sun, 05 July 2020 15:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 2:07:02 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> <https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
> ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
>
> I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
> software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
> also ran Windows applications.

And the Ars Technica article quoted more recently in this thread agreed.

But if that had _not_ been the case, almost no one would have seen a reason to
buy OS/2, and so it would still have been the case that no one would have
developed for it.

Also, Windows support was partial - it ran 16-bit Windows applications, but not
the newer 32-bit ones written for Windows 95 and later.

So pointing to Windows support as their big mistake really ignores the fact that
they would not have had much of a chance without it either.

John Savard
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #396463 is a reply to message #396450] Mon, 06 July 2020 02:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 12:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 2:07:02 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> <https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
>> ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
>>
>> I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
>> software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
>> also ran Windows applications.
>
> And the Ars Technica article quoted more recently in this thread agreed.
>
> But if that had _not_ been the case, almost no one would have seen a reason to
> buy OS/2, and so it would still have been the case that no one would have
> developed for it.
>
> Also, Windows support was partial - it ran 16-bit Windows applications, but not
> the newer 32-bit ones written for Windows 95 and later.
>
> So pointing to Windows support as their big mistake really ignores the fact that
> they would not have had much of a chance without it either.

The big problem was that it cost too bloody much for what it was, and
the development tools were even more so. That's one lesson Microsoft
has learned, don't try to profiteer off of your developer community.
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #396486 is a reply to message #396463] Tue, 07 July 2020 00:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Robin Vowels is currently offline  Robin Vowels
Messages: 426
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Monday, July 6, 2020 at 4:43:24 PM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 12:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <j.....@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 2:07:02 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> <https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
>>> ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
>>>
>>> I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
>>> software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
>>> also ran Windows applications.
>>
>> And the Ars Technica article quoted more recently in this thread agreed.
>>
>> But if that had _not_ been the case, almost no one would have seen a reason to
>> buy OS/2, and so it would still have been the case that no one would have
>> developed for it.
>>
>> Also, Windows support was partial - it ran 16-bit Windows applications, but not
>> the newer 32-bit ones written for Windows 95 and later.
>>
>> So pointing to Windows support as their big mistake really ignores the fact that
>> they would not have had much of a chance without it either.
>
> The big problem was that it cost too bloody much for what it was, and
> the development tools were even more so. That's one lesson Microsoft
> has learned, don't try to profiteer off of your developer community.

What?
IBM Freshware was at very modest cost.
OS/2 Warp was free.
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #396505 is a reply to message #396486] Tue, 07 July 2020 14:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Kerr-Mudd,John

On Tue, 07 Jul 2020 04:41:48 GMT, robin.vowels@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, July 6, 2020 at 4:43:24 PM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 12:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <j.....@ecn.ab.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 2:07:02 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach
>>> wrote:
>>>> <https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some
>>>> compelling ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself
>>>> on the market.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
>>>> software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications
>>>> since OS/2 also ran Windows applications.
>>>
>>> And the Ars Technica article quoted more recently in this thread
>>> agreed.
>>>
>>> But if that had _not_ been the case, almost no one would have seen a
>>> reason to buy OS/2, and so it would still have been the case that no
>>> one would have developed for it.
>>>
>>> Also, Windows support was partial - it ran 16-bit Windows
>>> applications, but not the newer 32-bit ones written for Windows 95
>>> and later.
>>>
>>> So pointing to Windows support as their big mistake really ignores
>>> the fact that they would not have had much of a chance without it
>>> either.
>>
>> The big problem was that it cost too bloody much for what it was, and
>> the development tools were even more so. That's one lesson Microsoft
>> has learned, don't try to profiteer off of your developer community.
>
> What?
> IBM Freshware was at very modest cost.

> OS/2 Warp was free.
Certainly not at launch:
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The%20new%20operating%20syste ms:%20OS%202%
20Warp,%20Windows%2095,%20and%20Mac%20System%207-a016827564

....
IBM's OS/2 Warp, the third version of OS/2 (suggested retail price, $129)
....

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #396506 is a reply to message #396505] Tue, 07 July 2020 15:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Bob Eager

On Tue, 07 Jul 2020 18:49:17 +0000, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Jul 2020 04:41:48 GMT, robin.vowels@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Monday, July 6, 2020 at 4:43:24 PM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 12:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <j.....@ecn.ab.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 2:07:02 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > <https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some
>>>> > compelling ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on
>>>> > the market.
>>>> >
>>>> > I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
>>>> > software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications
>>>> > since OS/2 also ran Windows applications.
>>>>
>>>> And the Ars Technica article quoted more recently in this thread
>>>> agreed.
>>>>
>>>> But if that had _not_ been the case, almost no one would have seen a
>>>> reason to buy OS/2, and so it would still have been the case that no
>>>> one would have developed for it.
>>>>
>>>> Also, Windows support was partial - it ran 16-bit Windows
>>>> applications, but not the newer 32-bit ones written for Windows 95
>>>> and later.
>>>>
>>>> So pointing to Windows support as their big mistake really ignores
>>>> the fact that they would not have had much of a chance without it
>>>> either.
>>>
>>> The big problem was that it cost too bloody much for what it was, and
>>> the development tools were even more so. That's one lesson Microsoft
>>> has learned, don't try to profiteer off of your developer community.
>>
>> What?
>> IBM Freshware was at very modest cost.
>
>> OS/2 Warp was free.
> Certainly not at launch:
> https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The%20new%20operating%20syste ms:
%20OS%202%
> 20Warp,%20Windows%2095,%20and%20Mac%20System%207-a016827564
>
> ...
> IBM's OS/2 Warp, the third version of OS/2 (suggested retail price,
> $129)
> ...

It was given away in goodie bags to freshers at UK universities one
year...



--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #396507 is a reply to message #396506] Tue, 07 July 2020 15:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> writes:
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2020 18:49:17 +0000, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2020 04:41:48 GMT, Rod Speed wrote:


>>> OS/2 Warp was free.
>> Certainly not at launch:
>> https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The%20new%20operating%20syste ms:
> %20OS%202%
>> 20Warp,%20Windows%2095,%20and%20Mac%20System%207-a016827564
>>
>> ...
>> IBM's OS/2 Warp, the third version of OS/2 (suggested retail price,
>> $129)
>> ...
>
> It was given away in goodie bags to freshers at UK universities one
> year...
>

The first taste is free?
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #396509 is a reply to message #396506] Tue, 07 July 2020 16:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On 7 Jul 2020 19:28:03 GMT, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Jul 2020 18:49:17 +0000, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2020 04:41:48 GMT, robin.vowels@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, July 6, 2020 at 4:43:24 PM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 12:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <j.....@ecn.ab.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 2:07:02 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach
>>>> >wrote:
>>>> >> <https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some
>>>> >> compelling ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on
>>>> >> the market.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
>>>> >> software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications
>>>> >> since OS/2 also ran Windows applications.
>>>> >
>>>> >And the Ars Technica article quoted more recently in this thread
>>>> >agreed.
>>>> >
>>>> >But if that had _not_ been the case, almost no one would have seen a
>>>> >reason to buy OS/2, and so it would still have been the case that no
>>>> >one would have developed for it.
>>>> >
>>>> >Also, Windows support was partial - it ran 16-bit Windows
>>>> >applications, but not the newer 32-bit ones written for Windows 95
>>>> >and later.
>>>> >
>>>> >So pointing to Windows support as their big mistake really ignores
>>>> >the fact that they would not have had much of a chance without it
>>>> >either.
>>>>
>>>> The big problem was that it cost too bloody much for what it was, and
>>>> the development tools were even more so. That's one lesson Microsoft
>>>> has learned, don't try to profiteer off of your developer community.
>>>
>>> What?
>>> IBM Freshware was at very modest cost.
>>
>>> OS/2 Warp was free.
>> Certainly not at launch:
>> https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The%20new%20operating%20syste ms:
> %20OS%202%
>> 20Warp,%20Windows%2095,%20and%20Mac%20System%207-a016827564
>>
>> ...
>> IBM's OS/2 Warp, the third version of OS/2 (suggested retail price,
>> $129)
>> ...
>
> It was given away in goodie bags to freshers at UK universities one
> year...

Many things are free for students that cost through the nose once they
graduate--the sellers want to get the kids hooked.

I don't recall what exactly I paid for Warp, but it seemed a lot at
the time. According to MIT's OS/2 FAQ, it was 129 for the upgrade,
199 for the full pack. They talk about "$80 street price", I never
saw a price that low in a store, so I find myself wondering what
street that would be and what truck it had fallen off of.
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #396510 is a reply to message #396509] Tue, 07 July 2020 17:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2020 19:28:03 GMT, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2020 18:49:17 +0000, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2020 04:41:48 GMT, robin.vowels@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, July 6, 2020 at 4:43:24 PM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> > On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 12:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <j.....@ecn.ab.ca>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 2:07:02 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>> <https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some
>>>> >>> compelling ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on
>>>> >>> the market.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
>>>> >>> software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications
>>>> >>> since OS/2 also ran Windows applications.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> And the Ars Technica article quoted more recently in this thread
>>>> >> agreed.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> But if that had _not_ been the case, almost no one would have seen a
>>>> >> reason to buy OS/2, and so it would still have been the case that no
>>>> >> one would have developed for it.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Also, Windows support was partial - it ran 16-bit Windows
>>>> >> applications, but not the newer 32-bit ones written for Windows 95
>>>> >> and later.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> So pointing to Windows support as their big mistake really ignores
>>>> >> the fact that they would not have had much of a chance without it
>>>> >> either.
>>>> >
>>>> > The big problem was that it cost too bloody much for what it was, and
>>>> > the development tools were even more so. That's one lesson Microsoft
>>>> > has learned, don't try to profiteer off of your developer community.
>>>>
>>>> What?
>>>> IBM Freshware was at very modest cost.
>>>
>>>> OS/2 Warp was free.
>>> Certainly not at launch:
>>> https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The%20new%20operating%20syste ms:
>> %20OS%202%
>>> 20Warp,%20Windows%2095,%20and%20Mac%20System%207-a016827564
>>>
>>> ...
>>> IBM's OS/2 Warp, the third version of OS/2 (suggested retail price,
>>> $129)
>>> ...
>>
>> It was given away in goodie bags to freshers at UK universities one
>> year...
>
> Many things are free for students that cost through the nose once they
> graduate--the sellers want to get the kids hooked.
>
> I don't recall what exactly I paid for Warp, but it seemed a lot at
> the time. According to MIT's OS/2 FAQ, it was 129 for the upgrade,
> 199 for the full pack. They talk about "$80 street price", I never
> saw a price that low in a store, so I find myself wondering what
> street that would be and what truck it had fallen off of.
>

I was given copies of all the releases up to and including Warp 4, plus the
developers’s toolkit.

--
Pete
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #396511 is a reply to message #396509] Tue, 07 July 2020 17:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Bob Eager

On Tue, 07 Jul 2020 16:50:38 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

>> It was given away in goodie bags to freshers at UK universities one
>> year...
>
> Many things are free for students that cost through the nose once they
> graduate--the sellers want to get the kids hooked.

Full licence, no restrictions, didn't expire when you stopped being a
student.

--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #396512 is a reply to message #396509] Tue, 07 July 2020 17:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 2:50:43 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> I don't recall what exactly I paid for Warp, but it seemed a lot at
> the time.

Yes. After IBM OS/2 Warp sold at its regular price for a while, it was discounted
to a mere $50.

It was OS/2 2.1 that was given away free, if you sent in for it, in a version that
didn't include Windows, to build up interest in Warp.

John Savard
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #396516 is a reply to message #396510] Tue, 07 July 2020 20:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 14:03:32 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7 Jul 2020 19:28:03 GMT, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2020 18:49:17 +0000, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2020 04:41:48 GMT, robin.vowels@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Monday, July 6, 2020 at 4:43:24 PM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> >> On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 12:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <j.....@ecn.ab.ca>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 2:07:02 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>> <https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some
>>>> >>>> compelling ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on
>>>> >>>> the market.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
>>>> >>>> software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications
>>>> >>>> since OS/2 also ran Windows applications.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> And the Ars Technica article quoted more recently in this thread
>>>> >>> agreed.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> But if that had _not_ been the case, almost no one would have seen a
>>>> >>> reason to buy OS/2, and so it would still have been the case that no
>>>> >>> one would have developed for it.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Also, Windows support was partial - it ran 16-bit Windows
>>>> >>> applications, but not the newer 32-bit ones written for Windows 95
>>>> >>> and later.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So pointing to Windows support as their big mistake really ignores
>>>> >>> the fact that they would not have had much of a chance without it
>>>> >>> either.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The big problem was that it cost too bloody much for what it was, and
>>>> >> the development tools were even more so. That's one lesson Microsoft
>>>> >> has learned, don't try to profiteer off of your developer community.
>>>> >
>>>> > What?
>>>> > IBM Freshware was at very modest cost.
>>>>
>>>> > OS/2 Warp was free.
>>>> Certainly not at launch:
>>>> https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The%20new%20operating%20syste ms:
>>> %20OS%202%
>>>> 20Warp,%20Windows%2095,%20and%20Mac%20System%207-a016827564
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> IBM's OS/2 Warp, the third version of OS/2 (suggested retail price,
>>>> $129)
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> It was given away in goodie bags to freshers at UK universities one
>>> year...
>>
>> Many things are free for students that cost through the nose once they
>> graduate--the sellers want to get the kids hooked.
>>
>> I don't recall what exactly I paid for Warp, but it seemed a lot at
>> the time. According to MIT's OS/2 FAQ, it was 129 for the upgrade,
>> 199 for the full pack. They talk about "$80 street price", I never
>> saw a price that low in a store, so I find myself wondering what
>> street that would be and what truck it had fallen off of.
>>
>
> I was given copies of all the releases up to and including Warp 4, plus the
> developers’s toolkit.

Must be nice to be you. I wasn't given any of it.
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #396517 is a reply to message #396507] Tue, 07 July 2020 20:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2020-07-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

> Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2020 18:49:17 +0000, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2020 04:41:48 GMT, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>> OS/2 Warp was free.
>>>
>>> Certainly not at launch:
>>> https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The%20new%20operating%20syste ms:
>>> %20OS%202%20Warp,%20Windows%2095,%20and%20Mac%20System%207-a 016827564
>>>
>>> ...
>>> IBM's OS/2 Warp, the third version of OS/2 (suggested retail price,
>>> $129)
>>> ...
>>
>> It was given away in goodie bags to freshers at UK universities one
>> year...
>
> The first taste is free?

It works for Microsoft...

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Re: Why did OS/2 fail? [message #396525 is a reply to message #396505] Tue, 07 July 2020 23:07 Go to previous message
Robin Vowels is currently offline  Robin Vowels
Messages: 426
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 4:49:19 AM UTC+10, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2020 04:41:48 GMT, r.......@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Monday, July 6, 2020 at 4:43:24 PM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 12:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <j.....@ecn.ab.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 2:07:02 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > <https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some
>>>> > compelling ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself
>>>> > on the market.
>>>> >
>>>> > I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
>>>> > software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications
>>>> > since OS/2 also ran Windows applications.
>>>>
>>>> And the Ars Technica article quoted more recently in this thread
>>>> agreed.
>>>>
>>>> But if that had _not_ been the case, almost no one would have seen a
>>>> reason to buy OS/2, and so it would still have been the case that no
>>>> one would have developed for it.
>>>>
>>>> Also, Windows support was partial - it ran 16-bit Windows
>>>> applications, but not the newer 32-bit ones written for Windows 95
>>>> and later.
>>>>
>>>> So pointing to Windows support as their big mistake really ignores
>>>> the fact that they would not have had much of a chance without it
>>>> either.
>>>
>>> The big problem was that it cost too bloody much for what it was, and
>>> the development tools were even more so. That's one lesson Microsoft
>>> has learned, don't try to profiteer off of your developer community.
>>
>> What?
>> IBM Freshware was at very modest cost.
>
>> OS/2 Warp was free.
> Certainly not at launch:
> https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The%20new%20operating%20syste ms:%20OS%202%
> 20Warp,%20Windows%2095,%20and%20Mac%20System%207-a016827564
>
> ...
> IBM's OS/2 Warp, the third version of OS/2 (suggested retail price, $129)
> ...

I expect that there was an upgrade price if you already had
an earlier version installed (but do not recall).

I had dual boot. You could switch from Windows 3.1 to OS/2 and back again.
Pages (6): [ «    1  2  3  4  5  6]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Next SCCAN meeting - Saturday, July 11 (cancelled)
Next Topic: More powerful than the computers in the Apollo moon missions
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Mar 29 01:37:30 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.08596 seconds