Windows (1995)

Are you talking Windows 3? Oh, I don't know. It was light years beyond Windows 1. For the day and age, it wasn't too bad. Windows for workgroups was almost bearable in that you no longer had to spend days figuring out how to get your various network TSRs installed before windows.
 
It was bad,but much better than Apple. Non routable cable range bullshit.
 
Flamencology said:
You need a girlfriend. Preferably one who'll destroy your record collection.
Click to expand...
I never listen to my records anyways, since I haven't had a turntable in like 20 years (gave it to a guy at work). As long as she doesn't touch my cd's...
 
Was really just a parody thread. I use the OS that works for me, and always have. And generally learn to put up with the other main one because sometimes I have to. But really, just a parody thread. :wink:
 
GomezAddams said:
Are you talking Windows 3? Oh, I don't know. It was light years beyond Windows 1. For the day and age, it wasn't too bad. Windows for workgroups was almost bearable in that you no longer had to spend days figuring out how to get your various network TSRs installed before windows.
Click to expand...
Was attempting a parody by use of this.
 
Windows 3.11 was the last decent Windows.

Actually, os/2 should have been more popular. Too bad IBM couldn't figure out how to market it.
 
wagdog said:
Windows 3.11 was the last decent Windows.

Actually, os/2 should have been more popular. Too bad IBM couldn't figure out how to market it.
Click to expand...

Two things killed OS/2:

1. IBM charged real money for their driver development kit. Microsoft gave theirs away. IBM ignored developers. Microsoft actively courted developers. Every peripheral vendor and code vendor quickly had Windows versions of their products available. OS/2 had little products available for it outside IBM and IBM partners.

2. IBM had a policy at the time that they would not use a chip in their computers that wasn't available from two sources. While Intel had licensed the 286 design to AMD as a second source, Intel kept the 386 design to itself, and, as a sole source, IBM would not build computers around the 386, and they would not utilize 386 features in OS/2. The lack of 386 features in OS/2 caused two huge shortcomings:
  • OS/2 developers were stuck with shoehorning code and data into 64K byte memory segments, while Widows developers had a full 2GB of address space.
  • Users could only have one MSDOS window open at a time.
Of course, IBM eventually relented on the single-source policy building 386 based PS/2 computers and added 386 features into OS/2, but the damage was done. They were too far behind Microsoft.
 
GomezAddams said:
Two things killed OS/2:

1. IBM charged real money for their driver development kit. Microsoft gave theirs away. IBM ignored developers. Microsoft actively courted developers. Every peripheral vendor and code vendor quickly had Windows versions of their products available. OS/2 had little products available for it outside IBM and IBM partners.

2. IBM had a policy at the time that they would not use a chip in their computers that wasn't available from two sources. While Intel had licensed the 286 design to AMD as a second source, Intel kept the 386 design to itself, and, as a sole source, IBM would not build computers around the 386, and they would not utilize 386 features in OS/2. The lack of 386 features in OS/2 caused two huge shortcomings:
  • OS/2 developers were stuck with shoehorning code and data into 64K byte memory segments, while Widows developers had a full 2GB of address space.
  • Users could only have one MSDOS window open at a time.
Of course, IBM eventually relented on the single-source policy building 386 based PS/2 computers and added 386 features into OS/2, but the damage was done. They were too far behind Microsoft.
Click to expand...

So it was IBM's own hidebound stupidity in addressing competition that killed os/2. Given IBM's history, story checks out.
 
GomezAddams said:
Two things killed OS/2:

1. IBM charged real money for their driver development kit. Microsoft gave theirs away. IBM ignored developers. Microsoft actively courted developers. Every peripheral vendor and code vendor quickly had Windows versions of their products available. OS/2 had little products available for it outside IBM and IBM partners.

2. IBM had a policy at the time that they would not use a chip in their computers that wasn't available from two sources. While Intel had licensed the 286 design to AMD as a second source, Intel kept the 386 design to itself, and, as a sole source, IBM would not build computers around the 386, and they would not utilize 386 features in OS/2. The lack of 386 features in OS/2 caused two huge shortcomings:
  • OS/2 developers were stuck with shoehorning code and data into 64K byte memory segments, while Widows developers had a full 2GB of address space.
  • Users could only have one MSDOS window open at a time.
Of course, IBM eventually relented on the single-source policy building 386 based PS/2 computers and added 386 features into OS/2, but the damage was done. They were too far behind Microsoft.
Click to expand...
Yes. I worked for IBM at the time. The people there were brainwashed. To them, OS/2 was better than any PC operating system available. Everything ran on OS/2. It was a different world once I stepped outside of the office.
 
GomezAddams said:
Two things killed OS/2:

1. IBM charged real money for their driver development kit. Microsoft gave theirs away. IBM ignored developers. Microsoft actively courted developers. Every peripheral vendor and code vendor quickly had Windows versions of their products available. OS/2 had little products available for it outside IBM and IBM partners.

2. IBM had a policy at the time that they would not use a chip in their computers that wasn't available from two sources. While Intel had licensed the 286 design to AMD as a second source, Intel kept the 386 design to itself, and, as a sole source, IBM would not build computers around the 386, and they would not utilize 386 features in OS/2. The lack of 386 features in OS/2 caused two huge shortcomings:
  • OS/2 developers were stuck with shoehorning code and data into 64K byte memory segments, while Widows developers had a full 2GB of address space.
  • Users could only have one MSDOS window open at a time.
Of course, IBM eventually relented on the single-source policy building 386 based PS/2 computers and added 386 features into OS/2, but the damage was done. They were too far behind Microsoft.
Click to expand...
Which version os/2 could run one dos box at a time? I specifically recall running many at once. I also recall writing C code to malloc more than 64k under os/2. I do remember that being a dos limitation. I remember writing dos code to swap out 64k chunks from xms. That was a long time ago, '91/92 maybe? I could be wrong.
 
Also, dos, as a command line interpreter, sucks. I'm partial to BASH... oh, vi sucks too.

Also, drive letters and backslashes as directory separators suck.

Developers, developers, developers...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top