I think the two things that surprise me about this year’s OS/2 2 betas are:
MS was so close to having a usable, workable 32-bit OS/2 before it backed out and switched course to Windows.
That it took IBM two whole years to get from a working and fairly viable beta to a final released version. I mean, yes, it wrote an entire new shell, but by modern standards WPS is almost trivially small and simple. IBM even did a Windows 3 version:
https://winworldpc.com/product/ibm-workplace-shell/151
But I think IBM set such high standards for release code that it meant the product shipped too late to make an impact. Another, second and smaller, way in which IBM sabotaged its own project.
First, OS/2 1.x should have been 386-specific.
Second, it should have got v2 out the door as fast as possible and then released free updates to get it up to scratch. That worked very well for MS.
Fascinating. Thanks for this.
I think the two things that surprise me about this year’s OS/2 2 betas are:
MS was so close to having a usable, workable 32-bit OS/2 before it backed out and switched course to Windows.
That it took IBM two whole years to get from a working and fairly viable beta to a final released version. I mean, yes, it wrote an entire new shell, but by modern standards WPS is almost trivially small and simple. IBM even did a Windows 3 version: https://winworldpc.com/product/ibm-workplace-shell/151
But I think IBM set such high standards for release code that it meant the product shipped too late to make an impact. Another, second and smaller, way in which IBM sabotaged its own project.
First, OS/2 1.x should have been 386-specific.
Second, it should have got v2 out the door as fast as possible and then released free updates to get it up to scratch. That worked very well for MS.