It might be argued that, by supporting Windows at all, OS/2 doomed itself to failure. What was the point of writing a native OS/2 app if you could just write a Win app?

I heard that argument, too, especially when people claimed that OS/2 ran Windows applications better than Windows itself did. You had to believe that OS/2 was the next strategic OS from the biggest company in PCs and that it would be a success.

But OS/2 2.1, which supported 3.1, was out in May 1993 – more than two years before Win 95, and just about a year after 3.1 came out.

I’ll accept your dates, but I think the talk about Chicago/Windows 95 started a long time before it was released (like with Longhorn/Vista). Plus, Microsoft had been showing off Windows NT 3.1 since 1992, so there was another contender out there that wasn’t compatible with OS/2.

I loved the fact that the true object orientation of the file system meant that file shortcuts/aliases were linked to the original file in such a way that when you moved the original file, the shortcut was updated, and still worked. Windows 95, etc., was a step down from that.

Yep, it was. One thing I didn’t like was the binary system files; INI files were so much nicer to manipulate. But it was designed that way to prevent modification by less-skilled people, which I can sort of understand. Besides, Windows 95 went that way, too, with the registry.

But, I guess we are a bit off topic . . .

Not that much. We’re talking about what could have been with Windows…. ;) But to get back on track, Windows 1.0 wasn’t very “Windowy” — it used a tiled interface, so there weren’t any overlapping windows.

Steve

But OS/2 2.1, which supported 3.1, was out in May 1993 – more than two years before Win 95, and just about a year after 3.1 came out.

I used OS/2 myself at work for those years – 1993 until probably September 1995 (though I still had a Warp system doing stuff for a few years after, too.) A great, though quirky, OS. I loved the fact that the true object orientation of the file system meant that file shortcuts/aliases were linked to the original file in such a way that when you moved the original file, the shortcut was updated, and still worked. Windows 95, etc., was a step down from that.

But, I guess we are a bit off topic . . .

I have to thanks Microsoft for reminding me that I’m that old.

And we should thank Microsoft for all of the Blue Screens of Death, hangs and security problems we’ve had over those 23 years. :D

Even with 3.11 there was not that much that could do with it. Everything started to change with Windows 95 I believe.

I think there was plenty to do with Windows 3.11. I suspect that’s one reason OS/2 failed — it took too long to adequately support Windows.

The first OS/2 only had the DOS Compatability box. I think a later version only supported Windows 3.0, but not 3.1. By the time OS/2 supported Windows 3.1 properly, people were already looking toward Windows 95.

The worst part is that Microsoft was a co-developer of OS/2 in the first place.

Steve

Of course, Gem 1.0 came out at about the same time, and it was a whole lot better than Windows 1. Windows has come a long, long, long way.

The first version to actually release was 1.01 if memory serves. I thought it was kind of cool – but regarded it as a toy at that time; there just wasn’t that much you could do with it.

-CB :)