Is windows 8 Microsoft's OS/2?

Oldies will remember OS/2, IBM's original PC OS. It lost out to superior marketing and general public take up of Windows. Sound familiar? IBM did not try to impose OS/2 on their already successful mainframe market because it clearly was not up to the job. Similarly, MS imposing phone and tablet software onto desk and lap tops just to preserve their phones would be wrong.

I am still trying to use Windows 8 on a newly bought laptop, but so many memories are resonating at the moment. Windows 8 has been designed for mass use in the tablet and phone market. All the pre-installed start screen apps are designed for limited screen real estate and internet information retrieval.

But it must support the user base who use a computer for more than just email and browsing. And it must support them out of the box, not demand that they reconfigure their default start screen. It would be a shame if reinstating the start menu were the only way to do this.

Come on, Microsoft, don't give up on the serious work market. Remember, those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.

Ah the memories....

APHI said:

Oldies will remember OS/2, IBM's original PC OS. It lost out to superior marketing and general public take up of Windows. Sound familiar? IBM did not try to impose OS/2 on their already successful mainframe market because it clearly was not up to the job. Similarly, MS imposing phone and tablet software onto desk and lap tops just to preserve their phones would be wrong.

I am still trying to use Windows 8 on a newly bought laptop, but so many memories are resonating at the moment. Windows 8 has been designed for mass use in the tablet and phone market. All the pre-installed start screen apps are designed for limited screen real estate and internet information retrieval.

But it must support the user base who use a computer for more than just email and browsing. And it must support them out of the box, not demand that they reconfigure their default start screen. It would be a shame if reinstating the start menu were the only way to do this.

Come on, Microsoft, don't give up on the serious work market. Remember, those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.

Click to expand...

Regardless of how we who are "power users" - or whatever the vogue term is today - feel, the market is shifting. And it isn't shifting solely in the sphere of the consumer. Enterprise IT is being consumerized at a rapid pace, and in spite of specialized, niche positions, the concept of BYOD is liberating employees from their desks and their traditional desktops. Microsoft is trying to bridge both worlds with Windows 8: they provide the interface that large numbers of new employees are familiar with while providing a desktop for what are likely to become legacy applications in the near future. And that near future is likely to be one where the physical desktop is gone, replaced by tablets or other portable devices that connect to virtualized desktops running on servers that handle all the processing.

APHI said:

Oldies will remember OS/2, IBM's original PC OS. It lost out to superior marketing and general public take up of Windows. Sound familiar? IBM did not try to impose OS/2 on their already successful mainframe market because it clearly was not up to the job. Similarly, MS imposing phone and tablet software onto desk and lap tops just to preserve their phones would be wrong.

I am still trying to use Windows 8 on a newly bought laptop, but so many memories are resonating at the moment. Windows 8 has been designed for mass use in the tablet and phone market. All the pre-installed start screen apps are designed for limited screen real estate and internet information retrieval.

But it must support the user base who use a computer for more than just email and browsing. And it must support them out of the box, not demand that they reconfigure their default start screen. It would be a shame if reinstating the start menu were the only way to do this.

Come on, Microsoft, don't give up on the serious work market. Remember, those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.

Click to expand...

Learn some new keyboard shortcuts in less 10min and you'll have no problems. The Start screen is also fully customisable.

How can you compare OS/2 with Windows 8 ? OS/2 was a pain in the a$$ to install, we have to change config files to simply make the install work. This is a real tech OS not design for noobs. I really miss it. About anyone can put a Windows 8 DVD in a PC and install it. OS/2 was another time, and Windows 95 win the battle because it was way more easy to install and configure. All true a majority of peoples who are using PC today will have not be able to install Windows 95 as no Internet and forum to help them.

APHI said:

Oldies will remember OS/2, IBM's original PC OS. It lost out to superior marketing and general public take up of Windows. Sound familiar? IBM did not try to impose OS/2 on their already successful mainframe market because it clearly was not up to the job. Similarly, MS imposing phone and tablet software onto desk and lap tops just to preserve their phones would be wrong.

Click to expand...

No. OS/2 failed for a lot of reasons, and very little of it had to do with marketing.

For example, OS/2 did not work with existing device drivers, which meant writing all new drivers for all your hardware. Wasn't going to happen. OS/2 required much larger and beefier computer configurations, requiring 4-8MB back when that costed $1000 for the memory alone. OS/2's Workplace Shell was powerful, but cryptic and arcane. Most people did not know how to use it to its full advantage. OS/2 had serious problems with its UI, such as the infamous Single Input Queue problem. IBM doomed OS/2 by insisting that it support their 286 customers, because they had promised them it would. IBM's own sales staff refused to push OS/2, and they refused to work with it on their own computers.

saying they wouldn't put it on their mainframes is silly. OS/2 was written in x86 assembly language, which is why it was so hard for them to port to PowerPC (which they never actually finished).

However, OS/2 single worst issue it faced was that it came from IBM, who at the time was a major PC vendor. Compaq, HP (they were separate companies then), Packard Bell, Dell, etc... none of them wanted to be dependent upon an OS made by their competitor. Microsoft's independence is what made them so successful. They weren't going to screw over Dell or Compaq in favor of their own computers. IBM notoriously paid zero cost for OS/2 on their PC's, which gave them a HUGE advantage over any competitors.

Pin Desktop items to the Start Screen, get used to a couple of new mouse movements, productivity might actually increase. Then, wait for Windows 3.1 (9).

A question Robot, are you still using the Enterprise Demo ?

area 66 said:

A question Robot, are you still using the Enterprise Demo ?

Click to expand...

Yep, have about two weeks left on it.

Coke Robot said:

Yep, have about two weeks left on it.

Click to expand...

oh I see, you support Microsoft verbally , but not with the wallet.

area 66 said:

Coke Robot said:

Yep, have about two weeks left on it.

Click to expand...

oh I see, you support Microsoft verbally , but not with the wallet.

Click to expand...

And? You're insinuating the oddest allegation. Why should I stop using the 90 TRIAL period that I still have two weeks left to use before I go buy a copy? Are you saying that I'm such a fanboy that I'm supposed to have already?

By the way, I plan on purchasing a SSD to install Windows 8, that decision affected the Windows 8 upgrade decision....

APHI said:

Oldies will remember OS/2, IBM's original PC OS.

Click to expand...

I certainly do remember it. I almost went out-of-business tinkering with that thing! Sweet piece of work it was but the main problem was it's lack of compatibility. The system almost worked but I never good get it to settle down; always felt like I had to tinker with it. I went from 2.2 to Warp and finally had to abandon it and use Windows 3.1. I was still developing DOS applications in those days and used both OS/2 and Windows as primarily a task switcher for multiple DOS sessions.

In fact ... Windows 3.1 was the superior of the two when it came to multitasking DOS sessions. Windows actually created a VM for each DOS session and all Windows GUI sessions shared one VM. The DOS VM's were pre-emptively multitasked where the Windows apps were "cooperatively" multitasked in one VM. As a DOS task-switcher, Win 3.1 was really sweet. The switch was instantaneous, too. It sure did work great. I could have a 2400bps download going on in one DOS session (PCPLUS mind you), a compile going in another and be editing source code in a third.

-Max

Has anyone mentioned that OS/2 was literally Windows before Windows was Windows. It was very much a Microsoft product just as much as IBM. Read your history.

Was OS/2 like Windows? I vaguely remember it being on IBM PS-2 computers and their damnable "Microchannel Architecture" - I've only ever seen the inside of one of those, once in my life, and I can't for the life o me remember anything about it. They were selling them at Egghead Software, before they became Online-Only Newegg, but that was back in 1992 to 1994 or so. In 1994 I bought my first '486 DX/66 and I thought I only needed 1 MB of Ram. and a 120 MB Hard Drive.

I paid 2400 bucks for that system, I had a budding computer place build it for me. That was my mistake. They gave me a 13 inch SHAMROCK Monitor. Shudder.

XweAponX said:

Was OS/2 like Windows? I vaguely remember it being on IBM PS-2 computers and their damnable "Microchannel Architecture" - I've only ever seen the inside of one of those, once in my life, and I can't for the life o me remember anything about it. They were selling them at Egghead Software, before they became Online-Only Newegg, but that was back in 1992 to 1994 or so. In 1994 I bought my first '486 DX/66 and I thought I only needed 1 MB of Ram. and a 120 MB Hard Drive.

I paid 2400 bucks for that system, I had a budding computer place build it for me. That was my mistake. They gave me a 13 inch SHAMROCK Monitor. Shudder.

Click to expand...

Dood, I've got ya beat. Remember Northgate? They were the rage in late 80's, early 90's. I bought a Northgate 386, 8M RAM, I can't remember the HD size, might have been about 100M. It came with Win 3.1 which was just released. $5299 for that puppy.

2400.00 /5299.00 , half that was profit for the retailer , today they make about 50-100$ if they are lucky ,mostly because of the big box store and online retail