Slashdot Mirror


25 Years of IBM's OS/2

harrymcc writes "On April 2nd, 1987 — 25 years ago today — IBM announced OS/2. It was supposed to be the next-generation operating system that would replace DOS. It never did. But for a famous failure, it's doing okay — it still runs the computers that manage the New York Subway's Metrocard fare cards, for instance. Over at TIME.com, I've taken a look at its occasional triumphs, frequent tribulations and enduring legacy."

36 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. When OS meant Computer by alphatel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In 1995, OS2 desktop was as popular as Macintosh. Now the field is pretty much 85% Windows with 10% Mac and under 2% Linux.

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    1. Re:When OS meant Computer by Theophany · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I guess it's testament to the machine that is Microsoft - their sheer unrelenting power in the marketplace. It also creates that feeling of support for Big Blue as an underdog, something you wouldn't really associate with them. Still, TFA is just a romanticisation of fierce and underhanded business tactics. Either you win big or you're blasted into mass insignificance by the big boys when it comes to the consumer desktop OS market.

      In a way, it's almost like RIM and Nokia/Symbian's rather tremendous falls from grace, care of Apple and Google; i.e. they never stood a chance.

    2. Re:When OS meant Computer by SQLGuru · · Score: 5, Interesting

      IBM was pushing OS/2 Warp to compete with Windows NT. I was in college at the time and did a co-op with IBM that year. I had to opportunity to go to COMDEX and IBM gave lots of people a t-shirt that said "Nice Try" (with the N and the T really emphasized) on the front and "OS/2 Warp, Up and Running, Not Up and Coming" on the back. We were to wear the shirt in the audience of Bill Gates keynote when he officially announced Windows NT.

      I still have that T-Shirt.

    3. Re:When OS meant Computer by Flammon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, I tried Warp and the problem for me was RAM. You see, at the time, a 386sx40 with 4MB of RAM and a 170MB HD was an average machine but it wasn't enough to run Warp decently. Warp just didn't run at Warp speeds on that hardware. If Warp would have appeared a few years earlier, the problem would have been worse.

    4. Re:When OS meant Computer by Another,+completely · · Score: 5, Insightful

      fierce and underhanded business tactics

      My memory is that you could buy Windows for $60, or OS/2 for $500 or thereabouts. Always thought that might have had something to do with it.

    5. Re:When OS meant Computer by unixisc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I actually considered abandoning Windows myself for it, after a friend showed me what OS/2 Warp could do (its multitasking blew away Windows 3.1, and unlike Mac's, it could run DOS games/software). It may have succeeded if it Warp had come out just a couple of years earlier. As it was, it only beat Win 95 to market by a year or so, and so most people just held out for another year and stuck with Windows.

      I don't think it was the timing of Warp's release - after all, even OS/2 2.1 was superior to Windows 3.1. Problem was that OS/2 had double the memory requirements, which was a major showstopper at the time. Although it supported all DOS device drivers, there was always the problem of which systems wouldn't run it.

      Also, for PC makers, IBM was a competitor, while Microsoft was not. That too was a part of the decision. Also, IBM took way too long and ultimately aborted Workplace OS, which was to have succeeded OS/2. That turned out to be the death knell for the OS.

      After Microsoft merged Windows 9x and NT in Windows 2000, the rationale for OS/2 was pretty much gone. Which, alongside the demise of Amiga, NEXTSTEP, NT-RISC, was some of the tragic reasons for which all we have today is Windows and Unix (I'm considering Linux, BSD, Solaris and all their derivatives as Unix).

    6. Re:When OS meant Computer by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Informative

      Same reason why it took Linux so long to gain some speed. Let's be honest here, it's a great system. But run it on the 486DX available in 1990 or the early Pentiums and you're in for a very, very slow and sorry ride. Compare to DOS, which is MUCH more lightweight, it had no chance.

      Sure, Linux was even back then a full blown multitasking, multiuser system, nothing DOS could have held a candle to in any sense (actually, Linux farting would have blown out that candle without even aiming in the right direction), but the problem was simple: Nobody cared. Multiuser, multitasking system on a box that can barely run ONE task without overextending its CPU power? What for?

      OS/2 suffered the same problem, it was a great system, it had great features but the hardware it was supposed to run on was not up to it. And the features went unused, both by software and the user, which in turn makes the DOS/Windows combo the "better" system in the eyes of the user. Simply because it was faster. Yes, from a technology point of view it was inferior to OS/2 (hell, even NT4.0 was), no doubt about that. But the superiority of OS/2 didn't "arrive" at the user.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:When OS meant Computer by Bigbutt · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yea, mine was I could write code for Windows (and DOS) without paying fees but the OS/2 API was $2,000 (or something silly like that; it's been a few years).

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    8. Re:When OS meant Computer by jandrese · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That was more or less my experience with it. I went to college in 1995 and the recommended machine was an IBM P75 with 16MB of RAM. Plenty for DOS and Win3.1, but it also came preloaded with OS/2 3.0 Warp. That was pretty cool I thought, so I booted up OS/2 to check it out. It took forever to boot, and once booted the UI was just dog slow. Clicking on a menu required a full second or more for it to draw on the screen. It was just unusable. It also didn't have a good web browser, which even in 1995, was a death knell for any OS (my friends BeBox had the same problem).

      Looking back now, I might have been able to tweak it and get it usable if I had been willing to invest the time in it, but I instead focused my energy on FreeBSD (2.1!) and that turned out to be the better choice anyway.

      The one thing I did like about that machine: PC-DOS was better than MS-DOS. Not a lot better, but its memory management was just slightly superior so that the constant headaches my friends had with trying to get stuff to run on their MS-DOS machines (damn, 1MB short of base memory!) was not a problem on mine. I never had to make boot floppies to get Doom to run because PC-DOS was slightly better about getting stuff up into High Memory).

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    9. Re:When OS meant Computer by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention anybody that was there and actually used it (I hung onto OS/2 all the way up until Win2K, after a horrible month attempting to run WinME and being horrified what a step backwards it was) knows that a LOT of what was wrong with OS/2 was NOT the OS, but the company behind it...IBM. In a way the mess with HP and WebOS reminded me of OS/2 because in both cases neither knew how to market the product and thought by sticking their brand in front of it that would magically sell it.

      Even though I REALLY liked the OS (its multitasking was years ahead of everybody else at the time) when I saw the ads i was like "Oh shit, its toast" because their entire selling point was "A better Windows than Windows"...WTF? Are you kidding me? Windows CAME ON THE MACHINES and cost NOTHING and you want $200 for your OS and the big selling point is it runs Windows programs? Are you stupid? why should a user or developer support you when your big selling point is you're just an ersatz Windows? And not a great one at that because it only had 16 bit support and Windows was already touting Win32.

      It was sad, that's what it was. they had this great thing, something that could have changed the game, and they pissed it all away because they didn't know how to sell it. But we see this all the time, You get these powerful companies that just "pull a Dilbert' and get a case of the stupids. Hell look at MSFT, they FINALLY have an OS to replace XP with, businesses are starting to adopt, so what are they gonna do? Burn their user base chasing fucking cell phones. Fucking retarded, just completely fucking retarded.

      I would say, and i'm sure i'll get hate from the fans for saying so, but OS/2 had a better shot than Amiga at the title if they would have just pushed for "developers developers developers" along with plenty of in house programs that showed off the power. When Windows was still stuck with DOS underpinnings and would bitchslap you if you tried to run more than one program at a time OS/2 could multitask like crazy. I'd have a web page open WHILE having a chat session AND listening to music and not a single skip or glitch, it was truly amazing. And unlike Amiga it could run on the bog standard hardware. But first IBM tried to tie it to the hardware they were selling (which was overpriced and behind the curve to boot) and then when that didn't work they tried to sell it for more than the market would bear, just retarded.

      BTW if anyone wants to fire up a VM and try it eComstation, which is just a rebranded OS/2, has a trial version i think. try it and remember that when it came out Windows was on 3.x and be blown away at how solid it was.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Brings a tear to my eye by xwwt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I spent may hours working in the ICLUI interface building apps for OS/2. For the most part it was good at memory management, tools were mature and the interface was object oriented. I was always frustrated about the MS & IBM split on the interface and I think MS took the wrong route in getting to Windows. Had the alliance stuck around who knows what would have happened to this OS.

    --
    Audi, vide, tace, si tu vis vivere
  3. Gates schooled IBM... by Trip6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...on aggressive partnering and OEM tactics. That was his real contribution to MS, nothing technical.

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
  4. OH the memories by ArhcAngel · · Score: 4, Informative

    For a brief period in the nineties I was an OS/2 evangelist/snob/fanboi...It's too bad IBM wasn't a little more savvy with marketing and branding. Scratch that, it's too bad OS/2 belonged to IBM. I was in the local DMV a few years ago and noticed they were still using it...and its circa 1989 graphics. One feature I loved and haven't seen duplicated on any other OS is the ability to create a work folder. Not sure the actual term for it any more but if you put a shortcut to an application/spreadsheet/document in that folder and set the folder as active whenever you opened that folder every one of those items would come up front and center. The closest thing I know of is the startup folder in Windows but that is only when you log in.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  5. It was great... once upon a time. by AntEater · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I ran OS/2 extensively from '93 to '03. OS/2 was way ahead of it's time in many ways - maybe too much so. It was a great solid system and the GUI was much better than most of what we have today. it's a shame that IBM couldn't market it properly but they were working against the massive marketing force that MS had back then. That, and the fact that OS really ran best with at least 16mb or RAM back in a time when 8mb was considered excessive. Once Win95 came out OS/2 was pretty much on a fast path to it's death. That clearly demonstrated that the PC industry was more about marketing and deals than producing a better product because windows 95 was absolute trash in comparison.

    --
    Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
  6. Titans of the industry by jayhawk88 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "More than 250 companies declared their intention to deliver OS/2 apps, including biggies such as Lotus, WordPerfect, Borland and Novell."

    OK, that made me smile.

    1. Re:Titans of the industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "More than 250 companies declared their intention to deliver OS/2 apps, including biggies such as Lotus, WordPerfect, Borland and Novell."

      OK, that made me smile.

      Why?

      When I was at IBM Boca (when it existed), we had all those apps running and they were available for sale at your local computer store.

      I remember the Borland OS/2 compiler rather fondly, although, at IBM we were stuck with Visual Age - a pig - during the Warp days. Before that we had Microsoft's C/C++ compiler and that was pretty good.

      Novell, I guess that made you smile. Although, the networking on OS/2 (TCP/IP, Netbeui) was quite combersome and a bitch to get around - that was written by IBM along with the install program. I almost got fired when I asked during the Warp days, "I see that on the top of every source module 'Copyright 1987 Microsoft Corporation'. Is there anything that IBM actually wrote?"

      "The install and networking."

      "Ah! The features that everyone says is crappy with OS/2."

      "Hey! Hey!"

      "Uh....nevermind."

      Although, the WorkPlace shell was an IBM program and it was rather good - for the user. Programming the fucker with SOM (and its obscenely large headers to make C object oriented) was kind of a bitch.

  7. Re:CIBC by ArhcAngel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    OS/2 is still being updated/supported just not as OS/2. eComStation Is currently available and works with most current generation hardware.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  8. Good old OS/2.. by Drumpig · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was using OS/2 when I signed up for this /. ID!

  9. Re:okay ? by khr · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... would consider this a failure of New York Subway's and not an indication how good OS/2 really is.

    Why is that a failure of the subway system? I live in New York and I take the subway every day. The computer system always works fine for me, there's hardly any time that I swipe my card and it erroneously doesn't open the turnstile for me. From a customer perspective, whatever software they're using, it's very reliable.

  10. One.Word by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    CONFIG.SYS

    Well, there's a longer story. Anybody interested should look into the blind luck and frustration that led to MS building Windows as "PM lite" and chancing into Dave Cutler's expulsion from DEC. The book "Big Blues" is a decent start.

    When IBM pivoted hard toward PS/2 and 16-bit computing, Gates took one of the 3 or 4 intuitive gambles that defined both his success and that of Microsoft.

    There's ONE simple use case, that illustrates the technical failing of OS/2, vs Windows NT - particularly in face of the claim IBM made for a "Better Windows than Windows". > > >. OS/2 didn't perform a special trap for that key sequence. Nor could it - without the 32-bit native, 'Virtual 8086" mode of the 386 processor. This simple illustration exposes the huge architectural gulf that OS/2 was unprepared to cross as 16-bit. Bill's certainty that 32-bit architecture was demanded by multi-task/multi-user computing in 1989 paid off. Inheriting the VMS brain-trust allowed him to execute, while leveraging the design and code contributions his team had made to the OS/2 project.

    Besides that? CONFIG.SYS. Really! A whole /etc directory reduced to the parsability of one file! In this context, the follies of the Windows registry appear to be, comparatively enlightened.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:One.Word by Moridineas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I remember in at least one version of OS/2 that I used to run (2? Warp?), if you sorted the driver lines in your CONFIG.SYS alphabetically, your boot time would improve dramatically.

      I loved OS/2 back in the day.

    2. Re:One.Word by ratboy666 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Interesting, and wrong.

      OS/2 1.0 offered a single "DOS box". No claim was made to be a better "Windows than Windows".

      With OS/2 2.x, 32 bit mode was exploited, and Virtual 8086 mode as well for multiple DOS boxes. Windows 3 was modified to run in a "virtual friendly" fashion. Remember that IBM had a source license and was allowed to modify Windows 3.

      THIS version was a "better Windows than Windows" -- at least 16 bit Windows. Better performance, less crashing.

      However, the para-virtualized Windows relied on a certain addressing layout. Microsoft made sure to break that with Windows 95, removing the option of modifying and running under OS/2.

      Yes, a monolithic CONFIG.SYS was a bottleneck -- some ran into 100 or more lines. But, practically, not as big a concern. OS/2 was smaller, did not support multi-user, and few file systems. CONFIG.SYS was arguably the right choice. For OS/3... not so much, but then, that became Win NT.

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    3. Re:One.Word by operagost · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not sure why you're going on about Virtual 8086 mode, because that was supported from the release of OS/2 2.0 in 1992. How do you think it ran DOS and Windows 3.x programs so well? It certainly trapped CTRL-ALT-DEL... but all it did was flush the caches and reboot. That's because it was single-user, and had no need to trap the CTRL-ALT-DEL sequence to avoid being vulnerable to password harvesting programs. OS/2 2.0 beat Windows NT to the market, so acting as if it somehow lagged in this regard seems revisionist.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:One.Word by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I find it hard to believe the CTL-ALT-DEL would be enough reason for users to quit OS/2 and pick Windows instead.

      Of course both of these 80s and early-90s OSes sucked compared to the simplicity of the Mac System 6, or Atari ST-TOS, or the preemptive tasking of the multimedia-capable Amiga OS (since 1985) which was used to create graphics for seaQuest, Babylon 5, and Voyager (one season).

      People who wanted power, like for gaming, were not buying either OS/2 or Windows 2/3 on PCs. They were choosing the Atari STs or Commodore Amigas.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  11. Re:Runs most ATM by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Up until recently, the teller terminals at my bank ran OS/2, but it was basically just a platform to run terminal sessions to the mainframe. Then they switched over to a browser-based front end to a UNIX back end.

    The company I work for still supports old, legacy, OS/2 systems used for telephone menuing systems. It's funny that when there is a problem, many of the employees we support have no idea where the machine is located. It was literally stuck in an office somewhere and has been running completely unattended for years. It never gets updates. It never has to reboot. It just runs... and runs... and runs.

    The problem we have now is finding hardware old enough to support it. We have to use 80GB drives for replacement and set up a 2GB partition for the OS and software. The rest just sits there idle. AT motherboards, ISA graphics and PS/2 keyboards and mice are getting harder and harder to find.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  12. Re:os/2 was not able to windows 32 bit apps just 3 by project5117 · · Score: 5, Funny

    10 I
    20 REM FIXED CAPITALIZATION
    30 might have a valid point in there somewhere - but
    40 REM EXTRA COMMA REMOVED
    50 sadly, our grammar and punctuation were so poor that it is lost.
    60 REM PERIOD ADDED

    70 Congratulations,
    80 REM FIXED CAPITALIZATION
    90 my written english is even less readable than INTERCAL!

    100 COMEFROM: 10
    110 Fixed that for you.
    120 And congratulations on learning INTERCAL, I'm still stuck in BASIC dialects.
    130 SYSTEM

  13. Re:os/2 was not able to windows 32 bit apps just 3 by dryeo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Microsoft used to update win32s every week it seemed then IBM would fix OS/2 to run them. Finally with Win32s v1.30 Microsoft hardcoded some DLLs to load in high memory and as OS/2 only supported 512 MBs per process, no more Win32s support without a lot of work.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  14. My old fart rant. Ex-IBM'er contractor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was in college at the time and did a co-op with IBM that year.

    My group used to call you CO-OP guys "NOP"'s - no operation - as in assembly 'NOP'.

    You were easy to pick out - shirt and tie for the first week on your NOP job.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, we gave you punks a hard time, but it was out of love, man. You were sharp and ambitious and would end up as our boss. We had to take our shots while we could.

    I still have that T-Shirt.

    Me too.

    I was in my local NAPA auto parts store and this old guy (even older than me) saw that shirt and said, "That's a really old T-Shirt."

    Long story short, he was one of those guys that took an early retirement.

    When I was at Boca, I watched all those "out of date loser" mainframers come down from NY to do shit jobs. I smugly thought, "That's what you get for not staying current!"

    How arrogant I am. And I'm ashamed for it.

    I escaped to a so-so business back office programming job while others were poached by Microsoft - the smart ones which wasn't me (Peter, peter rice eater - you rock man! I hope you're a MS Millionaire because you deserve it!).

    The ironic thing is that the Hartford Insurers (who still train, btw) need some mainframers.

    I met the most obscenely talented and genius people at IBM.

    Looking back, it was the most humbling experience ever - and I was too arrogant to take that lesson in at that time. Then again, we have to be arrogant to get jobs in this fucked up industry, don't we? Saying, "I don't know." is the kiss of death.

  15. Re:Runs most ATM by dryeo · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's tons of old OS/2 boxes chugging along in a corner somewhere until the hardware finally breaks. OS/2 sales in the form of eComStation has been tripling each year lately due to places like your work needing to install OS/2 on modern hardware. http://ecomstation.com/
    And it will still install and run on modern hardware though you have to choose carefully. No accelerated video and only ATI supported. Barely any wireless support and only a few network cards supported. Sound based on Alsa so most sound cards including built in supported. 512 GB partitions if you want them compatible with other operating systems, otherwise the ancient architecture is limited to 2 TB. Best to stick to Intel hardware, especially if you want to take advantage of all cores. OS/2 is licensed per CPU, not core so it does do SMP. Only 64 cores supported though.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  16. OSFree by unixisc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unfortunately, I never owned a PC during the time that OS/2 was around, and so never got to experience what it was. But most of the people who ever used it liked it. Just hearing about some of the concepts - dragging a file to a printer icon in order to print - blew me away. An OS that would have been the offspring of OS/2 and NEXTSTEP would have been just purrrfekt!

    In college, I learnt about microprocessor design on a PPC 601 - the first PPC to come out after IBM did a derivative design of it along w/ Motorola (now Freescale). Knowing that OS/2 was going to have an uphill battle outside IBM (heck, even Amber didn't offer the OS), I was rooting for OS/2-PPC, which was known as Workplace OS. Unfortunately, as it turned out, Mach 3 turned out to be a horrible choice for a kernel (and Hurd pretty much made the same mistake in going w/ it) and finally, IBM canned it. That was the real death knell of OS/2, and w/ it died any real hopes of the PPC getting popular outside Apple (as far as computers go - I'm not thinking about consoles or other boxes)

    Incidentally, today, there is a project called OSFree, which is similar in concept to Workplace OS, except that it uses the more recent L4 micro-kernel as its underpinning. The concept here is good - on top of the micro-kernel, they plan to use different 'personalities', such as Presentation Manager, Win32, DOS and even Linux (there already exists an L4Linux, so they may not do much more on that one), as well as a Neutral personality, which would provide the services that the other personalities require. The advantage here is that the portability of the L4 has already been demonstrated, since after an initial design w/ some assembly code, it was found that replacing assembly code w/ C didn't have any performance impact.

    I know that at this point in the game, computers based on anything other than x64 or ARM are pretty much non-starters, but it would be fantastic if such a project actually came to fruition. That would be a good step towards portable computing, while giving just about any architecture the ability to have an environment like OS/2. Hopefully, all the major FOSS software will be ported there, and that platform would then have a chance of being viable. I think that b/w OSFree and ReactOS, there should be enough opportunity for OSs that decide to take advantage of the end of support for XP. Maybe a laptop based on a MIPS or PPC can have a go at it

  17. The technology created of OS/2 lives on in Windows by FirstOne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember it well, I was tasked with a number of OS/2 projects. Recoding MS's writelog function, making it asynchronous (non-blocking), creating the (AT) VGA driver, creating (AT) ST506 driver, and the biggest challenge ever, I was tasked with creating the final quality control steps/code/testing methodology.

    I knew the final QC phase would be huge, an almost impossible challenge, since the Microsoft's core staff was mostly Recent College Grads who would take many of inappropriate shortcuts. Thus it would take something extraordinary to beat their code into something useful.

    If I had failed, I suspect the micro computer industry would have been stuck in a dark age for at least a decade, maybe more.

    The biggest hurtle was there would be no way to fully test all combinations of system functions, our SUN would burn out first(billions of years). Instead of attempting the impossible, I did the next best thing.

    I created a series of revolutionary stress tests for that project. The component programs were a series if self checking programs which used out of phase pseudo random number generators. The resulting (re-creatable) data patterns were used for both the function parameters and content, and the longer they executed, the greater the testing coverage.

    Long story short.. The first release of OS/2 (86) never saw the light of day.. It couldn't even pass the individual component stress tests, let alone dozens of them in combination, all controlled by my screen manager. Sloppy coding techniques and shortcuts had forced MS coders to go back to drawing board and start over from scratch.

    Net result, those stress tests uncovered many flaws, including hardware problems, and major software issues, some of which were carry overs from PC/MS/DOS. They were discovered and fixed, some of them were folded back into next release PC/MS/DOS, 4.0. Thus making DOS based PC's useful for large databases for the very first time.

    In the end, the code, the methodology I created, was so far ahead of everything else they quickly took over all other forms of OS testing at both IBM and MS. And it lives on to this day, Microsoft has ten's of thousands people creating/running modern permutations of those 24hr stress tests I pioneered for the birth of OS2, using it to find and fix bugs in all versions of windows.

  18. Re:Runs most ATM by nschubach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm going to invalidate mod points for this, but did you try to use Compact Flash memory cards as hard drives?
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812200175
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313247

    It may be cheaper/quieter/cooler/faster than trying to find working 80G disks.

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  19. Usability killed it by DrXym · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I developed in OS/2 and got accustomed to most of its strangeness, but there is no denying it was strange. Having to use the right mouse for drag and drop was pointless complexity. The property tabs of most objects on the WPS were filled with WAY too many options, arranged in a haphazard way with common stuff buried behind advanced stuff. OS/2 used IBM's CUA UI guideliness which were so perversely unintuitive that compliant apps were less usable than those that weren't. And despite being CUA compliant there was zero consistency between one application and the next. None at all. There was a never ending cycle of CSDs to fix the desktop. Apps could freeze the GUI solid just by never returning from a message handler. Even IBM's own Bonus Pak could drag the desktop to its knees. And prospective developers were frightened away by expensive developer programs and hideously slow tools like VisualAge C++.

    Despite all that if you knew what you were doing it was far more superior to anything Microsoft had at the time. I'm sure Microsoft engaged in all kinds of sharp practice but it really needn't have bothered. IBM was its own worst enemy. By the time NT4.0 / W2K were appearing there was no reason at all to use OS/2.

  20. Re:os/2 was not able to windows 32 bit apps just 3 by Locutus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IBM engineers had the full Win32 running on OS/2 but once Microsoft found out they modified Windows 95/aka Chicago to break that capability. OS/2 processes could only access 1GB of address space while Chicago processes got 4GB of address space. So to break the OS/2 ability to run 32bit Windows Microsoft modified their resource compilier to load the applications resources(menus, icons, etc ) up at the top of the address space instead of down low with the rest of the application. Viola, OS/2 was unable to load the full Win32 application.

    There were stories of IBM even solving that problem but deciding that if Microsoft was willing to convolute their OS design to prevent OS/2 from running it once, they'd just keep doing it and so IBM ended the cat/mouse game at Win32S capabilities along with OS/2's already advanced design.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  21. Re:os/2 was not able to windows 32 bit apps just 3 by dryeo · · Score: 3, Informative

    With Warp server. OS/2 did start to support high memory, first 2 GBs then 3+GBs and with FixPak #13 for V4 they combined the desktop and server kernels and updated V4 to V4.5 which gave high memory support on the desktop.
    While they never finished porting the API to be high memory friendly they did a good enough job that things like Firefox, that ran like shit with a 512 MB address space, more like 350 MBs after loading shared DLLs, run quite well. And OS/2 has Odin, sorta Wine for OS/2, which allows some Win32 programs to run and is now being used to compile some Windows programs against. This is how Java 6 and Flash 11 work under OS/2 now. (actually we use the native Flash binary with a wrapper)

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  22. Re:os/2 was not able to windows 32 bit apps just 3 by project5117 · · Score: 5, Funny

    say certainly /* "i'll give it my best shot" */

    parse upper pull obvious_joke /* retrieve next obvious joke */
    do while (obvious_joke) /* as long as we've got jokes */
    select
    when (grammar_error)
    say requote_with_satirical_comments_added /* need to fill in details here... */
    when (recursion_mentioned)
    do
    NOP /* need to study more SICP to tell this type of joke; try to read SICP, then reread thread */
    end
    otherwise
    if modpoints
    say mod_up_insightful /* well done! */
    else
    say wish_i_had_modpoints /* but good job! somebody with modpoints get in on this */
    end
    parse upper pull obvious_joke /* get the next joke if there is one! */
    end /* done with the post! */

    /* thanks JD, that was a lot of fun */