I can't imagine working in a large cubicle farm listening to a cacophony of those sound effects from 100 nearby computers all day. Absolutely horrific!
Do... Do you.. Do you really think they wouldn't put an option in to turn that off? Is that how you think that would work? Or that work PCs in the 90s had built in speakers? Or no volume control? They also only appeared in home edition. Professional editions didn't have any sounds. So many things have to be misunderstood or non existent for your scenario to even take place. Not the least of which would be any company that bought 100 OS/2 licenses and kept them all in one place.
Well I’m not too sure there were some UNIX systems that filled a similar gap it’s just that OS/2 had an identity crisis it didn’t know what it wanted to be - a UNIX workstation or a windows 3.1 Gateway desktop
@@McVaio ... NT spawned into updated versions of itself over the years, which became Window 2000, XP ... all the way to 8, 10 & now 11. Iirc, Windows 10 is really NT v.10. MS-Windows is still the biggest most used operating system on Earth, compared to other systems. For something that dominant, prevalent & huge, I would call NT a "monster".
One of the biggest issues with OS/2 was it was so good at running DOS and Windows applications, that there were almost no native OS/2 applications. Most that did exist were created by smaller companies that couldn't make enough money to stay alive. The OS itself was very solid and IBM did sell a lot of copies, but it was a hard sell to most people since it was more expensive and would mainly just run the DOS and Windows apps they already had.
In retrospect, supporting Windows applications was a big mistake on IBM's part. There was no reason to develop an OS/2 version of the software; after all, the Windows version of the application could cover the market just as well.
IBM literally went "whoa, this Trojan horse Bill Gates built for us is awesome, let's bring it inside and just leave it in our operating system. I'm sure nothing will go wrong.
@@lowmax4431 people do talk to smartphones today, even in public. I don’t think it makes sense for regular computing, but who knows where things will go in 10 more years?
yeah but no one really cared that was the problem on why it failed it had features for the nerds and to hard to use for the regular stupid people windows was much simpler and easier for stupid people to use which is why it took off this was both windows gift and curse cause when a new version of windows comes out those same stupid people bitch about how the old windows was better
What a trip down memory lane. If only ibm had gone down the path of getting vendors to write os2 software. Instead, they tried to get little software vendors to pay $3k per developer for an sdk. Meanwhile, msft was giving tools away.
I bought the first OS/2 for my 12 MHz 386 machine. Great interface! Much cleaner fonts! But I had only 4 Mbytes of RAM & OS/2 really needed 12 Mbytes to stop virtual memory swapping. With 4 Mbytes I noticed almost every mouse click initiated swap-file activity. OUCH! Also when things failed a full install was needed to get back up. Other people I spoke with noticed this pitfall as well. The following note gives some insights: A project was launched internally by IBM to evaluate the looming competitive situation with Microsoft Windows 95. Primary concerns included the major code quality issues in the existing OS/2 product (resulting in over 20 service packs, each requiring more diskettes than the original installation), and the ineffective and heavily matrixed development organization in Boca Raton (where the consultants reported that "basically, everybody reports to everybody") and Austin. That study, tightly classified as "Registered Confidential" and printed only in numbered copies, identified untenable weaknesses and failures across the board in the Personal Systems Division as well as across IBM as a whole. This resulted in a decision being made at a level above the Division to cut over 95% of the overall budget for the entire product line, end all new development (including Workplace OS), eliminate the Boca Raton development lab, end all sales and marketing efforts of the product, and lay off over 1,300 development individuals (as well as sales and support personnel). $990 million had been spent in the last full year. Warp 4 became the last distributed version of OS/2.
My first personal (had one at work) OS/2 (2.11) box was a 486sx with 8MB of memory. Never experienced the need for a reinstall that you described. What version are you talking about? I do agree that until the CD ROM came along, the relentless pumping of floppies for an install required was like a barn raising. Warp 4 was a fantastic version of OS/2. Don't forget that eComStation continued some (minor) development and support of OS/2 for several years later.
@@BillyBobDingledorf re: " I suppose fresh releases of a revamped product can be buggy" Silly me. I expected more from IBM, having used an IBM 360 in 1967.
@@DataWaveTaGo I'm trying to understand why you had issues. We didn't. 2.11 is what I ran at home. Before that, we had 2.0 at work and it ran well. I believe you had issues, but that doesn't mean we all did.
I had experience with OS/2 v2.1 1) installation = 21 diskettes 2) updates (fixpacks)= download 21 diskette images, copy to diskette, then load the 21 diskettes to update system 3) trap errors 4) changing screen resolution took several diskettes 5) improper shutdown took 3 recovery diskettes to unlock the file system
I had the same experence with the same exact version. Better yet, I had only one floppy and had to burn an image once it was done with the other hoping that it wouldn't asks for the previous disk.
Windows NT was able to run command line OS/2 applications in its earlier years, a throwback to when Microsoft and IBM had a partnership to develop the next generation operating system for PCs. Once Windows 3.1 got a foothold, though, Microsoft put its energies behind Windows, rather than OS/2 and IBM stopped the partnership as soon as they learned of this
You got further than I did. For me it wouldn't even install in the first place (kept giving some error, don't remember which one.) I have no love for MS but at least their installers _usually_ work.
To be fair, he wasn't entirely wrong. Win3.11 for Workgroups had TCP/IP built-in, allowing it to access the Internet. Most early Win95 applications could also run on Win3x. Microsoft even had the NEWSHELL which offered the Explorer interface to NT 3.1. Win95 was still a lot better but it wasn't as huge a leap compared to Win3x that people sometimes think it was. I'd say 98 -> XP was bigger, because that was when consumers were moved onto the superior NT kernel.
Compared to Windows for Workgroups 3.11, Windows 95 was actually a huge leap, and that was in how much easier it was possible to install and set it up. Changing drivers became easy, and TCP/IP was a lot easier to add. At the time I needed that, I could never figure out how to do it in WfW 3.11. Included in '95 was a built-in, though basic, FTP client, which I saw as a substantial addition. Windows 95 also had an integrated e-mail client in the form of Microsoft Exchange (not the server product), with which it was possible to password-protect mailboxes, for the many occasions that people would share computers. Many years later did I learn, that Windows 95 came with user profiles, but this feature was somewhat hidden. The Plus pack even had Internet Explorer 1.0. I fondly remember Microsoft Imager, but that was part of Office 95. Windows 98 came with msn messenger and Windows Update in Internet Explorer 4.0. This was really important, because it allowed me to keep several computers safe by diligently applying updates. Somewhere in there was also FrontPage Express. I never warmed up to Outlook Express. Windows Media Player 6.x had built-in streaming (98 Second Edition). Windows Me had Windows Media Player 7.0, Windows Movie Maker, and System Restore. But compared to Windows 9x, Windows 2000 and XP were, indeed, the next huge leaps.
@@mardus_ee Is that you Bill? Just kidding! I had an Amiga 500 until around '95 when the family got a shared desktop. XP and the transition to 7 we're my most fondly remember years. Beta Fish.
Petreley hated Microsoft's guts, but his snide remarks here unfortunately reveal his bias and undermined whatever else he had to say. Also, saying that Win95 was just Win3.1 on steroids is just flat out wrong, but Petreley wasn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. They should've used William Zachman instead. He also hated Microsoft and loved OS/2, but was a much smarter guy than Petreley (not that that's saying much).
3:38 "Almost as many bears as there are people!" Show an image of a **bear,** play a sound effect of a **cow.** This in an ad for an operating system, named after a thing in Star Trek. I am so confused right now.
@@MegaManNeo Of course everyone who was used to the command line would eventually find Hobbes, EMX, and the GNU ports. So they would have a Unix-like interface (imperfect, of course, with no proper directory structure for GCC) anyway. This was before Linux, of course, which taught people what a proper Unix system looked like.
I programmed C on OS/2 in 1992-94. OS/2 was FAR FAR better than Windows at the time. I think the 36 floppy install was a problem for many. It needed a bigger machine than most had. OS/2 WARP did seem like a compromise and people just didn't go there.
I floated between OS/2 Warp and NT4 for years. Both had their charm, but then Server 2003 came out, it was XP minus the Fisher Price interface and some of the other stupid, it won me over for my desktop.
"Give us a brief introduction to these two interfaces". The guy then proceeds to demonstrate two entirely different features of the two systems without actually comparing anything.
I think that voice control demo was actually quite impressive. I’d say, I would be really surprised if I saw it back in 1994. Also attorney’s keyboard at 16:46 looks rather interesting.
Just checked out the keyboard as well. Looks interesting at first glance indeed. But after looking more carefully it looks less exciting. The section of the keyboard where PGDN/UP and ARROW keys are located has extra 5 buttons. 3 below PGDN/PGUP row (no idea what keys you can put there, but I guess OS/2 specific). And right above LEFT/RIGHT arrow keys there are some additional keys (instead of gaps inverted-T of the arrow keys). All of that creates illusion of something interesting happening in that section of the keyboard (almost as if it has 2 numpads). But after all just 5 extra keys and no gaps around arrows. :( So I won't be buying OS/2 Warp today...
As far as I know, you never have to? Things like Siri are nice but I always have them turned off and I've not yet had a scenario where it was required to be used or even turned on.
Perhaps not, but that said, I LOVE being able to dictate posts or text into my phone. On screen keyboards are the suck, and at least you. don't. have. to. speak. like. this. to. do. it...
@@Chordonblue On-screen keyboard definitely do suck, but giving an inanimate device commands or dictation feels weird to me. I wish they'd come out with at least a couple phones with slide-out physical keyboards again!
@@drygnfyre Android Auto forces you to use your voice while driving instead of a keyboard. So you have to struggle with a terrible voice assistant and be distracted from driving instead of just typing for a few seconds at a red light.
it isn't the OS's job to have developers work on it, it's the OS's job to have a good development environment and friendly API, which OS/2 had, it's ultimately the markets fault for only targeting the biggest OS and not arguably the best OS at the time.
@@ChristopherGray00 When OS/2 Warp was released the best OS was already Windows NT. Windows NT did have multi user support, OS/2 didn't. And Windows NT didn't have any old baggage to support 286 like OS/2 had. Windows NT was designed for the 386 from the start and that was a wise decision.
@@OpenGL4everwhen NT came out to the consumer market for programmers to work with it is, at that point an entirely different ballgame than programming on a kerneless "operating system" (MS dos was really a glorified shell with drivers rather than an actual system)
Windows 95 worked fine 3rd time round- but they were calling it Windows 98 SE by then. Windows Vista took 2 goes (Windows 7) and Windows 8 was a disaster area. Pre-Windows 10, Microsoft always had problems working out what specs its users were likely to be using, which is why for every success (3.1, 98 SE, XP, 7) there were a similar number of abject failures (1, ME, Vista, 8.0) or so-so OSs for the time (2, 95, 8.1).
and if it was 64bit I would use it over windows 10 why cause less resource usage over windows 10 it couldn't use more cause it's windows 92 so it has to use less power then windows 95 let alone windows 10
Exactly. No wonder the marketing push fell flat for such a unique product. IBM didn't know how to sell to consumers and it doesn't help when you have people that can't talk about a product in both an accurate and exciting way.
@@bartman2468 What doesn't even make sense is she was saying that Windows 95 exists because "what you have isn't good enough." Wouldn't that same logic have applied to OS/2 Warp, that previous versions "weren't good enough?" The real issue with OS/2 was that it ran DOS/Windows apps so well there was no point in making native OS/2 applications, so very few existed.
@@drygnfyre To her credit she was not saying that, not exactly. She said that Microsoft was making people think that their product is not good enough and that they need an upgrade (to Win95) and that IBM is supposedly taking advantage of that by launching their own new product and benefit from the momentum created by Microsoft. A nice theory if it weren't totally naive and biased...
I remember seeing an O/S2 box package in a drawer by itself in a large warehouse factory that I used to work in about 2 decades ago. Man, I was so tempted to take that package. From what I recall, it seemed to have been sitting in that drawer for months, so I was thinking maybe someone forgot it was there. Eventually one day it disappeared, so either the person that originally put it there awhile ago took it, or someone else with a temptation like me took it. Oh well, that was my first & last "experience" with O/S2, lmao. Today we experience some pieces of O/S2 on modern Microsoft Windows platforms, whether it due to some similar programming or in spirit. Plus of course, O/S2 does not have the advantage of multithreading anymore, now that we have multicore processors past the days of SMP.
OS/2 was such a great operating system. In many ways it was better than not only Windows 95 but NT as well. OS/2's object model was far superior to anything else at the time, and is in some ways superior even to Windows 10 today. When you brought up the Settings notebook for ANY, yes ANY, object on OS/2, it would display the tabs for not only that object but also the tabs from object types it inherited from. You could configure just about everything about it. To give you an example of how OS/2 is still superior to Windows 10, create a URL shortcut on the Windows 10 desktop. Now, change which browser gets opened by default by just that one shortcut... Can't do it, right? Windows 10 will ONLY open shortcuts to URLs with the default browser! (I recall I did find a way around this in Windows but it wasn't obvious.) OS/2 could configure everything uniquely or systemwide in a very straightforward, easy way. A shortcut or link was just like any other object. So was a file, folder, or workspace. Very consistent. The IBM guy in this video who dragged the contact onto a fax document and then simulated dragging the fax document onto the fax icon shows the superiority of OS/2's object model. Try dragging on Windows. Some things work, but I doubt you could do anything similar to what he did on OS/2 with Windows. When you moved an original file on OS/2 to a different folder, the links to that file would get updated automatically with the change in file location. Even Windows NT was still pointing the "flashlight" icon back and forth as it spun and spun searching the entire disk drive for the new location of the file when you tried to open the shortcut. That is because OS/2's object model was superior. How about the advanced voice recognition which was later built into OS/2 4? If you like the ability to talk to your computer like you can with Siri, Google Now, or Cortana from recent years, OS/2 was doing similar things with speech recognition more than twenty years ago! Like more recent speech recognition, OS/2 could not just transcribe spoken words but recognized the context of the words (to vs. too vs. two). There are undoubtedly a lot of people who love Windows. I don't begrudge them that. Windows has a lot of good points too, like compatibility with old programs, and probably the most complete application and hardware support. Most of the public probably do not know what an object model and inheritance are anyway. It's not an "either-or" situation. People who put down everyone else are commonly and correctly called "trolls". But I think that if people really learned how powerful platforms like OS/2 and Amiga were, they would be astonished at how advanced those systems were such a long, long time ago.
cyclonesification HPFS did not have NTFS's File system permissions, not until few years later. Also I don't think OS/2 at a time was also truly multiuser, where one user had separate login session and secured files. Also i remember there was some arvhitectural problems tha gor solved pretty late, when NT 4.0 was out. It was better then win 3.x that is for sure, but comparing to win 95, it is somewhat similar. NT was better.
I saw a demo of OS/2 vs. NT at Comdex in Las Vegas, I think it was 1994. OS/2 was far more advanced than NT at the time. I specifically recall seeing multimedia features (a video running in one window, an audio file in another, and non-multimedia tasks like a long spreadsheet recalc in a third window, plus some other task in a fourth window) on OS/2 running preemtively multitasked whereas when similar programs were run on the NT machine it would slow to a halt. But it figures that IBM which had done multitasking for decades before this could excel at that on OS/2 while Microsoft and Apple were still playing catchup. I think I misspoke if I wrote that OS/2 was multiuser. I don't recall that it was. I wonder whether OS/2 would have had the same problems with viruses that Windows still does. I stopped using Windows when my XP machine's registry got corrupted because I had the nerve to uninstall multiple programs at the same time. OS/2 did not have a registry, so would likely not have suffered that problem. But even if NT got file permissions first, it still did not have the more complete object model that OS/2 had. You did not mention that at all. NT did not have the inheritance of property pages. NT (and beyond) did not treat all desktop objects as full objects like OS/2 did. I think NT still did the back-and-forth flashlight animation when you moved the target of a "shortcut". OS/2 had the underlying object technology working many years before Microsoft ever did.
One more thing you forgot to mention. OS/2 had voice recognition by version 4, back in 1996. Cortana on Windows desktop PCs came out on Windows 10 in 2015. It's nice to see Microsoft catching up to OS/2 19 years late!
+cyclonesification You are using examples that might be compared compartmentalization like Linux? That's what it sounds like and the advantage of Windows is the ability to outperform that type of setup because all must be controlled by the Windows Kernel in a more streamlined format.
I had an old 386 machine that at one point I got to boot and run OS2/Warp, Windows 3.1, and an early Linux distro. I never did much with it, but getting there was fun.
12:23 Things have come a long way. We now have interactive voice assistants like Siri, Bixby, Google and Alexa among others that talk back to the user. It's interesting to see the early roots of this.
I'm really impressed with what OS/2 Warp is capable of in this presentation, and the Next Operating System was far ahead of its years, but what prevented both operating systems from gaining market traction was the fact PC users were used to running a specific application to do something e.g. web browsing, word processing, email, etc. Probably 95% of the users at that time wouldn't have had the patience to learn how to use an object oriented operating system. But nowadays consumers are using mobile technology similar to what we just witnessed in this presentation, except it's now 1000x more advanced.
"But nowadays consumers are using mobile technology similar to what we just witnessed in this presentation, except it's now 1000x more advanced." I presume you're talking about the voice recognition there, in which case I'd agree with you. Many of the features in the OS/2 Workplace Shell, however, were and are more advanced and sophisticated than what most desktops of today are saddled with. And I include Macs in this. You have to dig right down in the Mac's utilities to discover how to do the things that the OS/2 Workplace Shell would do for you out of the box. IBM should invested far more heavily in its apps division, to be sure. Because while OS/2 was a fantastic OS at the time and for me from a usability/environment point of view, moving to Windows NT was a backwards culture shock, no matter how solid it was underneath. But on Windows you had Office, Visual Basic, VBX controls, Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) and so much more with which to (rapidly) build or glue together business systems that would deliver value quickly. Windows dev tools were pretty cheap. On the other hand, with OS/2 2.0 and upwards your had a nice OS, pretty solid and some very basic starter software. But literally nothing as good as or better than the application software you could buy for Windows (which is why the compatibility thing was such a big deal). The dev tools (C Set ++ and VisualAge C++) were expensive and flakey and there were no Rapid Application Development tools (like VB, Delphi or even Foxpro) at all. And while you could reuse WPS objects from REXX, you had no equivalent to VBX (and later OCX) components that made building sophisticated solutions for Windows quick, cheap and easy. As manufacturers of hardware and software, IBM should've followed Apple's example and differentiated itself from Windows. Its over-emphasis on Windows compatibility and little software of its own or from 3rd parties for OS/2 32-bit, combined with higher purchase and licensing costs just made it unattractive to consumers and business users alike. After all, PCs came with Windows preinstalled and for most you actually had to part with a significant chunk of cash (and be technically proficient) to put OS/2 on your machine. Personally I loved OS/2. But if I were running a business then - with few exceptions - it was hard to recommend.
6:00 Smartphone manufacturers have taken this concept to a whole new level. They even put software routines to slow devices down to seemingly hasten the products demise in order to prompt you to drop money for a newer device, when the one you have is still very capable.
I used to do 3rd level OS/2 support at IBM Canada, back in the late 90s. I also used it at home, starting in 1992. This video mentions the phone book app, but doesn't really get into what it could do. You could click on a name in the address book and have it dial a modem. I had my home computer set up for this. I had an old modem, with a nice large speaker on it. Then, when I used the dialer, I could listen to the dialing and when the call was answered, at which point I'd pick up the phone. The dialer would also keep track of the call time so you could save the call info into whatever. This could be used by someone, such a a lawyer, who would bill for time on phone calls. Also, that Faxworks worked very well with another app, called Post Road Mailer, and you could receive a FAX and it would automatically be sent out as an email or the reverse. OS/2 did things that were simply not possible in any other OS. Also, in addition to the built in DOS, you could install any other version of DOS as well, even CP/M-86. This would be great for someone writing DOS apps who wanted to make sure they could run on any version of DOS.
@@oldradiosnphonographs I have never heard of OS/2W. What is it? I worked with English and French versions of the standard OS/2 package, which my department then customized. In addition to OS/2, Windows 95 & NT, I also started to work with Linux on ThinkPads. We were encouraged to work with Linux on company time and I'd regularly get receive of Linux distro CDs to do it. I liked Mandrake, but I had to change one file, to get it to work with token ring.
@@James_Knott oh I was making an abbreviation of OS/2 Warp. I’m reviving old laptops (late 00s to mid 2010s old) by putting SSD drives, putting in the maximum amount of ram, and installing Linux on them.
Yes, they ran Warp. When I started at IBM, they were running Warp 3 and later Warp 4. As I mentioned earlier, I have Warp 4 in a virtual machine on my Thinkpad E520.
and just a few years later I bought redhat 4.2 at microcenter and the rest is history, and I now am a valued member of technical society (and have lived in Silicon Valley for about a decade).
W95 looks so much cleaner and streamlined from a user point of view. Perhaps OS/2 was technically superior indeed, but general users aren't interested in operating systems. They just want to be able to do their thing with ease and universal support. OS/2 (how if look, feels and operates) clearly stems from a technocratic moloch, whereas W95 clearly looks coming from a streamlined, flexible, smart, agile business I'd say. It was 98SE though that made me really happy, me coming from a 68000 based computer that already had plug-and-play (autoconfig) and full multitasking in 1989.
17:52 "We have...several secretaries in the office who are used to using DOS programs only, and...we've switched them over to Windows, and a lot of them have a problem with DOUBLE CLICKING...to invoke an icon...to invoke a program..." 😐**WUT?**
My mum was a secretary. She was never comfortable with Windows but fine with DOS. It's an abstraction problem. The pre-computer generations grew up with machines with non-abstracted interfaces- push this, it does this, turn this, it does that. DOS and its apps had lots of commands to learn but they had a 1-1 relationship with effects. Ctrl-A does this, Ctrl-F1 does that. That made more sense to her than double clicking a little picture to make a thing you drag a thing to.
Most secretaries of the time were used to typewriters before switching to computers, so they were used to a keyboard type of operation, going from that to a mouse is like asking a secretary today to start using Virtual Reality controllers for their day to day work, some people will need more time than others adjusting to it.
It's a real issue for disabled people as well. That's why they removed it from nearly all of Windows e.g. with the Start Menu. Only the shell needs it, and even then they put in the single-click mode in Windows 98, which I actually use to this day.
I went to a computer fair in Birmingham (UK, not US) in 1994 with a friend and he bought a copy of OS/2 Warp after seeing the demo because he was so impressed with it. Unfortunately, he was never able to get it to install on any PC he tried - three different models of HP PC, as well as two PC compatibles, one a 386 and one a 486 - it would always fail during the installation at the same point. Despite numerous calls to various helplines he gave up and used the install CD as a coaster where it was much more productive. However, all five of these PC's would install and run DOS 6.22 & Win3.1 or Win3.11 (and subsequently Win95, Win95 OSR2 & WIn98) with absolutely no issues whatsoever, so it looks like OS/2 Warp had some serious fundamental deficiencies.
I've lived a long life and seen many new operating systems. They all come out promising the same new features. Os/2 Warp was suppose to be what Windowd 10 was suppose to be.
I wish that The Computer Chronicles would continue into the year 2024. I would rather continue to forge ahead using the microcomputer and computer printer and scanner than to look backward.
Windows 95 had to thunk down into 16-bit code for everything basically. This subsystem wasn't reentrant so the fancy 32-bit code had to grab the "Win16Mutex" lock to enter it.
Funny how that Market Gap she was bragging about taking advantage of - When Win 95 hit - It was literally the nail in the IBM OS/2 coffin. Because it was NEW and it was BETTER. So much so that even Apple was saying "Oh crap".
It had the ability to dual boot and I had a machine with dos/windows and OS/2 on the same drive. When windows 95 came out, it wouldn’t install if there was a dual boot installed. I think I ended up install 95 first, then re-installing OS/2. Microsoft did everything to keep their market share. I usually ran OS/2 because it was easier but eventually switched when IBM basically gave up on their own product.
At 12:23 - Voice Command - needs discrete spoken words. This fact led to many, many people suffering damage to their vocal cords. Also: This "demo" might well have been pre-scripted for the show. ie. It was repeated many, many times before being signed off as a fairly safe vocal dialogue that would result in the fewest errors.
Probably. There was another episode where someone from Apple demonstrated Copland, the infamous OS that never shipped. It had a flawless demo on the episode... because it was actually just a prerecorded video. (You can even find it here on TH-cam). I didn't use that voice recognition software featured in the episode, but I used contemporary ones from that era, and I agree with Stewart: they tended to be more toys than things you'd use seriously.
I was able to get a OS/2 Warp beta from IBM. Was very easy to access the beta I think I just went on a web site and signed up for it. Seems like it was pretty good and a step above windows 3.1 at the time, well until 95 came out. Isn't Warp still being used in ATM's or was up to a few years ago.
Back in 1984 when IBM introduced the PC/AT, it promised that it would release an OS to take advantage of the protected-mode capabilities of the 80286 processor. By the time OS/2 came out in 1987, the Microsoft*-compatible world was already moving to 32-bit 80386 processors, and nobody really cared about a major new OS for the 80286 any more. Nevertheless, that initial version of OS/2 was very much 16-bit, not 32-bit. That was probably a fatal mistake. *because it was Microsoft software (specifically, Flight Simulator) that set the standard for compatibility, not anything from IBM.
Google pcjs & football. Microsoft had versions of 1.0 with 80386 msdos multitasking… in 1987. Windows/386 launched in the end of 87, again from Microsoft. It’s IBM who wouldn’t let Microsoft put 386 features in and blocked Windows running directly on OS/2 instead opting for the 100% incompatible Presentation Manager. Had Microsoft been able to control OS/2 it’s have been great but IBM was more worried about 6mhz 80286 AT machines and not wanting a consumer product that looked like something for the midrange. It’s no wonder Microsoft took over NT OS/2 and ported Windows directly to that and renamed it Windows NT.
everyone's laughing at the voice recognition part, but it seems... pretty normal to me? like this is what early bluetooth voice devices were like, and the Kinect too. And it's reasonably fast! It's cool! I love that you have to say "engage" to enter the input though. And say "computer". It's so funny. They really did like startrek LMAO.
Wondering how different and better (?) Computing would be, if OS/2 would have survived. Too bad Microsoft had agreements that restricted hardware vendors preloading other operating systems than Windows.
I don't think that's a terrible way to think of Win95. The Windows 3.11 release, also known as "Windows for Workgroups," added modern TCP/IP support. It was the first version of Windows that could technically work on the modern Web. At one point you could also get the "NewShell" for Windows NT 3.5, which was an early version of the Windows taskbar. By installing that and just using the native apps, a lot of functionality that was in Win95 already existed in 3.x. Win95 made a lot of visual improvements but technically it wasn't as dramatic as sometimes remembered, Windows 3.1 was considerably better than a lot of people remember.
Or: "Why is your shirt (or other top garment) over your pants?" Also, "What's a hoodie?" Truth be told, hoodies were a thing in the early eighties, but I remember those being worn more in the Black community from back then (in rap videos, etc). In the 1990s, 2020s garments and overalls with neon for safety would be new, especially anything that go with outside activities, such as work and kids. These include construction, transport, roadworks, police, EMTs, kindergarten kids. When I look around, workers wearing neon is so widespread now, that neon-wearing workers would stand out in the crowd in 1990s Estonia. Cargo pants and cargo shorts would also be very new in the 1990s, for example. (Don't know about Western Europe/United States, though.) Officers and cops wearing baseball caps instead of peaked caps. Everyone wearing masks, btw. Much of the fashion difference would be in how men and women wear their hair. I've noticed differences already between 2020 and 2003. For a sample of late-1990s fashions, check out the Mike Mills-directed video for "All I Need" by Air (aka Moon Safari) - th-cam.com/video/kxWFyvTg6mc/w-d-xo.html It features beautiful sceneries from Ventura, California.
Those sfx didn't come enabled by default. Apple or even MS wouldn't allow that horrible experience on TV. The idea of OS/2 desktop isn't that familiar since it is completely object oriented. A famous saying in OSS scene "Worse is better" (check Wiki)
I installed one of the free versions of Warp 4 back in the day. As I recall the installation was not as smooth as it could have been using a combination of floppy and CD. Anyway, I found it odd that IBM would facilitate Microsoft's competition by adding DOS and Win 3. As it turned out, I didn't have any native OS/2 apps, so using it wasn't justified. If IBM had not bundled those extra operating systems and created a less bloated ecosystem OS/2 might have had a chance. It's still in use today I'm some niche circles.
I don't see at all a "gap" just because of a delay. It was the clear message to sell. But it's a way to do it back in the day, today wouldn't be at all an option to try.
Ok, seems like OS/2 was overcomplicated, without any good arguments as to why people would use it over Windows. It had the same compatibility issues to hold it back (supporting DOS and Win 3.x programs), plus a much more confusing design.
Andre John Cruz Go to a thrift store and get an older PC from around the era of warp 3 to warp 4.52. Install said system. Then use it a while and come to post your review here. I still use it on a machine for specific tasks.
that's probably a good reason why it failed: the interface looks a hodgepodge of what we'd seen over the previous ten years. Start and Taskbar are still the most efficient aids to multitasking and productivity: how many Linux distros ape this? Also, they're have been many technologies with cool features that have fallen by the wayside. If people don't use them enough, they'll eventually disappear.
+JonnyInfinite OSX neither has a Start button nor a Taskbar. Sure, the Apple menu and the Dock are somewhat similar, but not the same. The Macintosh has been increasing in sales whereas PC sales have been falling. For a variety of reasons, but I doubt people are buying Macs because they suddenly hate the Start menu and Taskbar. The reason OS/2 failed was that it wasn't playing on a level playing field and that Microsoft did so much better at consumer sales than IBM did. Microsoft now complains about not being able to play on a level playing field when it comes to smartphones. When Windows Phone first came out, most reviews of the Windows Phone UI were quite positive. Both Apple and Google even *borrowed* UI features from Windows Phone. Yet Windows Phone still has a very low share of the market. So UI isn't everything.
I can't imagine working in a large cubicle farm listening to a cacophony of those sound effects from 100 nearby computers all day. Absolutely horrific!
It was the first thing I turned off.
The sound effect during drag/drop had me in tears. It's a parody of itself.
Do... Do you.. Do you really think they wouldn't put an option in to turn that off? Is that how you think that would work?
Or that work PCs in the 90s had built in speakers? Or no volume control?
They also only appeared in home edition. Professional editions didn't have any sounds.
So many things have to be misunderstood or non existent for your scenario to even take place. Not the least of which would be any company that bought 100 OS/2 licenses and kept them all in one place.
Didn't the windows 95 plus themes have similar dinky sound effects?
"Microsoft created a gap and this is where a creative competitor can take share"
Famous last words
xplus93 perhaps
Worked for Apple, Mozilla, and Google
Well I’m not too sure there were some UNIX systems that filled a similar gap it’s just that OS/2 had an identity crisis it didn’t know what it wanted to be - a UNIX workstation or a windows 3.1 Gateway desktop
@xplus93 Windows NT came out of that. Hardly a monster.
@@McVaio ... NT spawned into updated versions of itself over the years, which became Window 2000, XP ... all the way to 8, 10 & now 11. Iirc, Windows 10 is really NT v.10. MS-Windows is still the biggest most used operating system on Earth, compared to other systems. For something that dominant, prevalent & huge, I would call NT a "monster".
One of the biggest issues with OS/2 was it was so good at running DOS and Windows applications, that there were almost no native OS/2 applications. Most that did exist were created by smaller companies that couldn't make enough money to stay alive. The OS itself was very solid and IBM did sell a lot of copies, but it was a hard sell to most people since it was more expensive and would mainly just run the DOS and Windows apps they already had.
In retrospect, supporting Windows applications was a big mistake on IBM's part. There was no reason to develop an OS/2 version of the software; after all, the Windows version of the application could cover the market just as well.
IBM literally went "whoa, this Trojan horse Bill Gates built for us is awesome, let's bring it inside and just leave it in our operating system. I'm sure nothing will go wrong.
The voice recognition is amazing for that era. Other than the guy having to speak like a robot. LOL OMG it's hilarious..lmao
They really thought people would use this in an office. Wow.
@@lowmax4431 people do talk to smartphones today, even in public. I don’t think it makes sense for regular computing, but who knows where things will go in 10 more years?
yeah but no one really cared that was the problem on why it failed it had features for the nerds and to hard to use for the regular stupid people windows was much simpler and easier for stupid people to use which is why it took off this was both windows gift and curse cause when a new version of windows comes out those same stupid people bitch about how the old windows was better
@@raven4k998 I got a feeling you use arch linux
It is now a reality. Think of Apple's Siri and Amazon's Alexa.
I wish this show were still running!
When I lived in Atlanta, it was on one of the Sundays at either 6pm or 6:30pm and I tried to watch it as best as I could.
What would they even talk about? “This week on TikTok!”
That voice recognition demo guy was awesome. Totally right out of a Tim and Eric bit.
Give me a printout of Oyster smiling!
What a trip down memory lane. If only ibm had gone down the path of getting vendors to write os2 software. Instead, they tried to get little software vendors to pay $3k per developer for an sdk. Meanwhile, msft was giving tools away.
I bet that guy was so pleased he bought loads more OS/2 computers - great investment...
I bought the first OS/2 for my 12 MHz 386 machine. Great interface! Much cleaner fonts! But I had only 4 Mbytes of RAM & OS/2 really needed 12 Mbytes to stop virtual memory swapping. With 4 Mbytes I noticed almost every mouse click initiated swap-file activity. OUCH!
Also when things failed a full install was needed to get back up. Other people I spoke with noticed this pitfall as well. The following note gives some insights:
A project was launched internally by IBM to evaluate the looming competitive situation with Microsoft Windows 95. Primary concerns included the major code quality issues in the existing OS/2 product (resulting in over 20 service packs, each requiring more diskettes than the original installation), and the ineffective and heavily matrixed development organization in Boca Raton (where the consultants reported that "basically, everybody reports to everybody") and Austin.
That study, tightly classified as "Registered Confidential" and printed only in numbered copies, identified untenable weaknesses and failures across the board in the Personal Systems Division as well as across IBM as a whole. This resulted in a decision being made at a level above the Division to cut over 95% of the overall budget for the entire product line, end all new development (including Workplace OS), eliminate the Boca Raton development lab, end all sales and marketing efforts of the product, and lay off over 1,300 development individuals (as well as sales and support personnel). $990 million had been spent in the last full year. Warp 4 became the last distributed version of OS/2.
My first personal (had one at work) OS/2 (2.11) box was a 486sx with 8MB of memory. Never experienced the need for a reinstall that you described.
What version are you talking about? I do agree that until the CD ROM came along, the relentless pumping of floppies for an install required was like a barn raising.
Warp 4 was a fantastic version of OS/2. Don't forget that eComStation continued some (minor) development and support of OS/2 for several years later.
@@BillyBobDingledorf OS/2 2.0
@@DataWaveTaGoHmmm. I suppose fresh releases of a revamped product can be buggy.
@@BillyBobDingledorf re: " I suppose fresh releases of a revamped product can be buggy"
Silly me. I expected more from IBM, having used an IBM 360 in 1967.
@@DataWaveTaGo I'm trying to understand why you had issues. We didn't. 2.11 is what I ran at home. Before that, we had 2.0 at work and it ran well. I believe you had issues, but that doesn't mean we all did.
OS/2 would have become the dominant OS -- if not for those atrocious sound effects!
They were easy to suppress.
Hehehe i thought the sounds are from vacuum tubes leaking. LOL
The sound of the shredder sounded like a car being crushed.
I like them
Aw, it’s like Plus! for OS/2. Given IBM’s proclivity for punctuation, I guess it could be IBM Slash!
I had experience with OS/2 v2.1
1) installation = 21 diskettes
2) updates (fixpacks)= download 21 diskette images, copy to diskette, then load the 21 diskettes to update system
3) trap errors
4) changing screen resolution took several diskettes
5) improper shutdown took 3 recovery diskettes to unlock the file system
I had the same experence with the same exact version. Better yet, I had only one floppy and had to burn an image once it was done with the other hoping that it wouldn't asks for the previous disk.
Windows NT was able to run command line OS/2 applications in its earlier years, a throwback to when Microsoft and IBM had a partnership to develop the next generation operating system for PCs. Once Windows 3.1 got a foothold, though, Microsoft put its energies behind Windows, rather than OS/2 and IBM stopped the partnership as soon as they learned of this
You got further than I did. For me it wouldn't even install in the first place (kept giving some error, don't remember which one.)
I have no love for MS but at least their installers _usually_ work.
Windows NT 3.1 had nice to use service packs.
'Technologically I would call it more like Windows '92. Windows 3.1 on steroids'
What a burn.
To be fair, he wasn't entirely wrong. Win3.11 for Workgroups had TCP/IP built-in, allowing it to access the Internet. Most early Win95 applications could also run on Win3x. Microsoft even had the NEWSHELL which offered the Explorer interface to NT 3.1. Win95 was still a lot better but it wasn't as huge a leap compared to Win3x that people sometimes think it was. I'd say 98 -> XP was bigger, because that was when consumers were moved onto the superior NT kernel.
Compared to Windows for Workgroups 3.11, Windows 95 was actually a huge leap, and that was in how much easier it was possible to install and set it up.
Changing drivers became easy, and TCP/IP was a lot easier to add. At the time I needed that, I could never figure out how to do it in WfW 3.11. Included in '95 was a built-in, though basic, FTP client, which I saw as a substantial addition.
Windows 95 also had an integrated e-mail client in the form of Microsoft Exchange (not the server product), with which it was possible to password-protect mailboxes, for the many occasions that people would share computers. Many years later did I learn, that Windows 95 came with user profiles, but this feature was somewhat hidden.
The Plus pack even had Internet Explorer 1.0.
I fondly remember Microsoft Imager, but that was part of Office 95.
Windows 98 came with msn messenger and Windows Update in Internet Explorer 4.0. This was really important, because it allowed me to keep several computers safe by diligently applying updates. Somewhere in there was also FrontPage Express. I never warmed up to Outlook Express.
Windows Media Player 6.x had built-in streaming (98 Second Edition).
Windows Me had Windows Media Player 7.0, Windows Movie Maker, and System Restore.
But compared to Windows 9x, Windows 2000 and XP were, indeed, the next huge leaps.
@@mardus_ee Is that you Bill?
Just kidding! I had an Amiga 500 until around '95 when the family got a shared desktop. XP and the transition to 7 we're my most fondly remember years. Beta Fish.
Petreley hated Microsoft's guts, but his snide remarks here unfortunately reveal his bias and undermined whatever else he had to say.
Also, saying that Win95 was just Win3.1 on steroids is just flat out wrong, but Petreley wasn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. They should've used William Zachman instead. He also hated Microsoft and loved OS/2, but was a much smarter guy than Petreley (not that that's saying much).
3:38 "Almost as many bears as there are people!" Show an image of a **bear,** play a sound effect of a **cow.** This in an ad for an operating system, named after a thing in Star Trek.
I am so confused right now.
Computer Engage
"and i never have to use a unix command, it's pretty neat."
IBM back then wanted to save us from the shitload *NIX was before OSX.
Greetings from a Linux user since 2003.
@@MegaManNeo Start X
@@MegaManNeo
Of course everyone who was used to the command line would eventually find Hobbes, EMX, and the GNU ports. So they would have a Unix-like interface (imperfect, of course, with no proper directory structure for GCC) anyway. This was before Linux, of course, which taught people what a proper Unix system looked like.
MegaManNeo FIPS
I programmed C on OS/2 in 1992-94. OS/2 was FAR FAR better than Windows at the time. I think the 36 floppy install was a problem for many. It needed a bigger machine than most had. OS/2 WARP did seem like a compromise and people just didn't go there.
How did you feel about Windows NT 4?
@@hypercube33 doom won't run.
I floated between OS/2 Warp and NT4 for years. Both had their charm, but then Server 2003 came out, it was XP minus the Fisher Price interface and some of the other stupid, it won me over for my desktop.
Its fatal flaw was the single input queue. If a program froze reading the mouse input, for example, the whole OS would freeze.
The problem with OS 2 was that it used a lot more disk space than the average user had at the time, hd was just too expensive in 1994.
Really digging the file centric GUI of OS/2.
"Give us a brief introduction to these two interfaces". The guy then proceeds to demonstrate two entirely different features of the two systems without actually comparing anything.
I think that voice control demo was actually quite impressive. I’d say, I would be really surprised if I saw it back in 1994.
Also attorney’s keyboard at 16:46 looks rather interesting.
Just checked out the keyboard as well. Looks interesting at first glance indeed. But after looking more carefully it looks less exciting. The section of the keyboard where PGDN/UP and ARROW keys are located has extra 5 buttons. 3 below PGDN/PGUP row (no idea what keys you can put there, but I guess OS/2 specific). And right above LEFT/RIGHT arrow keys there are some additional keys (instead of gaps inverted-T of the arrow keys). All of that creates illusion of something interesting happening in that section of the keyboard (almost as if it has 2 numpads). But after all just 5 extra keys and no gaps around arrows. :( So I won't be buying OS/2 Warp today...
That's the Gateway 2000 AnyKey keyboard. It was standard equipment on all Gateway PCs in the early to mid 1990s.
"And now the man they call 'Mr. OS/2', Dan Oestu"
well when os2 goes 64 bit I am all on board for using it over windows 95 man it's the future in computer operating systems man
It’s almost 2020 and I still honestly think I’d never use voice assistants if I didn’t have to
As far as I know, you never have to? Things like Siri are nice but I always have them turned off and I've not yet had a scenario where it was required to be used or even turned on.
Perhaps not, but that said, I LOVE being able to dictate posts or text into my phone. On screen keyboards are the suck, and at least you. don't. have. to. speak. like. this. to. do. it...
@@Chordonblue On-screen keyboard definitely do suck, but giving an inanimate device commands or dictation feels weird to me. I wish they'd come out with at least a couple phones with slide-out physical keyboards again!
@@drygnfyre Android Auto forces you to use your voice while driving instead of a keyboard. So you have to struggle with a terrible voice assistant and be distracted from driving instead of just typing for a few seconds at a red light.
Those sound effects. Gold.
I forgot how much I don't like OS sounds.
@ungratefulmetalpansy :
They should be banned or else I am going to put on my dynamite belt.
@@louistournas120 Are you Dynamite Thor?
I love that Newt Gingrich and Jennifer Flowers are in the address book (11:30ish). That took me back
R.I.P. OS/2 WARP :(
wish it was 64 bit as I would use it if it was 64 bit😢😢😢😢
IBM handed out free versions of OS/2 Warp on CD at my college in 1994. I tried and tried and could never get it installed on my 486.
Warp was really a rock solid OS but the lack of native apps and it's inability to run 32bit windows apps really killed it.
Kris G Just like Windows RT
it isn't the OS's job to have developers work on it, it's the OS's job to have a good development environment and friendly API, which OS/2 had, it's ultimately the markets fault for only targeting the biggest OS and not arguably the best OS at the time.
The ability to run 16 bit windows apps killed it. Without this feature, the developers would have had to develop an OS/2 version of their software.
@@ChristopherGray00 When OS/2 Warp was released the best OS was already Windows NT. Windows NT did have multi user support, OS/2 didn't. And Windows NT didn't have any old baggage to support 286 like OS/2 had. Windows NT was designed for the 386 from the start and that was a wise decision.
@@OpenGL4everwhen NT came out to the consumer market for programmers to work with it is, at that point an entirely different ballgame than programming on a kerneless "operating system" (MS dos was really a glorified shell with drivers rather than an actual system)
The guy presenting the voice recognition reminds me of George Constanza.
Windows 95 worked fine 3rd time round- but they were calling it Windows 98 SE by then. Windows Vista took 2 goes (Windows 7) and Windows 8 was a disaster area. Pre-Windows 10, Microsoft always had problems working out what specs its users were likely to be using, which is why for every success (3.1, 98 SE, XP, 7) there were a similar number of abject failures (1, ME, Vista, 8.0) or so-so OSs for the time (2, 95, 8.1).
Forget OS/2, where can I get that sweater from the opening?
I also like that sweater. It looks really nice.
It's like something Pablo Escobar would wear in Narcos :D
Haha right?
"I call it more like Windows '92" Big RIP.
and if it was 64bit I would use it over windows 10 why cause less resource usage over windows 10 it couldn't use more cause it's windows 92 so it has to use less power then windows 95 let alone windows 10
@@raven4k998 OS/2 Warp has trash GPU driver support. GLQuake/Quake II/Quake III/Unreal/Unreal Tournament on Windows 95/NT 4.0 smashed OS/2 Warp trash!
That PR chick has a bug in her speech matrix.
Nick Donnelly There was lots of "noise"..
Exactly. No wonder the marketing push fell flat for such a unique product. IBM didn't know how to sell to consumers and it doesn't help when you have people that can't talk about a product in both an accurate and exciting way.
Hehehehe LOL
@@bartman2468 What doesn't even make sense is she was saying that Windows 95 exists because "what you have isn't good enough." Wouldn't that same logic have applied to OS/2 Warp, that previous versions "weren't good enough?"
The real issue with OS/2 was that it ran DOS/Windows apps so well there was no point in making native OS/2 applications, so very few existed.
@@drygnfyre To her credit she was not saying that, not exactly. She said that Microsoft was making people think that their product is not good enough and that they need an upgrade (to Win95) and that IBM is supposedly taking advantage of that by launching their own new product and benefit from the momentum created by Microsoft. A nice theory if it weren't totally naive and biased...
I remember seeing an O/S2 box package in a drawer by itself in a large warehouse factory that I used to work in about 2 decades ago. Man, I was so tempted to take that package. From what I recall, it seemed to have been sitting in that drawer for months, so I was thinking maybe someone forgot it was there. Eventually one day it disappeared, so either the person that originally put it there awhile ago took it, or someone else with a temptation like me took it. Oh well, that was my first & last "experience" with O/S2, lmao. Today we experience some pieces of O/S2 on modern Microsoft Windows platforms, whether it due to some similar programming or in spirit. Plus of course, O/S2 does not have the advantage of multithreading anymore, now that we have multicore processors past the days of SMP.
I'd say more likely it got tossed
@@JaredConnell multiprocessing is different than multithreading. We still have multithreading.
Stuart's sweater makes my mind go into Psychedelic Warp 9
OS/2 was such a great operating system. In many ways it was better than not only Windows 95 but NT as well.
OS/2's object model was far superior to anything else at the time, and is in some ways superior even to Windows 10 today. When you brought up the Settings notebook for ANY, yes ANY, object on OS/2, it would display the tabs for not only that object but also the tabs from object types it inherited from. You could configure just about everything about it.
To give you an example of how OS/2 is still superior to Windows 10, create a URL shortcut on the Windows 10 desktop. Now, change which browser gets opened by default by just that one shortcut... Can't do it, right? Windows 10 will ONLY open shortcuts to URLs with the default browser! (I recall I did find a way around this in Windows but it wasn't obvious.) OS/2 could configure everything uniquely or systemwide in a very straightforward, easy way. A shortcut or link was just like any other object. So was a file, folder, or workspace. Very consistent.
The IBM guy in this video who dragged the contact onto a fax document and then simulated dragging the fax document onto the fax icon shows the superiority of OS/2's object model. Try dragging on Windows. Some things work, but I doubt you could do anything similar to what he did on OS/2 with Windows.
When you moved an original file on OS/2 to a different folder, the links to that file would get updated automatically with the change in file location. Even Windows NT was still pointing the "flashlight" icon back and forth as it spun and spun searching the entire disk drive for the new location of the file when you tried to open the shortcut. That is because OS/2's object model was superior.
How about the advanced voice recognition which was later built into OS/2 4? If you like the ability to talk to your computer like you can with Siri, Google Now, or Cortana from recent years, OS/2 was doing similar things with speech recognition more than twenty years ago! Like more recent speech recognition, OS/2 could not just transcribe spoken words but recognized the context of the words (to vs. too vs. two).
There are undoubtedly a lot of people who love Windows. I don't begrudge them that. Windows has a lot of good points too, like compatibility with old programs, and probably the most complete application and hardware support. Most of the public probably do not know what an object model and inheritance are anyway. It's not an "either-or" situation. People who put down everyone else are commonly and correctly called "trolls". But I think that if people really learned how powerful platforms like OS/2 and Amiga were, they would be astonished at how advanced those systems were such a long, long time ago.
cyclonesification HPFS did not have NTFS's File system permissions, not until few years later.
Also I don't think OS/2 at a time was also truly multiuser, where one user had separate login session and secured files.
Also i remember there was some arvhitectural problems tha gor solved pretty late, when NT 4.0 was out.
It was better then win 3.x that is for sure, but comparing to win 95, it is somewhat similar. NT was better.
I saw a demo of OS/2 vs. NT at Comdex in Las Vegas, I think it was 1994. OS/2 was far more advanced than NT at the time. I specifically recall seeing multimedia features (a video running in one window, an audio file in another, and non-multimedia tasks like a long spreadsheet recalc in a third window, plus some other task in a fourth window) on OS/2 running preemtively multitasked whereas when similar programs were run on the NT machine it would slow to a halt. But it figures that IBM which had done multitasking for decades before this could excel at that on OS/2 while Microsoft and Apple were still playing catchup.
I think I misspoke if I wrote that OS/2 was multiuser. I don't recall that it was.
I wonder whether OS/2 would have had the same problems with viruses that Windows still does. I stopped using Windows when my XP machine's registry got corrupted because I had the nerve to uninstall multiple programs at the same time. OS/2 did not have a registry, so would likely not have suffered that problem.
But even if NT got file permissions first, it still did not have the more complete object model that OS/2 had. You did not mention that at all. NT did not have the inheritance of property pages. NT (and beyond) did not treat all desktop objects as full objects like OS/2 did. I think NT still did the back-and-forth flashlight animation when you moved the target of a "shortcut". OS/2 had the underlying object technology working many years before Microsoft ever did.
One more thing you forgot to mention. OS/2 had voice recognition by version 4, back in 1996. Cortana on Windows desktop PCs came out on Windows 10 in 2015. It's nice to see Microsoft catching up to OS/2 19 years late!
+cyclonesification You are using examples that might be compared compartmentalization like Linux? That's what it sounds like and the advantage of Windows is the ability to outperform that type of setup because all must be controlled by the Windows Kernel in a more streamlined format.
+cyclonesification Windows did voice recognition at least since XP if not earlier lol just no assistant ;-)
I had an old 386 machine that at one point I got to boot and run OS2/Warp, Windows 3.1, and an early Linux distro. I never did much with it, but getting there was fun.
12:23 Things have come a long way. We now have interactive voice assistants like Siri, Bixby, Google and Alexa among others that talk back to the user. It's interesting to see the early roots of this.
I'm really impressed with what OS/2 Warp is capable of in this presentation, and the Next Operating System was far ahead of its years, but what prevented both operating systems from gaining market traction was the fact PC users were used to running a specific application to do something e.g. web browsing, word processing, email, etc. Probably 95% of the users at that time wouldn't have had the patience to learn how to use an object oriented operating system. But nowadays consumers are using mobile technology similar to what we just witnessed in this presentation, except it's now 1000x more advanced.
"But nowadays consumers are using mobile technology similar to what we just witnessed in this presentation, except it's now 1000x more advanced."
I presume you're talking about the voice recognition there, in which case I'd agree with you. Many of the features in the OS/2 Workplace Shell, however, were and are more advanced and sophisticated than what most desktops of today are saddled with. And I include Macs in this. You have to dig right down in the Mac's utilities to discover how to do the things that the OS/2 Workplace Shell would do for you out of the box.
IBM should invested far more heavily in its apps division, to be sure. Because while OS/2 was a fantastic OS at the time and for me from a usability/environment point of view, moving to Windows NT was a backwards culture shock, no matter how solid it was underneath. But on Windows you had Office, Visual Basic, VBX controls, Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) and so much more with which to (rapidly) build or glue together business systems that would deliver value quickly. Windows dev tools were pretty cheap.
On the other hand, with OS/2 2.0 and upwards your had a nice OS, pretty solid and some very basic starter software. But literally nothing as good as or better than the application software you could buy for Windows (which is why the compatibility thing was such a big deal). The dev tools (C Set ++ and VisualAge C++) were expensive and flakey and there were no Rapid Application Development tools (like VB, Delphi or even Foxpro) at all. And while you could reuse WPS objects from REXX, you had no equivalent to VBX (and later OCX) components that made building sophisticated solutions for Windows quick, cheap and easy.
As manufacturers of hardware and software, IBM should've followed Apple's example and differentiated itself from Windows. Its over-emphasis on Windows compatibility and little software of its own or from 3rd parties for OS/2 32-bit, combined with higher purchase and licensing costs just made it unattractive to consumers and business users alike. After all, PCs came with Windows preinstalled and for most you actually had to part with a significant chunk of cash (and be technically proficient) to put OS/2 on your machine.
Personally I loved OS/2. But if I were running a business then - with few exceptions - it was hard to recommend.
OS/2 Warp was a great OS ... and IBM must have worked very hard to kill it, dispite this OS/2 resisted but at the end IBM idiocacy has prevaled.
6:00 Smartphone manufacturers have taken this concept to a whole new level. They even put software routines to slow devices down to seemingly hasten the products demise in order to prompt you to drop money for a newer device, when the one you have is still very capable.
18:00
I love how one of the biggest complaints (and reason people were switching from Windows to OS/2) was double clicking. haha.
That voice recognition looks really good for the time
It seems ahead of its time.
If only Siri worked that well...
It was definitely a step up from Dr. SBAITSO.
Dr. Sbaitso was not voice recognition.
YES. VERY. MUCH. AHEAD. OF. ITS. TIME. FULL STOP.
And 25 years later we are all using OS/10. Oh wait...
Let’s have a moment of silence for OS/2 and it’s sound effects.
Stewart sure love his voice recognition software.
OS/2 Warp is obviously the most powerful OS ever, it can even beat Windows XP
OS/2 Warp is garbage for PC games.
@@valenrn8657 Can it run Crysis at least, on an Intel Core 2 Quad with Nvidia 8800 GT running OS/2?
Forget about best and all, even IBM folks failed to install it properly. OS/2 was dead just like IBM was.
OS/2 Warp's template feature is hidden within panels, hence they have UI issues.
I used to do 3rd level OS/2 support at IBM Canada, back in the late 90s. I also used it at home, starting in 1992. This video mentions the phone book app, but doesn't really get into what it could do. You could click on a name in the address book and have it dial a modem. I had my home computer set up for this. I had an old modem, with a nice large speaker on it. Then, when I used the dialer, I could listen to the dialing and when the call was answered, at which point I'd pick up the phone. The dialer would also keep track of the call time so you could save the call info into whatever. This could be used by someone, such a a lawyer, who would bill for time on phone calls. Also, that Faxworks worked very well with another app, called Post Road Mailer, and you could receive a FAX and it would automatically be sent out as an email or the reverse. OS/2 did things that were simply not possible in any other OS.
Also, in addition to the built in DOS, you could install any other version of DOS as well, even CP/M-86. This would be great for someone writing DOS apps who wanted to make sure they could run on any version of DOS.
Forgot to mention, I currently have OS/2 Warp 4 installed in a virtual machine in Linux, on my ThinkPad.
@@James_Knott did they make Thinkpads that run OS/2W?
@@oldradiosnphonographs I have never heard of OS/2W. What is it? I worked with English and French versions of the standard OS/2 package, which my department then customized. In addition to OS/2, Windows 95 & NT, I also started to work with Linux on ThinkPads. We were encouraged to work with Linux on company time and I'd regularly get receive of Linux distro CDs to do it. I liked Mandrake, but I had to change one file, to get it to work with token ring.
@@James_Knott oh I was making an abbreviation of OS/2 Warp. I’m reviving old laptops (late 00s to mid 2010s old) by putting SSD drives, putting in the maximum amount of ram, and installing Linux on them.
Yes, they ran Warp. When I started at IBM, they were running Warp 3 and later Warp 4. As I mentioned earlier, I have Warp 4 in a virtual machine on my Thinkpad E520.
Wow, those OS sounds became annoying in a couple of seconds, imagine putting up with them all day at work?
If you think hearing one computer making those sounds is obnoxious, imagine an entire office of computers all making those noises constantly.
@@DeloreandudeTommy Imagine an entire office of people using this voice recognition technology.
If it annoyed people they could have changed or disabled them.
and just a few years later I bought redhat 4.2 at microcenter and the rest is history, and I now am a valued member of technical society (and have lived in Silicon Valley for about a decade).
Amazing neat OS! I like it. Especially since it runs DOS and Windows 3.1 apps without a problem.
The latter was a problem of OS/2. It made the developers develop their software only for Windows, thus there was no need to develop native software.
@@OpenGL4everTrue. But OS/2 also had a problem with drivers and third-party developers.
Microsoft simply handled it better.
@@NomadicDmitry I agree.
W95 looks so much cleaner and streamlined from a user point of view. Perhaps OS/2 was technically superior indeed, but general users aren't interested in operating systems. They just want to be able to do their thing with ease and universal support. OS/2 (how if look, feels and operates) clearly stems from a technocratic moloch, whereas W95 clearly looks coming from a streamlined, flexible, smart, agile business I'd say. It was 98SE though that made me really happy, me coming from a 68000 based computer that already had plug-and-play (autoconfig) and full multitasking in 1989.
What 68000 system? I can only think of two of the top of my head atari ST and amiga, did MSX use 68000..can't remember.
@@thomasham130 The first Macintosh computers did also use 68K CPUs.
17:52 "We have...several secretaries in the office who are used to using DOS programs only, and...we've switched them over to Windows, and a lot of them have a problem with DOUBLE CLICKING...to invoke an icon...to invoke a program..." 😐**WUT?**
Yeah, that's actually bonkers.
Boomers
My mum was a secretary. She was never comfortable with Windows but fine with DOS. It's an abstraction problem. The pre-computer generations grew up with machines with non-abstracted interfaces- push this, it does this, turn this, it does that. DOS and its apps had lots of commands to learn but they had a 1-1 relationship with effects. Ctrl-A does this, Ctrl-F1 does that. That made more sense to her than double clicking a little picture to make a thing you drag a thing to.
Most secretaries of the time were used to typewriters before switching to computers, so they were used to a keyboard type of operation, going from that to a mouse is like asking a secretary today to start using Virtual Reality controllers for their day to day work, some people will need more time than others adjusting to it.
It's a real issue for disabled people as well. That's why they removed it from nearly all of Windows e.g. with the Start Menu. Only the shell needs it, and even then they put in the single-click mode in Windows 98, which I actually use to this day.
I went to a computer fair in Birmingham (UK, not US) in 1994 with a friend and he bought a copy of OS/2 Warp after seeing the demo because he was so impressed with it. Unfortunately, he was never able to get it to install on any PC he tried - three different models of HP PC, as well as two PC compatibles, one a 386 and one a 486 - it would always fail during the installation at the same point. Despite numerous calls to various helplines he gave up and used the install CD as a coaster where it was much more productive.
However, all five of these PC's would install and run DOS 6.22 & Win3.1 or Win3.11 (and subsequently Win95, Win95 OSR2 & WIn98) with absolutely no issues whatsoever, so it looks like OS/2 Warp had some serious fundamental deficiencies.
I’ll bet IBM only tested OS/2 on IBM computers
Drivers issues...that was the OS/2 Achilles heel.
@@peplegal8253 and the support of Windows software and 286 CPUs.
I guess "Engines at warp speed, Scotty" is kind of like "Ahead, warp factor two, Mister Sulu."
See how speech reconition works 26 years ago, Alexa ? Remember, Dana is Dana, Donna is Donna. Don't try to troll Scottish.
Those savages had to have a sound effect for everything.
Leonard Nimoy FTW
"It is a lot of noise in the market"... and in the computers!
16:39
I can hear the Avaya ringtone from a mile away. It's etched into my mind. It's the "Classic Tone 2" specifically.
As a happy IIcx owner running System 7, Microsoft didn't have to tell *me* that Windows 3 was crap.
I've lived a long life and seen many new operating systems. They all come out promising the same new features. Os/2 Warp was suppose to be what Windowd 10 was suppose to be.
I wish that The Computer Chronicles would continue into the year 2024. I would rather continue to forge ahead using the microcomputer and computer printer and scanner than to look backward.
You could also get "Smartsuite for OS/2" for this. Not a gaming machine really but solid for ATMs!
Omg who thought those sounds would be a good idea??!
That wasn’t a bear sound!
I have a feeling that the source code for OS/2 is higher quality (efficiency,speed,stability,...) than Windows.
Windows 95 had to thunk down into 16-bit code for everything basically. This subsystem wasn't reentrant so the fancy 32-bit code had to grab the "Win16Mutex" lock to enter it.
GASH i love that man's sweater!!
4:38 Why OS/2 failed.
Our secretaries have trouble double clicking. Gold
😂
Funny how that Market Gap she was bragging about taking advantage of - When Win 95 hit - It was literally the nail in the IBM OS/2 coffin. Because it was NEW and it was BETTER. So much so that even Apple was saying "Oh crap".
Jo Ann, we knew how that all turned out.
It had the ability to dual boot and I had a machine with dos/windows and OS/2 on the same drive. When windows 95 came out, it wouldn’t install if there was a dual boot installed. I think I ended up install 95 first, then re-installing OS/2. Microsoft did everything to keep their market share.
I usually ran OS/2 because it was easier but eventually switched when IBM basically gave up on their own product.
The 90s were like the wild west. Anything goes and everyone is trying to BE the standard
Besides apps from IBM, not a lot of apps were out there. However, you could usually get Windows apps to run because Windows was included.
At 12:23 - Voice Command - needs discrete spoken words.
This fact led to many, many people suffering damage to their vocal cords.
Also:
This "demo" might well have been pre-scripted for the show. ie. It was repeated many, many times before being signed off as a fairly safe vocal dialogue that would result in the fewest errors.
Probably. There was another episode where someone from Apple demonstrated Copland, the infamous OS that never shipped. It had a flawless demo on the episode... because it was actually just a prerecorded video. (You can even find it here on TH-cam).
I didn't use that voice recognition software featured in the episode, but I used contemporary ones from that era, and I agree with Stewart: they tended to be more toys than things you'd use seriously.
Our STT is so good all you have to do is talk like a robot to use it!
The big lesson here is that, in the market as a whole, people will always prefer familiar to powerful
And that normal people do not install operating systems. OEM bundling is where it’s at.
Warp did not have a lot of driver support. It came off glitchy on non-branded PCs.
I was able to get a OS/2 Warp beta from IBM. Was very easy to access the beta I think I just went on a web site and signed up for it. Seems like it was pretty good and a step above windows 3.1 at the time, well until 95 came out. Isn't Warp still being used in ATM's or was up to a few years ago.
Back in 1984 when IBM introduced the PC/AT, it promised that it would release an OS to take advantage of the protected-mode capabilities of the 80286 processor.
By the time OS/2 came out in 1987, the Microsoft*-compatible world was already moving to 32-bit 80386 processors, and nobody really cared about a major new OS for the 80286 any more. Nevertheless, that initial version of OS/2 was very much 16-bit, not 32-bit. That was probably a fatal mistake.
*because it was Microsoft software (specifically, Flight Simulator) that set the standard for compatibility, not anything from IBM.
Google pcjs & football. Microsoft had versions of 1.0 with 80386 msdos multitasking… in 1987. Windows/386 launched in the end of 87, again from Microsoft. It’s IBM who wouldn’t let Microsoft put 386 features in and blocked Windows running directly on OS/2 instead opting for the 100% incompatible Presentation Manager.
Had Microsoft been able to control OS/2 it’s have been great but IBM was more worried about 6mhz 80286 AT machines and not wanting a consumer product that looked like something for the midrange.
It’s no wonder Microsoft took over NT OS/2 and ported Windows directly to that and renamed it Windows NT.
Being an OS/2 warp 4 sales person looks like it was a difficult job...
How you say "Space the final frontier" without the Voice Pilot create a mess? Asking for a friend.
Lenord Nimoy on Computer Chronicles.
ahhh...those were the days! (sigh).
Sad that IBM never released OS/2 as open source
everyone's laughing at the voice recognition part, but it seems... pretty normal to me? like this is what early bluetooth voice devices were like, and the Kinect too. And it's reasonably fast! It's cool!
I love that you have to say "engage" to enter the input though. And say "computer". It's so funny. They really did like startrek LMAO.
That voice command thing is more futuristic than that awful google voice typing and this from 94 actually works.
Can they go back in time and fire the head of marketing for the cheesy sound effects? They thought that would play?
“Can it play games?”
Wondering how different and better (?) Computing would be, if OS/2 would have survived.
Too bad Microsoft had agreements that restricted hardware vendors preloading other operating systems than Windows.
Windows 95/DirectX/OpenGL drivers have superior game support.
I found that version of OS/2 to be vastly better than Windows-and nearly impossible for a neophyte to set up.
english please?
"Really just Windows 3.1 on steroids." - guess we know who was on IBMs payroll in this episode.
I don't think that's a terrible way to think of Win95. The Windows 3.11 release, also known as "Windows for Workgroups," added modern TCP/IP support. It was the first version of Windows that could technically work on the modern Web. At one point you could also get the "NewShell" for Windows NT 3.5, which was an early version of the Windows taskbar. By installing that and just using the native apps, a lot of functionality that was in Win95 already existed in 3.x. Win95 made a lot of visual improvements but technically it wasn't as dramatic as sometimes remembered, Windows 3.1 was considerably better than a lot of people remember.
@@drygnfyre 32 bit programs? A real kernel not running dos? Long file names and more advanced file systems. I don’t think they are similar at all.
The 90's - the decade that fashion forgot
Or: "Why is your shirt (or other top garment) over your pants?" Also, "What's a hoodie?"
Truth be told, hoodies were a thing in the early eighties, but I remember those being worn more in the Black community from back then (in rap videos, etc).
In the 1990s, 2020s garments and overalls with neon for safety would be new, especially anything that go with outside activities, such as work and kids. These include construction, transport, roadworks, police, EMTs, kindergarten kids.
When I look around, workers wearing neon is so widespread now, that neon-wearing workers would stand out in the crowd in 1990s Estonia. Cargo pants and cargo shorts would also be very new in the 1990s, for example.
(Don't know about Western Europe/United States, though.)
Officers and cops wearing baseball caps instead of peaked caps.
Everyone wearing masks, btw.
Much of the fashion difference would be in how men and women wear their hair. I've noticed differences already between 2020 and 2003.
For a sample of late-1990s fashions, check out the Mike Mills-directed video for "All I Need" by Air (aka Moon Safari) -
th-cam.com/video/kxWFyvTg6mc/w-d-xo.html
It features beautiful sceneries from Ventura, California.
12:44 That teal and pink shirt..
Those sfx didn't come enabled by default. Apple or even MS wouldn't allow that horrible experience on TV. The idea of OS/2 desktop isn't that familiar since it is completely object oriented. A famous saying in OSS scene "Worse is better" (check Wiki)
It doesn't just run Windows. If it's Windows program that utilizes a lot of memory, it runs Windows programs a lot faster than Windows does.
I installed one of the free versions of Warp 4 back in the day. As I recall the installation was not as smooth as it could have been using a combination of floppy and CD. Anyway, I found it odd that IBM would facilitate Microsoft's competition by adding DOS and Win 3. As it turned out, I didn't have any native OS/2 apps, so using it wasn't justified. If IBM had not bundled those extra operating systems and created a less bloated ecosystem OS/2 might have had a chance. It's still in use today I'm some niche circles.
I don't see at all a "gap" just because of a delay. It was the clear message to sell. But it's a way to do it back in the day, today wouldn't be at all an option to try.
The voice controller from 2001 Space Odissey is better than Siri
Ok, seems like OS/2 was overcomplicated, without any good arguments as to why people would use it over Windows. It had the same compatibility issues to hold it back (supporting DOS and Win 3.x programs), plus a much more confusing design.
Technically superior to Windows (not NT) at that time, but the UI seems needlessly more complex compared to Windows, and unfamiliar as well
Andre John Cruz Go to a thrift store and get an older PC from around the era of warp 3 to warp 4.52. Install said system. Then use it a while and come to post your review here. I still use it on a machine for specific tasks.
+Erick Sitter He said (not NT) lol ;-)
that's probably a good reason why it failed: the interface looks a hodgepodge of what we'd seen over the previous ten years. Start and Taskbar are still the most efficient aids to multitasking and productivity: how many Linux distros ape this? Also, they're have been many technologies with cool features that have fallen by the wayside. If people don't use them enough, they'll eventually disappear.
+JonnyInfinite OSX neither has a Start button nor a Taskbar. Sure, the Apple menu and the Dock are somewhat similar, but not the same. The Macintosh has been increasing in sales whereas PC sales have been falling. For a variety of reasons, but I doubt people are buying Macs because they suddenly hate the Start menu and Taskbar.
The reason OS/2 failed was that it wasn't playing on a level playing field and that Microsoft did so much better at consumer sales than IBM did. Microsoft now complains about not being able to play on a level playing field when it comes to smartphones. When Windows Phone first came out, most reviews of the Windows Phone UI were quite positive. Both Apple and Google even *borrowed* UI features from Windows Phone. Yet Windows Phone still has a very low share of the market. So UI isn't everything.
+Erick Sitter Where it was better than NT exactly?
To bad this did not take off like IBM was hoping it would. I could see some very neat features that even some modern OS don't have.