|
> From: Hans Boldt > > But even if > they had thrown 10 times as much money into marketing it, I don't > think it would have gotten much further than it did. <chuckling> I'm not sure what you're implying, but if it's that OS/2 wasn't very good, then I can only wonder if there is an IBM product you DON'T think sucks? I actually developed one of the only commercially viable enterprise-level OS/2 client/server applications (and when I say I developed, I mean that it was my project, from hiring to hardware - dozens of people working on a multi-million line application), and I'll say this: OS/2 was, at the time, the most powerful desktop operating system available. It was robust, stable and performed better than anything out there. It was truly "a better DOS than DOS, a better Windows than Windows". The documentation was spotty, but the OS was incredible. Once you got something working, it WORKED. Our code was so tight by the end that we actually removed all the memory leaks (something a few modern programs could probably learn). Most of the good stuff that NT and its descendants share came originally from OS/2 (yet another brilliant move on Gates' part). My guess is that a lot of the stuff that that still stinks hearkens back to Windows 3.11 <smile>. Joe
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.