BTW, the early OS/2 that was first demonstrated by IBM - one
task could literally lock out other tasks.

I am not advocating it, I only pointed out that its multitasking was
true, pre-emptive, and vastly superior to any MS product. Oh, BTW, the
first versions of windows wouldn't even run a day without crashing and
had more bugs than lines of code. So what does that have to do with
anything?

Even worse, the
IBM people did not even understand what multitasking was as we
showed them one application locking out other tasks. When
first released, bugs in OS/2 caused its preemptive MT
abilities to not perform correctly.

And when first released, windows was a total disaster. Again, so what?
Stay in the present. At its peak in the late 90's, OS/2 was a cadillac
to M$'s yugo. You can always argue app support, but technically,
nothing holds a candle to OS/2. If MS was allowed to be crap for 10
years, and is now glorified, why do you think it matters that OS/2 had
problems at first as well? The SIQ was the cause of just about any hang
on any OS/2 system. When that was not an issue, NT could not stand up
to OS/2 for stability. When Billy glued that dopey GUI onto NT, its
reliability tanked.

There is a reason why OS/2 ran every ATM on the planet until the banks
sold out to billy. If your ATM works, its OS/2.

And just another reason why OS/2 was not a
profitable product for IBM.

OS/2 was not profitable for a lot of reasons, the largest of which came
out in the MS trial, when we all learned that gates blackmailed IBM
into killing it off. Again, totally irrelevant to the topic at
hand.Profits do not equate to quality and features. I would take a BMW
over a Ford any day, but Ford sells more product. Doesn't mean their
cars are better, it just means they sell more of them. Again, so what?

Windows NT does it for all
applications,


According to some people's warped definition of preemptive
multitasking, but NT's "idea" of it was not what preemptive really is,
as demonstrated in OS/2 (not early releases, like you are whining
about)

NT was Microsoft's answer to OS/2 when IBM and Microsoft finally had
a parting of the ways in early 1990s.

Wake up. NT WAS OS/2 as taken by gates when he split from M$ Everyone
knows bill never invented anything, or wrote an OS from the ground up.
He took NT from IBM as part of the parting of the ways, and found
people to embellish it, except he took what you are whining about which
is the versions that could not do preemptive multitasking. Shoot, he
couldn't even pull the OS/2 code from the kernel until XP came around.
Such a brilliant mind he has.....


However OS/2 has no useful
graphical interface.

Wow. Dumbest statement I ever read on usenet. Apparently, you never,
ever saw OS/2 on a desktop. Most people will agree that the OS/2 Object
Oriented interface is superior in every way to anything M$ has ever
stolen. The OS/2 desktop is legendary. Can't believe you never saw
it.......

Guess that pretty much blows any credibility you were hoping to show
off around here.

No useful graphical interface. Yikes.... You really are clueless.