On 12/27/2016 11:55 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 12/25/2016 10:22 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

When I got my first computer the first thing I did was install OS/2.

My first computer ran DOS 2.1, because 2.0 never worked.

I ran several computers on OS/2 including a LAN server until the
1990. and
when the company I worked for was purchased by a company who ran the
Windows server.

When I purchased a new personal computer and was forced into the of
world Windows 98, it was like going back into the dark ages.

I ran OS/2 at home for many years, until IBM saw it was about to kill
windows, then they, (and I begrudgingly) let it go.

It was never "about to kill Windows". If it was
achieving any significant market penetration IBM
would have kept producing it. Why would IBM have
any qualms about killing Windows?

OS/2 was never promoted by IBM. It had a huge user group that was
fighting an uphill battle with IBM to even make it available to the
public. Few computer stores would stock it, either because MS
threatened them to not sell it, or because IBM didn't want it sold.

Why, well one reason would be IBM was afraid of another Anti-trust suit
if they controlled both the hardware and software end of the PC world.
Another would be they created MS so they would control the software end,
while they did the hardware and maintenance end and Intel controlled the
chip end. Who knows.

What I do know is the OS/2 user world had been waiting for OS/2 to get
to "Critical Mass" which was expected to be 1 million copies sold a
month. They finally reached that point, in spite of about zero
promotion from IBM, and IBM IMMEDIATELY pulled the plug. It was
patently obvious what IBM was up to, but the reasons behind it was up to
the outside world to speculate. My guess is it was pretty much the same
reason IBM decided to put Gates (a college drop out with no OS) in
business instead of developing their own OS for their computers.

OS/2 WARP not only made WIN 95 and Win 98 look like they were from the dark ages,
it would make WIN 10 look like it is from the dark ages.

That's a matter of opinion. Yours is much in
the minority.

Not by those with years of intimate experience with UNIX, DOS and OS/2.

You could run DOS, WIN95 and OS/2 apps all at the same time, seamlessly.

No, you could not. The built in support for
Windows ended at Windows 3.1. There was no
support at all for native Windows 95
applications, EVER.

Well it ran all 3 concurrently and seamlessly.

When WIN would crash, like it has always done since it's first
version, everything else kept running, and all you need to do was close
the WIN session and open another.

If Windows 10 is crashing on you you need to
repair your computer. The ones that I've seen
that do that either are on broken hardware or
were upgraded from an older version--the upgrade
doesn't clean house thoroughly enough
apparently.

Granted, since XP, Win has almost worked, but not close to OS/2 or Unix.
Win 10 upgrade for me worked fine. I bought a new PC and it had WIN
10 already on it. This one is giving me fits, one thing after another.
At least once a week it loses the internet connection and so far, I
have to reboot to get it to work. It's not the modem either, as all
other devices hooked up via WiFi continue to work fine. Also, after one
update, the mouse periodically decides to intermittently jump around out
of control. Really sucks, and this seems to be a common problem based
on searches on the issue.

Windows (Microsoft) is the scourge of computing. It is a perfect
example of why the government invented anti-trust laws, and
unfortunately, what can happen if they are ignored/bought off. Another
feather in the Clinton reign of corruption.

sound of world's tiniest violin

Probably not a Strad, right? It would sound a LOT better to the trained
ear:-)
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com