Only One Side Will Be the True Successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x

kkeepamovin about 6 hours ago 25 commentsRead Article on blisscast.wordpress.com

ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

80% Positive

Analyzed from 905 words in the discussion.

Discussion (25 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

BirAdam•about 2 hours ago

Fun fact, while Trower was the manager who got Windows moving, it was Gabe Newell who served as the lead developer of Windows versions 1, 2, and 3. Win95 was the first version he wasn’t really involved with. By that time, he was working on porting Doom to Windows.

NikolaNovak•about 2 hours ago

Sorry, are we saying Valve Gabe Newell? That's blowing my mind from both timeline and area perspective.

mikestew•about 1 hour ago

Yup, where do you think he got the money to start Valve? :-)

ndisn•about 1 hour ago

He notably worked at Microsoft before founding Valve.

bombcar•40 minutes ago

I believe he’s confirmed that his time at Microsoft both gave him the money and the desire to make Valve and Steam.

keepamovin•about 2 hours ago

I love this kind of lore. Thanks for enhancing

blisscast•about 2 hours ago

He's an awesome guy!

coderssh•about 3 hours ago

Feels like we remember MS-DOS as simple because it fit the time. One user, limited hardware, not much going on in the background. As soon as you try to add multitasking, networking, or even basic isolation, that simplicity doesn’t really hold up.

BeetleB•17 minutes ago

I was looking back to why I enjoyed computing so much more in the 80's and 90's compared to now, and of the many reasons, one of them was "No multitasking".

Or even "little multitasking" because while Windows had multitasking, we didn't have the HW to do too many things at the same time.

Right now we're on the crazy end of that spectrum. Every tab on your browser is potentially an application, and we multitask like crazy on it.

Do I want to go back to "No multitasking?" Not really. Or at least not all the time. But I definitely want to put barriers. Such as taking a minute to switch windows/applications.

BirAdam•about 2 hours ago

Well… it was still far more simple than anything today. Whether we are looking at Concurrent CP/M-86 or at Multitasking MS-DOS 4, these were far more simple than anything OS today. Once we add many users, you start looking at things like Xenix and other early Unices. Those too, we’re more simple than anything today.

blisscast•about 2 hours ago

Especially as, in Unix, you needed to add things by yourself, so it could be as simple or complex as you needed it to be

dioxide•about 2 hours ago

Remember desqview?

mikestew•about 2 hours ago

Just call me Pepperidge Farms, I loved Desqview for the time. It worked well, given what they had to work with.

graemep•about 3 hours ago

That does not mean that we need things to be as complex as they now are though.

behringer•about 2 hours ago

Which feature do you want to get rid of? If you try out an OS like fuzix you'll have a blast and you'll also wonder how to do many things since it's got about 1 percent of all the modern features.

blisscast•about 3 hours ago

I mean, when it came out, people didn't really need much of that

shevy-java•about 3 hours ago

MS-DOS was quite simple if you think about it.

Past that point complexity kept on increasing. Don't get me wrong - I use modern day linux, modern day ruby ... it's all fine. Modern computers are fast too. But at the same time I feel we lost simplicity along the way. Now this is even more noticable with microslop everywhere.

blisscast•about 3 hours ago

Maybe that's the reason people are going back to older tech? Personally, I use an iPod and I find it's simple enough and does the job

bitwize•about 3 hours ago

But OS/2 was a better DOS than DOS, and a better Windows than Windows!

d3Xt3r•about 3 hours ago

Well, technically Windows 2.1 (released May 1988) came before OS/2 1.1 (released October 1988). OS/2 1.0 was text-only. So at least for 5 months in 1998, Windows technically beat OS/2.

And OS/2 1.1 was very similar to Windows 2.1, so it's arguable if it was actually much better.

OS/2 1.2 was a massive leap though, not only beating Microsoft GUI wise by a whole year, they even implemented tons of advanced features that we didn't see until Windows 95.

mikestew•about 2 hours ago

OP is referring to OS/2 2.0 after IBM took over the OS, not the previous Microsoft 1.x versions. The post is a quote from IBM’s marketing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/retrobattlestations/comments/nl43aq...

fredoralive•about 2 hours ago

That was the slogan of OS/2 2.0. But by then where Windows 3.x was already out and in 386 Enhanced Mode, more than good enough. It also had the extra "escape hatch" of being able to quit to real DOS if a DOS box didn't work.

OS/2 1.x's DOS box was bad, with lots of limitations, which isn't good when most existing PC apps are DOS apps. As for GUI, well, lets call the Presentation Manager 1.x v Windows 2.x a no-score draw.

blisscast•about 3 hours ago

If only every program worked out of the box... :')

consp•about 3 hours ago

And yet it failed in the common user's perspective but I've seen many ATMs run it and those were usually the working ones without BSODs on them.

aleph_minus_one•about 2 hours ago

> And yet it failed in the common user's perspective

In Germany, the situation was different: there, at that time OS/2 (in particular OS/2 3.0 Warp) had quite a bit of popularity among common users because Escom and in particular Vobis (the latter was an at that time ultra-successful chain for selling computers in Germany) decided they want to challenge Microsoft's de-facto monopoly on operating systems of that time by also selling PCs that had OS/2 pre-installed (you only got DOS/Windows installed for an upcharge):

> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OS/2&oldid=266114...

"Als die deutschen Computerhändler Vobis und Escom ankündigten, auf ihren PCs zukünftig OS/2 vorzuinstallieren und Windows nur noch gegen Aufpreis anzubieten, übte Microsoft massiven Druck auf die beiden Computerhändler aus. So schloss Microsoft Vobis vom Beta-Programm von Windows 95 aus, bot für die Zukunft Windows-Lizenzen nur zu wesentlich schlechteren Bedingungen an und versuchte, Vobis dazu zu zwingen, eine Verschwiegenheitserklärung zu unterzeichnen."

DeepL translation:

"When the German computer retailers Vobis and Escom announced that they would pre-install OS/2 on their PCs in the future and offer Windows only at an additional cost, Microsoft exerted massive pressure on the two retailers. For instance, Microsoft excluded Vobis from the Windows 95 beta program, offered Windows licenses in the future only under significantly worse terms, and attempted to force Vobis to sign a non-disclosure agreement."

> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vobis&oldid=26171...

"1995 setzte Vobis wegen Lieferterminverschiebungen der 32-Bit-Plattform Windows 95 darauf, Kunden standardmäßig das bereits erschienene 32-Bit-Betriebssystem OS/2 von IBM auf PCs vorzuinstallieren, wodurch OS/2 auf dem deutschen Markt einen größeren Bekanntheitsgrad als anderswo erreichte. Microsoft soll in der Folge versucht haben, Vobis die Lizenz für Windows 95 zu entziehen, was einen schweren wirtschaftlichen Nachteil für Vobis bedeutet hätte."

DeepL translation:

"In 1995, due to delays in the release of the 32-bit Windows 95 platform, Vobis decided to pre-install IBM’s 32-bit OS/2 operating system—which was already available—on PCs as standard, resulting in OS/2 achieving greater recognition on the German market than elsewhere. Microsoft is said to have subsequently attempted to revoke Vobis’s license for Windows 95, which would have caused Vobis serious financial harm."

Vobis also produced its own computer magazine named "Highscreen" (named after Vobis' brand name for their PCs) that also contained lots of beginner tips for OS/2 to get PC buyers accustomed to OS/2.