Jerry McBride wrote:
> alt wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:33:31 -0400, Jerry McBride wrote:
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> Why Steve Ballmer Will Make Microsoft Good for SOA
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | I'll never forget the day Steve Ballmer visited me at InfoWorld to |
>>>> convince me that Windows 95 would be the wave of the future. In our |
>>>> conversation, and in front of a room full of editors and skilled |
>>>> technicians, he unapologetically admitted that IBM's OS/2 was superior
>>>> | to Windows 95.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082808-why-steve-ballmer-will-
>> make.html?hpg1=bn
>>>
>>> ----snip----
>>>
>>> I loved OS/2. My first gig in IT was in a shop that ran it 100%. We
>>> moved mountains with it... After IBM begain chargeing for everything,
>>> including the browser... we moved on to Linux and never looked back.
>>> Since that time, I've been through a few more jobs and Linux has always
>>> been there waiting for me.
>>>
>>> I really, really wish OS/2 could be open source. It would be wonderful.
>>
>> I dunno. I was an OS/2 user as well and I loved it. I could run any win16
>> app inside of a seperate session and issues in it wouldn't affect
>> anything to do with any other win16 session or OS/2 session.
>>
>> But I don't know that OS/2 is very relevant today. It was written to
>> supercede DOS at a time when networks were local only and there was no
>> internet and true multi-user was only present in top end unix systems. I
>> just think the architecture is a bit dated by today's standards and
>> putting in the necessary security would probably be much like trying to
>> secure Windows.
>>
>> (Yes. I know I know little about the development side of OS/2. I was a
>> user of the system. I would like to hear dissenting, informed opinion on
>> what I have just written.)
>
>
> OS/2 was light years beyond windows or dos, but provided
> excellent "backwards compatibility" that rivals anything MSFT has
> produced. The greatest sell point of OS/2 was the Workplace Shell. Again,
> light years ahead of anything then or now... A true object oriented
> desktop... not smoke and mirrors... like everyone of it's day.
I used OS/2 -- the Blue Box version with Windows. What impressed me about it
was that, on my 486SX, 20Mhz machine with 4 Meg of RAM I couldn't run dBASE
for Windows natively -- but under OS/2 I could. At the time that let me
take work home. I mostly used it as a platform for DOS and Windows 3.1,
though.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
|
|
