G T Smith wrote:
Larry Stotler wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:54 AM, L. V. Lammert
wrote: Nah, ... he needs Windoze 3.1. I actually have a set of floppies I'd be happy to send. I'd rather go to OS/2. Now that was a solid, stable system.
Not when first released .... some parts of the API did not work properly (i.e. as described in the docs) for a couple of years... and without the web trying to find out what the hell was going on from IBM even as a 'privileged' customer was damn near impossible....
Those early versions were from Microsoft. That changed with 1.3 which was done mostly by IBM.
One of the reasons OS/2 lost to Windows 3.x is that it was very unfriendly to much legacy DOS stuff and there was little available to replace these on OS/2 originally... (and an OS without usable apps is a useful as a chocolate teapot, no.. correction... you can eat a chocolate teapot so the latter is more useful :-) )... At the institution I was based in about 90 days of receiving a bundle of OS/2 based PS/2s at least three quarters ended up running DOS/Windows 3.0..
There were issues with DOS apps in 1.x With 2.0 & later, DOS support was excellent.
When the problems were eventually sorted it was very useful, but by then the intended audience had left the auditorium. Something which maybe those in charge of openSuSE releases need to bear in mind....
Don't forget about Microsoft's using what amounts to extortion to force vendors to provide only Windows, or requiring them to pay for a Windows license for every computer made, whether it came with Windows installed or not. They even squeezed IBM by refusing to sell them Windows 95 at the same price as other companies, unless they stopped marketing OS/2. Otherwise IBM would have had to pay much more than anyone else to include Windows 95, making them uncompetitive. -- Use OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org