WaMu used OS/2 in their ATMs as well as teller windows, then switched to NT quickly followed by meltdown resulting in takeover by Chase...coincidence?
@MrRafaelblock I believe Chase still uses OS/2 in some of their computers. Remember Windows XP and above cannot run OS/2 16-bit or OS/2 32-bit programs. Bank of America uses OS/2 in some ABMs.
But you're correct that OS/2 was somewhat more advanced than consumer (non-enterprise) offer from Microsoft. ;) Win9x just HAD to be perfectly compatible with DOS and Win 3.x... That made it unstable. OS/2 didn't have that burden. It does include some compatibility, but not on same level as 9x.
@nextstep333: partially true. You forget there were two branches of Windows development. "Windows" and "Windows NT". Windows NT was (and still is) a full fledged operating system that was not based on DOS. Actually, OS/2 was at first developed by Microsoft for IBM. NT took some of these ideas, combined with some ideas from OpenVMS, and voila. Actually NT 3.1 had OS/2 compatibility subsystem (I think it also had POSIX compatibility layer, which later became Interix) . It was later thrown out.
@bockebg Windows NT was a rewrite of what would be OS/2 3.x, Windows and Windows NT had different sets of API, Microsoft just created Windows NT so that IBM would be left no third-party support, Microsoft was a key player in OS/2's development. After all Microsoft developed HPFS, DDE, Presentation Manager, and its networking tools. IBM was sort of being a douche because they wanted OS/2 to be run on its 80286 based PS/2, a big Mistake on their behalf.
Well certain places in the United States varied in development, in Canada it is the same, in my High School, I remembered seeing 10 Macintosh Classic and Color Classics in the Library. I also remembered how people were excited about e-mail.
Yes they were common, 7 out 10 American in the US had a computers in their own homes. The price of an Intel 80286 PC was about 1,600 US Dollars. As for retail jobs, I remembered people getting about 5.00 US Dollars per hour.
@larewwedxhhh19 Well remember that Windows 3.x did not have memory protection or was a stable operating system and was somewhat prone to memory errors.
@Lolguy1336 In some way, but we have to remember that Windows3.x is an Operating Environment and not a full fledged operating system. Windows more of a mere shell, a lot of tweaking, games, and certain programs still required real mode DOS.
OS/2 was a completely different operating system with DOS virtual machines built-in to the operating system and was independent from the limitations of PC-DOS. OS/2 is still better than Windows 7 , because of its libraries.
@mercede75 Rexx programming languages and the simple fact that the Workplace interface on OS/2 is object-oriented. Windows 7 still lacks certain features from OS/2 like working with existing objects.
@pat20105 Really? By 1996, when this version was realeased, Windows lacked many of the features and still does! OS/2 has an Object-Oriented interface, something that Microsoft is still struggling since 1993. In IBM's case it only took 2 years to make an object oriented interface.
Man, this brings back some meories... OS/2 let me multitask somewhat decently.. run my board (bbs) and still be able to use my machine. Win31 wasn't as good at it as OS/2 was.
I always loved windows 3.11 style icons.
StrangeAttr 2 months ago
@StrangeAttr Susan Kare designed both the icons on the Mac OS and Windows 3.x
nextstep333 2 months ago
WaMu used OS/2 in their ATMs as well as teller windows, then switched to NT quickly followed by meltdown resulting in takeover by Chase...coincidence?
MrRafaelblock 4 months ago
@MrRafaelblock I believe Chase still uses OS/2 in some of their computers. Remember Windows XP and above cannot run OS/2 16-bit or OS/2 32-bit programs. Bank of America uses OS/2 in some ABMs.
The Bank of Montreal uses OS/2 still.
nextstep333 4 months ago
Skip to 1:10 unless you like looking at nothing.
DSMeTailer 6 months ago
But you're correct that OS/2 was somewhat more advanced than consumer (non-enterprise) offer from Microsoft. ;) Win9x just HAD to be perfectly compatible with DOS and Win 3.x... That made it unstable. OS/2 didn't have that burden. It does include some compatibility, but not on same level as 9x.
bockebg 7 months ago
@nextstep333: partially true. You forget there were two branches of Windows development. "Windows" and "Windows NT". Windows NT was (and still is) a full fledged operating system that was not based on DOS. Actually, OS/2 was at first developed by Microsoft for IBM. NT took some of these ideas, combined with some ideas from OpenVMS, and voila. Actually NT 3.1 had OS/2 compatibility subsystem (I think it also had POSIX compatibility layer, which later became Interix) . It was later thrown out.
bockebg 7 months ago
@bockebg Windows NT was a rewrite of what would be OS/2 3.x, Windows and Windows NT had different sets of API, Microsoft just created Windows NT so that IBM would be left no third-party support, Microsoft was a key player in OS/2's development. After all Microsoft developed HPFS, DDE, Presentation Manager, and its networking tools. IBM was sort of being a douche because they wanted OS/2 to be run on its 80286 based PS/2, a big Mistake on their behalf.
nextstep333 7 months ago
Well certain places in the United States varied in development, in Canada it is the same, in my High School, I remembered seeing 10 Macintosh Classic and Color Classics in the Library. I also remembered how people were excited about e-mail.
nextstep333 7 months ago
Yes they were common, 7 out 10 American in the US had a computers in their own homes. The price of an Intel 80286 PC was about 1,600 US Dollars. As for retail jobs, I remembered people getting about 5.00 US Dollars per hour.
nextstep333 7 months ago
This actually looks more advanced for it's time.
larewwedxhhh19 7 months ago
@larewwedxhhh19 Well remember that Windows 3.x did not have memory protection or was a stable operating system and was somewhat prone to memory errors.
nextstep333 7 months ago
Looks like Windows 3.1
Lolguy1336 8 months ago
@Lolguy1336 In some way, but we have to remember that Windows3.x is an Operating Environment and not a full fledged operating system. Windows more of a mere shell, a lot of tweaking, games, and certain programs still required real mode DOS.
OS/2 was a completely different operating system with DOS virtual machines built-in to the operating system and was independent from the limitations of PC-DOS. OS/2 is still better than Windows 7 , because of its libraries.
nextstep333 8 months ago
@nextstep333 Wat libraries make OS/2 better than Windows 7?
mercede75 4 months ago
@mercede75 Rexx programming languages and the simple fact that the Workplace interface on OS/2 is object-oriented. Windows 7 still lacks certain features from OS/2 like working with existing objects.
nextstep333 2 months ago
looks terrible. It looks like some old linux and mac 9.
pat20105 9 months ago
@pat20105 Really? By 1996, when this version was realeased, Windows lacked many of the features and still does! OS/2 has an Object-Oriented interface, something that Microsoft is still struggling since 1993. In IBM's case it only took 2 years to make an object oriented interface.
nextstep333 8 months ago
The good old days.
Eddogegr3 11 months ago
Man, this brings back some meories... OS/2 let me multitask somewhat decently.. run my board (bbs) and still be able to use my machine. Win31 wasn't as good at it as OS/2 was.
invis648 11 months ago
i see at most ATM,s
windchannel1 1 year ago
@windchannel1 Yes , I do see it on ABMs. OS/2 is a bit more stable than Windows.
nextstep333 8 months ago
I wanted this really bad back in the day but my last OS/2 was Warp 3. I went to the darkside at that point :P
zenbyo 1 year ago
@zenbyo You can find some in Vetusware com
nextstep333 1 year ago