<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?><transcript><text start="3.32" dur="5.52">It&amp;#39;s 2015, and the world of personal computers is guided by IBM.</text><text start="8.84" dur="3.84">You&amp;#39;re watching this video on the latest version of OS/2,</text><text start="12.68" dur="3.64">the IBM operating system that&amp;#39;s dominated since the late &amp;#39;80s.</text><text start="16.48" dur="5.4">The world is IBM&amp;#39;s oyster and it&amp;#39;s all thanks to the superiority of OS/2...</text><text start="21.98" dur="3.32">...except, it&amp;#39;s not like that at all. That never happened.</text><text start="25.54" dur="4.06">Instead, IBM is no longer making consumer operating systems at all</text><text start="29.6" dur="4.12">and for the most part, has exited the personal computer industry entirely.</text><text start="34" dur="1.04">What happened?</text><text start="35.68" dur="1.68">This is &amp;quot;LGR Tech Tales,&amp;quot;</text><text start="37.36" dur="4.46">where we take a look at noteworthy stories of technological inspiration,</text><text start="41.82" dur="2.02">failure and everything in between.</text><text start="44.16" dur="2.4">This episode tells the tale of OS/2,</text><text start="46.56" dur="4.02">the supposed operating system of the future from Big Blue.</text><text start="52.44" dur="6.34">It begins in 1981, with the launch of the IBM personal computer model 5150.</text><text start="59.3" dur="2.62">While it wasn&amp;#39;t the first personal computer by any means,</text><text start="61.92" dur="6.06">its usage became so widespread that the term &amp;quot;PC&amp;quot; became synonymous with IBM computers.</text><text start="68.36" dur="5.22">Or to be more precise, the term described computers that were compatible with IBM&amp;#39;s,</text><text start="73.58" dur="5.24">which meant using x86 architecture and the Microsoft DOS operating system.</text><text start="79.22" dur="4.44">Now, IBM had their own version of DOS called &amp;quot;PC DOS&amp;quot; as well,</text><text start="83.66" dur="3.52">but it was really just a re-branded version of Microsoft DOS</text><text start="87.18" dur="4.08">and didn&amp;#39;t become an IBM-developed thing until 1993.</text><text start="91.74" dur="4.1">And years before that ever came to fruition, there was OS/2.</text><text start="96.42" dur="3.98">Its first signs of life came about in August of 1985,</text><text start="100.4" dur="3.12">when corporate pals IBM and Microsoft</text><text start="103.52" dur="2.6">signed a joint development agreement together.</text><text start="106.36" dur="3.84">The goal was to develop system software based on MS-DOS,</text><text start="110.2" dur="3.24">but to come up with something far more advanced and future proof.</text><text start="113.64" dur="3.44">Computer hardware was evolving rapidly at the time</text><text start="117.12" dur="3.36">and processors like the Intel 286 were all the rage,</text><text start="120.48" dur="1.4">especially at IBM.</text><text start="122.14" dur="5.96">But the IBM PC&amp;#39;s CP/M-inspired operating system was slowly coming apart at the seams,</text><text start="128.1" dur="4.34">limiting what could be done with the higher amount of RAM and CPU speed available.</text><text start="132.8" dur="5.38">IBM had already experimented with addressing some of these issues with their TopView product,</text><text start="138.34" dur="3.46">Microsoft had their own project with Windows 1.0,</text><text start="141.9" dur="1.56">and soon to be 2.0,</text><text start="143.6" dur="5.28">and even CP/M creator Digital Research got in on the action with Concurrent DOS.</text><text start="149.22" dur="4.62">But something totally new was required to become the true heir to the DOS throne.</text><text start="154.32" dur="3.62">The result of this joint development agreement was &amp;quot;CP/DOS,&amp;quot;</text><text start="157.94" dur="3.22">which stood for &amp;quot;Control Program Disk Operating System,&amp;quot;</text><text start="161.16" dur="5.22">although this changed to OS/2 for its launch in April of 1987.</text><text start="166.78" dur="4.84">The reason for the name change was IBM&amp;#39;s shiny new PS/2 computer lineup,</text><text start="171.62" dur="4.28">the next generation of computers meant to completely reimagine the PC.</text><text start="176.2" dur="4">So, &amp;quot;Personal System 2&amp;quot; launched with &amp;quot;Operating System 2,&amp;quot;</text><text start="180.2" dur="2.84">a next-gen OS for the next-gen PC.</text><text start="183.56" dur="2.56">However, there were major problems from the start.</text><text start="186.32" dur="3.54">OS/2 may have had fancy multitasking, virtual memory support,</text><text start="189.86" dur="3.12">and an API for controlling video, keyboard and mouse input.</text><text start="193.34" dur="2.48">But because all the software on the market was for DOS,</text><text start="195.84" dur="3.6">it still had to support it in order to gain any kind of foothold,</text><text start="199.44" dur="3.32">and this led to some less-than-perfect implementation.</text><text start="203.1" dur="5.1">OS/2 was also lacking any kind of graphical user interface until a year later,</text><text start="208.2" dur="4.02">which kept it looking an awful lot like DOS to your common consumer.</text><text start="212.58" dur="4.14">Combine this with the disappointing reception of IBM&amp;#39;s PS/2 lineup,</text><text start="216.72" dur="4.32">and the hardware requirements to run it being quite high for its time,</text><text start="221.04" dur="2.94">and OS/2 had a bit of a shaky start indeed.</text><text start="224.36" dur="2.98">Nonetheless, work on it continued throughout the &amp;#39;80s</text><text start="227.36" dur="4.14">with each version notably improving its look, feel, and capabilties</text><text start="231.78" dur="1.5">even Bill Gates said,</text><text start="233.42" dur="6.86">&amp;quot;I believe OS is destined to be the most important operating system, and possibly program, of all time.&amp;quot;</text><text start="240.74" dur="4.84">Interesting, seeing as Microsoft just happened to be continuing to develop Windows</text><text start="245.58" dur="3.66">while still being funded by IBM to develop OS/2.</text><text start="249.44" dur="3.14">While the first couple Windows releases were pretty lame,</text><text start="252.58" dur="3.46">Windows 3.0 in 1990 was another story.</text><text start="256.26" dur="3.1">Not only were OS/2 and Windows incompatible with each other,</text><text start="259.36" dur="3.9">but the two companies also had hugely different marketing strategies.</text><text start="263.44" dur="3.88">In the OS/2 camp, you had an expensive piece of stand-alone software,</text><text start="267.32" dur="3.2">which was marketed to promote IBM&amp;#39;s computers.</text><text start="270.62" dur="4.16">But at Microsoft, they continued their dealings with clone manufacturers,</text><text start="274.78" dur="3.6">and bundled Windows alongside DOS in these machines.</text><text start="278.72" dur="3.48">Sure, OS/2 could work on these clones as well,</text><text start="282.2" dur="2.6">but why would you bother when it was more expensive</text><text start="284.8" dur="3.78">and may not even include the drivers to support your hardware out of the box?</text><text start="288.88" dur="4.88">This led to Windows and MS-DOS continuing to dominate the OS marketplace</text><text start="293.76" dur="3.78">and Microsoft parting ways with IBM in 1990.</text><text start="298.02" dur="5.54">Intriguingly, Microsoft continued to work on the code they had been developing for OS/2 version 3.0,</text><text start="303.56" dur="3.88">and this eventually became the venerable Windows NT in 1993.</text><text start="307.74" dur="2.32">Yet another slap in the face to IBM.</text><text start="310.4" dur="3.84">But despite the uphill battle with Windows, OS/2 soldiered on,</text><text start="314.24" dur="5.14">proving to be a serious force to be reckoned with in OS/2 2.0 and 3.0 Warp.</text><text start="319.64" dur="1.82">IBM started referring to it as,</text><text start="321.46" dur="3.4">&amp;quot;A better DOS than DOS, and a better Windows than Windows.&amp;quot;</text><text start="324.94" dur="2.92">since it could run multiple DOS programs at once,</text><text start="327.86" dur="2.14">and even featured Windows compatibilty.</text><text start="330.24" dur="4.24">In fact, some editions included a nearly complete version of Windows and DOS</text><text start="334.48" dur="4.38">which gave customers the best of all parties without having to buy anything extra.</text><text start="339.24" dur="3.66">Even still, it never really found a foothold in the consumer market,</text><text start="342.9" dur="3.14">due to Microsoft Windows dominating market share</text><text start="346.04" dur="3.8">and OS/2 being a costly add-on, instead of a bundled package.</text><text start="350.12" dur="4.88">By the time 1993 was ending, with Microsoft Windows 95 on the horizon,</text><text start="355" dur="3.2">it was basically the death knell for OS/2,</text><text start="358.2" dur="3.62">and it continued to decrease in usage year over year after that.</text><text start="362.36" dur="1.68">Though it lasted longer than you might think,</text><text start="364.04" dur="5.28">with the official final release being version 4.52 in 2001.</text><text start="369.76" dur="5.88">The reason for this was because OS/2 was actually a decent success in the world of specialized hardware.</text><text start="375.64" dur="2.78">You&amp;#39;ve probably used it at some point without even knowing it,</text><text start="378.42" dur="6.32">seeing as it was, and still is, installed on everything from ATMs to MetroCard systems</text><text start="384.74" dur="2.56">to supermarket point of sale machines.</text><text start="387.46" dur="4.08">Due to the difficulty in running a virtualized instance of OS/2,</text><text start="391.54" dur="4.6">many companies have simply held onto it instead of upgrading decades&amp;#39; worth of data.</text><text start="396.28" dur="6.62">In fact, eComStation OS was born out of this need for OS/2-compatibility in the modern day</text><text start="402.9" dur="7.02">and there are still gatherings of OS/2 users at annual conferences like WarpStock, keeping the dream alive.</text><text start="410.46" dur="5.18">So while OS/2 may not have changed the personal computer market like IBM hoped,</text><text start="415.64" dur="3.02">it found its niche, which continues to this day.</text><text start="418.92" dur="2.92">In a sense, OS/2 never really died.</text><text start="421.84" dur="2.78">It just sort of languished in purgatory for years,</text><text start="424.62" dur="2.1">and now wanders around as a zombie,</text><text start="426.72" dur="4.38">being kept alive by various user groups and the occasional ATM.</text><text start="431.5" dur="1.98">It may have been innovative and powerful,</text><text start="433.48" dur="4.74">but compared to its competitors, it was expensive and lacked the required marketing.</text><text start="438.36" dur="4.42">Beyond its shaky start, there really wasn&amp;#39;t much inherently wrong with OS/2.</text><text start="443" dur="2.76">And it rightfully earned its devoted fan base.</text><text start="445.82" dur="3.52">But its downfall really was death by a thousand cuts,</text><text start="449.34" dur="2.16">combined with ruthless competition.</text><text start="451.92" dur="1.64">Perhaps in a parallel universe,</text><text start="453.56" dur="2.36">we&amp;#39;d all be using Warp 10 today.</text><text start="456.34" dur="3.44">But, alas, OS/2 is just another footnote</text><text start="459.78" dur="3.86">in the battle between giants for how we use our computers.</text><text start="473.44" dur="2.36">And if you enjoyed this episode of &amp;quot;Tech Tales,&amp;quot;</text><text start="475.8" dur="3.08">then you might want to check out some of these others that are linked here,</text><text start="478.88" dur="2.18">as well as lots of other videos on my channel</text><text start="481.06" dur="2.54">that cover similar topics, and all of that.</text><text start="483.76" dur="3.34">So you can subscribe if you would like to be notified of them in the future,</text><text start="487.1" dur="3.52">or you can just check back here every Monday and Friday for a new episode.</text><text start="490.9" dur="3.92">You can also follow and interact with me on Twitter and Facebook,</text><text start="494.82" dur="4.82">as well as support the show on Patreon if you would like to see even more goodness</text><text start="499.64" dur="1.7">and like to see it before anyone else.</text><text start="501.34" dur="2.06">Because that is a perk of doing that.</text><text start="503.62" dur="2.76">And, as always, thank you very much for watching.</text></transcript>