News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Gordon Letwin OS/2 Usenet post (1995) by lproven on Friday December 06, 2024 @05:01AM (#42338174)
Nope.

You're thinking of OS/2 2.

OS/2 1.x is what flopped and OS/2 1 didn't run Windows apps because there were no Windows apps worth a damn yet.

Re:Gordon Letwin OS/2 Usenet post (1995) by invalidname on Friday December 06, 2024 @05:06AM (#42338214)
I am talking about 2.0 which was the IBM product mentioned in the post. 1.0 was still a joint product with Microsoft prior to the split.
Re:Gordon Letwin OS/2 Usenet post (1995) by mrspuratic on Friday December 06, 2024 @07:07AM (#42339029)
When I was a student, around 1992-93, I did shift work for a few months in an MS production facility in Dublin. When it was slack I got assigned to degaussing floppies - most of them were "Microsoft OS/2 Version 1.0" install media. I never kept any for posterity :/
Re:Gordon Letwin OS/2 Usenet post (1995) by lproven on Friday December 06, 2024 @12:58PM (#42342259)
You can download it here if you're nostalgic. ;-)

https://winworldpc.com/product/os-2-1x/10

No, I get your point, and in that position I'd have wished I kept a set, too, but it was not lost to history.

FWIW a beta of Microsoft OS/2 2.0 was found earlier this year and I wrote about it.

https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/11/trying_ms_prerelease_...

Yes, Microsoft 32-bit OS/2 two, not a typo.

Re:Gordon Letwin OS/2 Usenet post (1995) by lproven on Friday December 06, 2024 @01:00PM (#42342271)
OK, just checking.

My point is, Letwin was wrong: it was not the apps that sank OS/2.

The 16-bit version killed its changes, and that did have some big-name native apps.

And it didn't need 8MB -- although it would not have objected.

Re:Gordon Letwin OS/2 Usenet post (1995) by lproven on Saturday December 07, 2024 @06:29PM (#42353685)
* killed its chances