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.
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.