Gordon Letwin OS/2 Usenet post (1995)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

OS/2 vs Windows: technology and developer experience

  • Many recall OS/2 2.x as technically superior to Windows 3.0: true preemptive multitasking, better DOS support, memory protection, and solid APIs for threads, drivers, and comms.
  • OS/2 1.x was constrained by 80286 protected mode and real‑mode DOS sessions; 2.x was largely a 32‑bit rewrite targeting the 386.
  • Some highlight serious architectural issues: not truly multi‑user and a single input queue for the GUI, seen as a dead end without major rewrites.
  • Memory demands were high: 2.x “worked” with 4 MB but really wanted 8 MB at a time when most PCs had 2–4 MB.
  • Developer tools and ecosystem lagged: Windows had Visual Basic, Delphi, Turbo C++ and later strong Win32 tooling; OS/2 had some Borland support and IBM’s VisualAge, but not at the same breadth.

Business, pricing, and ecosystem

  • Lack of applications and weak IBM marketing/OEM deals are recurring themes.
  • OS/2 was expensive (both OS and suitable hardware), while Microsoft kept DOS/Windows/Office licensing cheaper and friendlier to OEMs.
  • Standardization around Windows drew developers and users; OS/2’s ability to run Windows apps ironically reduced incentive to target OS/2 natively.

Why OS/2 failed: competing explanations

  • One view: OS/2 2.x failed because it could run Windows apps, so developers stayed on Windows.
  • Counter‑view: the real failure was OS/2 1.x on 286; Windows 3.x on 386 exploited its weaknesses (esp. DOS multitasking), gained dominance, and by the time 2.x arrived the market was already decided.
  • Several commenters stress IBM’s corporate inertia and misreading of the PC/home market as at least as important as anything Microsoft did.

Microsoft, IBM, and CP/M/DOS history

  • Long subthread revisits IBM’s original PC OS deal: Digital Research’s CP/M‑86 negotiations, QDOS purchase, and MS‑DOS licensing.
  • Opinions differ on whether Microsoft behaved malignly or just opportunistically; some argue Gary Kildall “blew it,” others emphasize how the “went flying” story harmed his reputation.
  • Broader pattern raised: Microsoft repeatedly leveraging partnerships and legal pressure to its advantage; contrasted with IBM’s own problematic history.

Windows NT origins and VMS connection

  • Discussion covers hiring of the VMS team lead, reusing design ideas from a cancelled DEC project, and how this shaped NT.
  • DEC later sued over similarities to VMS internals and obtained favorable settlements and partnerships.
  • NT is seen as qualitatively better engineered than MS’s OS/2 work, and ultimately the line that displaced both OS/2 and Windows 9x.

Miscellaneous reflections

  • Standardization as a double‑edged sword (praised in OS/2 email; compared to EV charging standards).
  • Nostalgia for OS/2 Warp, RS‑232, Win32s, and early USB; plus side debates on typography (two spaces after periods, long “s”).