BetaArchive
https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/

OS/2 2.0, Spring ’91 Edition
https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=38634
Page 2 of 2

Author:  louisw3 [ Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: OS/2 2.0, Spring ’91 Edition

The 2.00 GA can run 6.167's setup programme. I wonder if the GA can straight up run 6.167's userland or the contents of the LA disks that are there can (mostly) overlay a 6.167 system.

Although Citrix 2 is based on the same release as the LA, I'm not sure if there is simply too much internal drift for that kernel to run a stock userland. Or if PM could be overlaid on top of Citrix. I have to imagine that there is a fundamental reason Citrix Multiuser 2.0 didn't ship with Presentation Manager. Even though it does have support for running Windows 3.0 on the console.

Although by then it was clear if you couldn't run Win16 you were doomed.

Author:  os2fan2 [ Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: OS/2 2.0, Spring ’91 Edition

The thing with Presentation Manager, is that it's actually at two levels: Protshell and Runworkplace. The 6.123 release has PMShell, but this runs at Protshell, and RunWorkplace is PMExec. Even in Windows 3.x, the distinction is made: the gui loads always, but you can set runworkplace=progman.exe can be reset. DosShell is Win30 std mode, but it does not use the standard gui of windows.

Setting the runworkplace=something else, is something that you did in both Win16 and OS/2, to make kiosk programs, or run large programs. I did my early cdrom burning on OS/2, by setting the shell to filebar.exe, but still loading presentation manager.

The programs that run in the multi-user systems were actually hosted on a server somewhere, the idea being that the least portion of sensitive data was sent down the line. You could log into AIX on such a machine.

Windows 3.x still had serious competition well up to 1995. It was called 'windoze' because it was dead slow on the suggested 2mb ram, and 'bloatware', because the standard 3.1 install took up 1/4 of the hard drive. It is little wonder that the 3.1 resource kit talks about what files it is safe to delete.

It wasn't at that stage clear that Win16 was going to win. Bill Gates was still pushing OS/2, this was well before the switch and bait moves.

Even Win31 had some opposition from OS/2. There was TeamOS2, and OS/2 won the 'best software' for many years before they discontinued the constest. OS/2 had a good representation at the various shows that I went to between 1992 and 1995.

I would suspect that Citix 2 did ship with PM, but used their own shell. At least, that's how I see the Citex boxes I've seen.

Author:  johnlemon647 [ Sat Jul 28, 2018 3:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: OS/2 2.0, Spring ’91 Edition

Citrix OS/2 version 1.0 did not have GUI it have similar interface had OS/2 1.0 was killed sales Citrix version OS/2. Citrix was later to market become Citrix OS/2 version 2.0 came off selves and released just days before the IBM-Microsoft separation, which was an almost instant fatal blow as Citrix was licensing OS/2 code through Microsoft. Windows 3.1 became success selling over Millions copy Windows and Marketplace hit was death-nail for OS/2 2.0 and Citrix version OS/2.

Author:  os2fan2 [ Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: OS/2 2.0, Spring ’91 Edition

OS/2 only really took off when it could run WinOS2 3.1. That was OS/2 2.1.

Windows, even 3.1, was not the sort of thing people ran on their computers. It was a memory and hard-disk hog. It is little wonder it acquired the name 'Windoze'. Ami Pro 3.0 was a word processor we used at work. Its splash screen shows a pen and the letters A-Z in a diamond. I could read aloud as far as T before it got into memory.

OS/2 did a credible job if you had 8 MB, and did not use HPFS. Otherwise, the software was pretty patchy.

You can indeed run OS/2 with no gui. In config.sys, you set protshell=cmd.exe and runworkplace=cmd.exe and you get a single command-line OS/2 shell. You could use tshell.exe or mshell.exe for your runworkplace, and have the ability to start several programs. A good number of systems ran OS/2 in the banks etc, because it was fairly robust.

The system techs ("IT" folk), used to have a MS-DOS 6 disk well into the XP days. You simply can not boot NT from removable media, until the appearence of the costly WinPE, or BartPE. It's only when BartPE started to make serious waves, and could be made from any version of Windows XP sp1+, that Microsoft recanted on their expensive licencing.

I should imagine that Citrix would have a case if it were that they entered into a licencing agreement, and microsoft pull the rug from under them. You just don't do that sort of thing.

I mean, as to Windows 3.1, you are talking on a typically 15 MB install, and another 6 MB install for DOS, when the hard drives were typically larger. Given also that the Windows programs are of similar size to the DOS ones, but do not include the likes of printer and screen drivers, it leads to serious bloatware.

I can't recall seeing too many boxes that booted into Windows when i was fixing up machines back in the 1990s. It was only after 1995 that you start seeing windows 95 boxes becoming common-place.

As to Windows NT, the comment was 'if you don't know what it is, you don't need it'. NT4 could barely boot on a 486 with 20 MB of ram, while OS/2 flew. Windows 98 would work, if you put it through 98lite, and removed a lot of the junk at install. Even IE was faster when you installed it separately.

Author:  louisw3 [ Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: OS/2 2.0, Spring ’91 Edition

johnlemon647 wrote:
Citrix OS/2 version 1.0 did not have GUI it have similar interface had OS/2 1.0 was killed sales Citrix version OS/2. Citrix was later to market become Citrix OS/2 version 2.0 came off selves and released just days before the IBM-Microsoft separation, which was an almost instant fatal blow as Citrix was licensing OS/2 code through Microsoft. Windows 3.1 became success selling over Millions copy Windows and Marketplace hit was death-nail for OS/2 2.0 and Citrix version OS/2.


That is the conventional wisdom we've been told, but if the split was actually much closer to 6.123 then it'd certainly explain why Citrix Multiuser 2.0 uses IBM branded OS components.

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/