Nope. You're thinking of OS/2 2. OS/2 1.x is what flopped and OS/2 1 didn't run ...

invalidname · 2024-12-06T10:06:22 1733479582

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.

mrspuratic · 2024-12-06T12:07:21 1733486841

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 :/

lproven · 2024-12-06T17:58:42 1733507922

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.

lproven · 2024-12-06T18:00:11 1733508011

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.

lproven · 2024-12-07T23:29:49 1733614189

* killed its chances