By the time OS/2 came out, IBM wasn't a serious competitor for most OEMs -- they were high end, so were mostly competing with the likes of Compaq.

The big issue that no one is mentioning is that OS/2 needed 8MB of RAM to run decently, preferably more, but this was when most machines were 2-4MB and extra RAM was still a big cost.

> OS/2 needed 8MB of RAM to run decently,

That's OS/2 2.

OS/2 1 is the one that flopped, and nobody had 286 computers with 8MB of RAM.

Hell, the IBM 286 PS/2 machines shipped with 1MB and they cost $6-7K in '87-'88!

100%. I ran it on 4mb and IMHO it was fine but it did need 8mb to shine.

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.

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.

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 :/

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.

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.

* killed its chances