Talk:OS/2/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

IBM charging for the SDK

My memory may be rusty here, but I pretty much remember it the other way around: MS charged (a lot, if I recall) for OS/2 SDKs and then left ISVs high and dry when they decided to make windows their central strategy. Maybe someone can dig references? --Jope 13:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Citations

There are large sections of this article that are not cited. For instance, see the "Future" section. Contributors may read or simply assume things are true and add them to the article, but fail to cite their source. It needs some serious clean-up. If anyone has the time/interest in finding citations of some of the assertions in this article, feel free to add one or two. Otherwise, some items may be deleted for clean up. Arx Fortis 23:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Email from Microsoft about spliting development (1990)

Jeffmuir 02:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've kept this all these years. It seems a shame to not publish it here.

While working on OS/2 as a programmer, it was fairly obvious that there was tension between IBM and Microsoft.

One day, we all received the message I am including.

IBM and MS never resolved their differences after this. As developers, we knew the importance of this message. We were no longer working on OS/2 2.0 together.

20BUILD FORUM appended at 02:10:31 on 90/04/03 GMT (by OS2BNI at BCRVMPC1)

Subject 6.67 Message from RICKD at Microsoft

To clarify the previous propagation comments. Microsoft has elected to work towards a previously discussed 2/91 release plan. IBM has elected to not take Microsoft deltaed files into the IBM Build, Microsoft has elected to not bring in the IBM files into the Microsoft Build. Until management determines the development direction, each site will probably continue "one-way" builds.

At this point in time Microsoft is assuming complete ownership of all Kernel related files and will no longer be requesting exception permissions for any files in the associated directories.

APT "controversy"

An editor has repeatedly attempted to insert this text into the article:

However this has been contested by Monaco based Software company "APT International" who claimed that they approached IBM with a performance product called Warp with a view to joint marketing, just before IBM's OS/2 dramatic change of name. APT battled IBM for through the French High Court of justice ("Le Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris") for seven years with IBM claiming they had a prior Warp trademark with their product CAEDS. This "warp" was however merely a reference to the Warping (i.e. bending) of materials and not a trademark as IBM most certainly would have been fully aware.

Several probelms I see (each of which, individually, would prohibit inclusion):

Unsourced - No source of this information.
Original research - makes assumptions and draws conclusions.
Speculative - Speculates about what IBM "most certainly" knew, etc.
Irrelevant - That some company approached IBM with an entirely different product they called Warp and later sued IBM over does not have any signifcance to this article. The product they sold had nothing to do with OS/2 Warp -- it's simply a dispute over ownership of the name.

Removed per norm. /Blaxthos 18:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Follow up - from comment left on my talk page:

I also have original copies of letters from IBM regarding our offer to them regarding our product WARP.If you want an image of the letter I will show it with the article. Theft is not trivial and it is certainly relevant to the origin of the name. IBM reputedly spent $300,000,000 marketing a product using our trademarked name.

The letters constitute original research and does not qualify as an appropriate source for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, your comment belies your non-neutral point of view -- you refer to the name "Warp" as our trademark name. Clearly you represent the company involved in the lawsuit, and it seems that your point of view is skewed by your association with them (notice your accusation of "theft" -- keep in mind we're talking about the trademark name of totally unrelated products; so you assert that you own the name "Warp"?)! It's hard to assume good faith that you are simply trying to improve the article while having a non-neutral point of view and being involved in a lawsuit regarding the subject of the article. This is not the place. /Blaxthos 20:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Better"

OS/2 2.0, released in April 1992, was touted by IBM as "a better DOS than DOS and a better Windows than Windows".

I think the article should cover this, in more detail than saying it could run multiple DOS sessions and emmulate Windows. There was a prevailing sense at the time that OS/2 really was better, in many technical ways. For the sake of example, the file system ostensibly didn't partition files, and wrote the O/S at the physical center of the drive, and applications around it, so at any time the read/write heads wouldn't have to move very far to load files into memory. This was a long time ago, and my memory is hazy, but this was supposedly one of thousands of small details that made OS/2 much, much better than Windows, instead of just different, but able to run Windows.

Now I never managed to figure out how it was better, or see any performance gains on the same hardware. And I tried. still, the prevailing attitude among people in the know was that OS/2 was superior from a technical point of view. Whether that's true or not seems irrelivant; I think some of these claims should be explanded on. They give us a view into the most formative part of modern computing history, the bridge from 1960 to 2006. The attitudes about what was better, what types of priorities seemed important then, to me, these seem to merit inclusion in this article.

Also, more information about which parts of 0S/2 became Windows NT would be great!

-- DigitalEnthusiast 23:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OS/2 DOS was ostensibly better than Microsoft DOS or IBM's own PC DOS because you could run multiple DOS programs at the same time, and optimize memory, graphics, and other system settings on a per program object. OS/2 Windows was better because you could run multiple Windows sessions so that a buggy application wouldn't interfere with well behaving applications. Additionally, because HPFS did provide better performance than FAT16 (which was all PC DOS and Microsoft DOS had), some applications ran more quickly under OS/2. Of course this was all provided by intercepting software interrupts (DOS system calls) and patching certain Windows system calls to use OS/2 native calls instead, which meant that applications didn't have the absolute control of hardware like they did under DOS so you couldn't play all of the DOS games nor some programs (like later versions of R:Base for DOS) which tried to create their own 32 bit protected mode environments.

Thos Davis 13:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

cite needed overkill

this article needs a lot of work, but it seems to be rife with redundant cite-needed tags. i interned and worked for IBM throughout the early and mid-1990's and can vouch for the validity of almost everything that is said. WP:OR not withstanding, it seems someone is trying to use the tags as a blunt instrument. pending no objection, i'm going to yank most of them out. /Blaxthos 10:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll yank out a few more when I have a minute. Who is objecting to or expecting citations when the response should be 'read the manual, the online help, developer connection or similar'? --Syllopsium 12:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Future

Is this section really relevant? It's largely optimism and speculation, the open sourcing of OS/2 discussion has been done to death - the amount of third party code precludes releasing a large part of it.

If the article is to be even handed it should say that large parts of OS/2 need to be re-engineered. Much though I liked OS/2 the SIQ is still a problem, it's not multi user, the WPS needs a thorough overhaul when developing new components and PM's basic design is hideously insecure (one reason Windows is trying to run as fast as possible to a new API model, as NT features many of the same design issues, even though its superior security model can protect it somewhat). OS/2 OS development is largely dead, apart from a few die hards helping out with eComstation. --Syllopsium 16:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a few external links to web sites that talk about making an open source OS/2 clone, or having OS/2 API calls converted to native OS calls in Linux or Windows to run OS/2 programs. That is about as close to getting an open sourced OS/2 as possible. The projects are still mostly under development, but some time in the future they may be workable. It seems the open source projects that try to recreate or clone OS/2 are writing code to replace the closed source code in the commercial version of OS/2. In a way this is somewhat what the WINE project has done to run Windows code on Linux and Unix variants without using Windows original source code. In my humble opinion, I agree with you that OS/2 is old tech and inferior to the new tech and newer operating systems out there. Yes ECS is a good effort to keep OS/2 alive, and some foreign banks still need to run OS/2 for legacy software for IRR/ERR calculations and other things that didn't get ported to a newer OS yet. But OS/2 development is far from dead, it may be dying, it may be hard to get some of those OS/2 open source projects working, and even if they do they might face IP lawsuits, but it is a good effort by the F/OSS community to try to keep OS/2 alive and give it a future. --Thomas Hard 14:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Should the article mention OS/2 Warp's fine OOUI, ReXX script, and IBM Lotus Smartsuite?

This isn't my vocation, but I remember being very pleased with OS/2 Warp with IBM Lotus Smartsuite when consulting for a law firm. What isn't mentioned in this article was its fine OOUI implementation (CUA), which made it easy to build contracts from templates (in cabinets that looked like cabinets, carried & placed on Lotus's Wordprocessor, that looked like a typewriter). In fact, the desktop mirrored the Office. Equally attractive was IBM's use of ReXX as a script, which was more flexible than Microsoft's BAT 'language'; and, unless I'm wrong, I purchased a 'Visual ReXX' that allowed me to extend the OOUI interface. Though OS/2 was then stable, IBM's new Lotus Smartsuite for OS/2 was not. (Lotus pretty much threw up their hands over the phone, and urged me to use Smartsuite for the enclosed Microsoft 3.1 instead). To concatenate legal paragraphs, my specification for the law firm required the first two features, and a wordprocessor with ASCII format. OS/2 Warp was the only mature OS then that satisfied them. These three unmentioned features, along with its built-in networking, made OS/2 Warp an attractive business package at the time (to some consultants). Geologist 12:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

uneeded citation in fading out...??

there is a "citation needed" reminder in the fading out section for Microsoft giving away the windows SDK... I know at least now, microsoft gives away the SDK for free, and evidence of this can be found simply by searching google... does this not make it common knowledge? If so, is a citation really needed? Kolonuk 11:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Windows SDK was not free for Windows 3.1; at the time the SDK was available from Microsoft for $349 plus $500 for the DDK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwenchin (talk • contribs) 10:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually SDK materials were free if you FTP'd into their early FTP site (rhino.microsoft.com ). You could pull down SDKs and Beta materials and more. While this page references Mark Ingalls as the first owner of the system, as I recall it J. Allard the manager of the team that deployed and supported it. J. Allard's name is on a lot of documents from the time, and here's a listserve post where he's inviting people to visit the server for downloads. Lots of references to free betas/SDKs litter the old news groups... here for instance BcRIPster (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

HPFS is accessible through NT4

Due my MSCE 4.0 course back in 1998, we learned (and proved in practice) that Windows NT4 can indeed READ HPFS partitions (but not write them, however).

Can you give a source for this? AlistairMcMillan 15:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's common knowledge. Ask anyone with OS/2 skills. It can also be done with Windows 2000. Not sure abut XP though. Tannin

Alistair, I can give you the source: Any Microsoft Press Book related to Windows NT4 MCP/MCSE. However, I think I see were the confusion comes from. Windows NT 4 can read/detect HPFS partitions, but you can't install WindowsNT 4 on a HPFS partition. As Tannin says, it is common knowledge.

I wasn't disputing the fact. I just wanted to see a source. We are supposed to be dealing in supportable facts here, not personal recollections. AlistairMcMillan 13:15, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've made a change. Correct me if I got anything wrong. AlistairMcMillan 13:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Windows NT 3.xx can be installed, convert to NTFS, read and write (but not format), and check (but not defrag) HPFS partitions.

Windows NT 4 onward lacks UHPFS.DLL (for checking and converting) and PINBALL.SYS (for reading and writing), so it is unable to do anything with HPFS partitions.

However, you can use the DLL and SYS from Windows NT 3 manually installing it. From 2000 onward the IFS changed so much that they are fully incompatible.

— Claunia 12:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is an article on reading HPFS partitions in Windows NT 4, but you need the NT 3.5x CD. --ozzmosis 13:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Windows 2K does allow the addition of UHPFS.DLL and PINBALL.SYS for reading and writing HPFS partitions. There is a package on the web that automatically installs HPFS support on Win2k. This is most likely illegal so no link.

Unluckily PINBALL.SYS does not properly support large partitions (4.3GB+?) giving errors about chkdsk needing to be run when attempting to traverse directory trees. It also has a bad habit of marking partitions dirty forcing OS/2 to run chkdsk on startup. Chkdsk is very slow on modern large partitions. It is Windows XP that no longer supports OS/2 at all. Dryeo 05:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a package "hpfsw2k.zip" that adds HPFS to Win2k. It also works in WinXP and in BartPE (a boot cdrom based on WinXP SP1 and later). The first time i saw hpfs in something later than NT4 is in BartPE. The HPFSNT package requires that you access the required files from Windows NT 3.51.--Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

original research

In the virtualization section, a particular sentence jumped out at me of violating WP:OR:

It is still possible to boot OS/2 by setting guestOS = "os2experimental" in the .vmx file of the VM (checked with VMware Workstation 3.0 and 5.5), but trying to run different versions of OS/2 leads to frustrating problems most of the time.

Specifically, the checked with VMware... part is what set off my alarm. I'm currently flagging it, hoping someone else might get a reliable source to replace it. --Mike (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction in ATM references

In ATMs section, it says "ATM vendors NCR Corporation and Diebold Incorporated have both adopted Microsoft Windows XP as their migration path from OS/2."

However, later in "Historical uses" it says "Now all OS/2 workstation and automated teller machines migrated to Linux." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.184.111 (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Historical uses" section refers to how OS/2 was upgraded in Brazil government institutions; whereas in the "ATMs" section, it refers to how ATM manufacturers adopted OS/2 in new ATM machines. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

i have physically seen both OS/2, NT [4] Embedded and XP Embedded as well as linux (dont know what distribution) on NCR ATM terminals. Nowadays they nearly all seem to be XP Embedded or Linux (Havent seen an OS/2 or NT4 one since the early/mid 2000s) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.153.191 (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Helper Programs

"Even native OS/2 programs had problems communicating: a command-line program could not fully access the system clipboard, which was reserved for "GUI" programs.[citation needed] Workarounds consisted in creating special helper programs (for example an invisible GUI program just for accessing the clipboard)"

I didn't realise this was the 'done thing' but I arrived at this conclusion of my own accord when I wanted my REXX scripts to be able to display dialog boxes. I found that I had to create a Presentation Manager executable running in the background. I then had some way of communicating with it, some kind of IPC I think, and it would pop up a message in the GUI as required. It was a lot of stuffing around.

CascadeHush —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.51.14 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There are actually easier ways, including with REXX. That section of the article only pertains to OS/2, as normally installed, for programs not designed to communicate with each other. Both via REXX (add-ons and possibly later versions of REXXUTIL) and through other programming means for other commandline programs, there are a variety of ways that commandline programs can communicate with each other. VAC++ offered a variety of ways that were not concerned with whether it was a GUI or CLI app.

In addition, REXX, as standard install, communicates with numerous WPS processes with no add-ons. Heck, much of the add-ons for OS/2 (like xWorkplace and WPSWizard) utilize that capability for extending the desktop, and numerous installers utilize REXX to update or interact with WPS processes and data structures.

Thus, that statement is ambiguous at best - nor does it take into account that most of the OS/2 apps out there are not CLI apps. It's kinda like saying a car has a problem because it cannot exceed 30mph (with the caveat that such a statement only applies to first gear) - it's true, but doesnt mean very much; especially since numerous developer tools and libraries fixed that "issue" a long long time ago.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 03:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Viruses

In the "Security niche" section, it is claimed that "Its design possibly could have made it vulnerable, but its reduced market share appears to have discouraged virus writers." This seems to be a naïve statement. The purpose of viruses is primarily to prevent sales of Microsoft Windows. That is the reason that there are no viruses written for OS/2.Lestrade (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

"The purpose of viruses is primarily to prevent sales of Microsoft Windows."

??? --70.142.57.205 (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been speculation that (as related to the "Security niche" section) the purposes of viruses is primarily to drive the sale of AV and AS software - but that too is un-citable speculation. To say it is primarily to drive the sales of Windows is even greater speculation.

As an interesting side note regarding the security comparisons, I am sure (though this is also purely my speculation), due to the nature of it's use (on ATMs and almost every major bank's desktops/processing machines) that OS/2 was a big target in the past as well.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 03:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Image Caption Change undone/reverted

I have reverted the image caption from "A typical OS/2 desktop" back to it's original "A typical OS/2 Warp 4 desktop" as the original caption was more accurate. Other versions (except WSeB which is a v4.x release) of OS/2 (v1.x, v2, v2.1 and v3) looked noticeably different than Warp 4.

Either is accurate, but simply put, the original caption that I reverted to is more accurate.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 07:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Revised section in "Problems" section

While I am baffled that we are not permitted to list the numerous problems with Windows, but are for OS/2 and other operating systems (cited or not), I guess that is not the point of this... so to the topic at hand:

I have cleaned up the following portion of "Problems" to it's current revision. The last sentence of the first paragraph is incorrect. The last paragraph is incorrectly worded.

"* No unified virtual memory and disk cache. Modern operating systems can use the entire available RAM for disk caching and can map files into the address space of processes. OS/2 had a dedicated memory pool for disk caching and could not map files. This could result in decreased performance and RAM waste.

But this situation its over OS/2 Warp client with HPFS standard file system. With HPFS/386 in OS/2 server, not exist this limitation. And, with Warp WSEB codename "Aurora", introducing JFS File System, the use of RAM memory available its extensive an very efficient."

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The NTFS file system is indeed based on OS/2's HPFS file system, maybe one should add this to the article (and i bet the latter HPFS is still faster, and able to handle more file flags). The new Windows 7 begins slowly to look a bit like OS/2 3 and 4 looked back then in the 90ies, time will tell whether it is as productive - e.g. thinking of the OS/2 "shadow" and reference-copy system which has a lot of advantages.

From my own personal experience as a student: Microsoft pushed on the market with Windows 95, which was not really nowhere near OS/2, but, as a successor of Win 3.11 certainly sold better than IBM's OS/2, which was regarded as "exotic" - few people understood what was possible. There was ertainly also Atari and McIntosh, but it was too expensive (at least for students).

MS salesmen went to the various computer stores and asked which system (OS/2 Warp, or Windows 95 later 98, as OEM or full-version) would be delivered with a new PC, and the usual answer was "whatever the customer likes". The MS salesman would then exclaim that the shop would not be allowed to sell the Windows system anymore at all, as long as they would offer IBM's OS/2. I will never understand why IBM never did something against this, but it is one more example how mediocre products succeed on the market. Just imagine a full-developed OS/2 (3?) today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.195.254.4 (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

ATM in Brisbane

I think that ATM has Windows now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.0.158 (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

os/2

i just want to know a small explanation about it as this information is a bit too confusing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.222.207 (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

File:OS2 Warp 3.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:OS2 Warp 3.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Warp 5.0.1 the most recent version?

Going to http://www-306.ibm.com/software/os/warp/support/ and clicking on "All Downloads" loads to a page where one can select version "5.0.1" of OS/2. Rumors say, this version can run win32-software and is available IBM-internally only. One one knowing more? --85.180.60.183 12:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Your looking at the version drop down box that is used with the "Operating Systems" (Linux/AIX etc) drop down box to the left. v4.52 is still the latest revision of OS/2 . - Cheers Ian Manners -

OS/2 did support running Win32s applications as early as OS/2 3.0 http://www.os2world.com/os2files/os2/tipsandtricks.html#Win32s, which may be what you're thinking.

Thos Davis 12:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OS/2 does not fully support Win32 apps because IBM did not gain access nor had any rights to the Win32.IBM had rights to use Windows 3.0 code. same way with Microsoft, Microsoft did not support 32-bit OS/2 applications because of the Microsoft did not have the rights to use OS/2 2.0 code. Windows 3.0 and OS/2 1.x were shared.

Microsoft did not belive in OS/2 API when they released Windows NT, since the world already used Win16 or Win32 application. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.79.252 (talk) 06:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Warp v5.0.1 was never released to the public, nor to most (or any?) IBM customers - if it exen existed, or existed beyond IBM internal code.

The last version of OS/2 that was sold (in stores, online via someone other than IBM) was OS/2 Warp v4 and OS/2 Warp Server v4 (which was OS/2 Warp v3 with LanMan v4 integrated). The last version IBM shipped to the majority of customers with support contracts was OS/2 Warp Convenience Pack v4.52 and Warp Server for e-Business CP 4.52 PF2. I have yet to find any company that obtained version 5.0.1 (though I suspect I do know of one, which sadly, I cannot mention). You can still find other references to v5.0.1 elsewhere on IBMs site for various hardware that it was tested on. Presumably, there was also a v5.0 as IBM is pretty strict about their version numbers.

I'd cite documents on IBM's site that mention version 5.x, but sadly, like most other OS/2 related resources there, I am sure they will soon disappear as well.

Win32 (ie: NT/2000/XP - not Win32s v1.25c) was supposedly done via PAXIE and cross licensing. Various portions of the Win32 support exist in OS/2 to this day (such as the Windows registry and registry editor, and some portions of code that were used in early Odin development).

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 08:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Here's one IBM doc that references "OS/2® Server for e-Business V5.0" - there was also a ServeRAID Software release that I believe did as well (a version 8.x release) which is no longer available anywhere I have looked.

http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=an&subtype=ca&appname=redbooks&htmlfid=897/ENUS103-206

There are a bunch of other links that reference it (with a little digging to find them) as well as other IBM Redbooks. It was codenamed "Gandalf"

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 11:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that OS/2 version 5 exists, but the only use case I can see is for the 3494 Library Manager with all references only found on IBM internal websites. Will see if I can find external release notes. Luckydog429 (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

eComstation

that might be a legal reason for not releasing the source.. Might not be as well but does anyone know the terms of their license with IBM? releasing the source could hurt their bottom line as well as well IBM might be making a dime off ecommstation thru some fee. IDK but its a thought that hasn't been talked about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.191.119 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been told in no uncertain terms by people within IBM that the source for OS/2 will NEVER be released. Even if IBM wanted to, Microsoft will not allow it. IBM has no intention of fighting that battle again for no benefit and OS/2 is the skeleton in Microsoft's closet that they refuse to talk about. OS/2 was the only operating system they truly feared. They still peddle anti-OS/2 propaganda here and in other places, making sure they pooh-pooh it as much as possible in order to change peceptions. OS/2 was superior to Windows in every way (except for the SIQ :)

Having said that, the source is available. You just can't admit it in public or someone in a trench coat will pay you a visit :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.142.82 (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Reference 30 requires a login — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.189.35 (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

MS OS/2

doesn't mention that leaving the JDA, both entities retained and exercised distribution rights to the system. Windows remained a client only system for a long time and MS OS/2 was the MS server OS, where for example, initially you could only get products like SQL Server. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

IBM OS/2?

If it was originally a joint IBM/Microsoft project, what renders it "IBM OS/2" rather than just "OS/2"? Guy Harris 08:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have no idea why this was moved. I think it should be moved back, and at best the IBM article forwarded, but preferably deleted. -- Tmassey 19:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft exited the OS/2 stage very early in the game -- they had some involvement with the 2.0 release, however by 2.1 they had abandoned OS/2 in favor of developing Windows products. IBM developed, produced, and supported the product for the majority of its life, which is probably why "OS/2" is pretty much always associated with IBM. As a side note, MS wanted nothing to do with the naming or production of OS/2, and never disputed the name. Also, the OS/2 software packages were labeled "IBM OS/2" that I remember (from 2.0 forward). As a final note, I think he was also trying to standardize the names of articles about IBM products (IBM AS/400, etc) -- i haven't checked and could be completely wrong. /Blaxthos 18:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

See also thread below. Above is false. I worked at IBM Boca before the 198700401 announcement of the product. MS did not exit OS/2, it just broke out of the JDA and marketed the product separately per its right to do so under the JDA. Windows wasn't fully a server operating system until the release of NT. Before that MS OS/2 was what they sold for server apps like the freshly ported Sybase version that was early SQL Server, which didn't initially run on any version of Windows, only MS OS/2. It's true they shifted their emphasis to Windows but they didn't walk away from what they'd put into OS/2 and the two shared a lot with vestiges of compatibility remaining quite late as noted. The Windows windowing system itself for example came out of PM. Virtually all OS/2 sales were IBM OS/2 and the two were of course compatible with generally only MS corporate contractees getting the MS version, e.g. bundled with SQL Server. From the early development thru that last transition was about 8 years. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Multitasking and Memory Protection (and Thread Support)

Apart from the section on "Windows 3.x compatibility", the article says nothing at all about OS/2's preemptive multitasking and memory protection. These were two of its biggest advantages over other operating systems (including not only Windows but the Mac OS).

(Microsoft introduced memory protection and preemptive multitasking with Windows NT and Windows 95, but both systems still used cooperative multitasking for legacy 16-bit Windows applications. And the Macintosh did not have these features until the release of OS X.)

Nor does the article mention the fact that OS/2 itself was multi-threaded, and supported the writing of multi-threaded applications. It alludes to this fact in the section on "Problems", but it does not discuss this feature and capability directly.

(The "Problems" section refers to "The availability of threads" as though their availability had already been mentioned and explained elsewhere, but no such prior discussion exists.)

All of these were major architectural features of OS/2, and deserve discussion.

I wanted to confirm this with sources:

"It[ Windows 3.1 ] also required a 386. On the other hand, OS/2 1.0 supported memory protection, pre-emptive multitasking applications, and multithreading — something which the Win386 line of operating systems had to wait for until 1995." -Michal Necasek [ https://www.os2museum.com/wp/os2-history/os2-1-0/ ]

2001:5B0:24FF:3CF0:0:0:0:34 (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Corrections

NO full 32bit version of OS/2 ever existed, (with the exception of OS/2 for the PowerPC) particulairly the device drivers all had to be 16-bit. The only exception to this was video drivers with the very latest versions, which could finally be 32-bit, but drivers such as Networking and Storage all are 16-bit.
The free demo CD of OS/2 Warp 3.0 Red was distributed all over Europe, bundled with computer magazines. They where time limited, but installing a FixPak would remove the expiry timer, and effectively gave you a free version.
IBM has official withdrawn support
TCP/IP stack is only BSD based in the last version, older versions where based on the old IBM TCP/IP stack. This includes OS/2 Warp 3.0 (dial-up TCP/IP support only) and Warp 4.0 which had a forward port of the old IBM TCP/IP 2.0 and MPTS (Multi Protocol Transport Services). Only starting with OS/2 Warp Server for e-business (v4.5) did the BSD stack get introduced.

—the preceding unsigned comment is by 67.87.7.65 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC1)

1 - Not correct. IBM introduced an entire 32bit framework for drivers, and various NICs and SCSI adapters utilized them as well. That did make it possible to run entirely 32bit drivers (though highly unlikely as mostly true high end server devices came with such support)

3 - Your statement is correct if you add "...to non-paying customers, which does not include Serenity Systems, Mensys and various large corporations"

4 - Incorrect. The stack was BSD based for Warp 4 after a certain FixPack, as well as Warp/WSeB (Merlin/Aurora) 4.5 CP, 4.51 CP, 4.52 CP, 4.52 CP PF1, 4.52 CP PF2 and all versions of eComStation. Based on the releases, that means 5 releases of OS/2 that contained the BSD based stack (not counting the eComStation releases) and one version where it was added in a FixPack (v4), compared to (since IBM took over OS/2) four versions that did not include it at all (which also includes v4 that got it in a FixPack). MPTS is irrelevant to the equation and is a part of all versions of IBM released OS/2 that supported networking in the base package (up to and including v4.52 CP PF2).

And finally a note on the numbers for post version 4 just for some edification. CP=Convenience Pack, PF=Post Fix. Thus, there were two PostFix releases for v4.52

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 08:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The old 16 bit TCP/IP was BSD based, just an older version of BSD. If you have the money, you can still get support for OS/2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dryeo (talk • contribs) 04:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Observations and corrections

I hesitate to edit the page directly just yet, but offer these observations:

1) Device drivers can in fact be 32-bit. HPFS386 was perhaps the earliest (and most common) such driver. All device drivers in the ENTIRELY 32-bit OS/2 for the PowerPC were, obviously, 32-bit. Most low-level drivers are, however, 16-bit. Not that it actually matters.

HPFS386 is the only "first-party" (Microsoft) 32-bit filesystem driver for OS/2.

Every other filesystem driver is 16-bit. There is no documentation for making them 32-bit.

Other kinds of drivers can be 32-bit perfectly, there is documentation from IBM from OS/2 2.0 (but filesystem)

OS/2 for PowerPC doesn't use an OS/2 kernel, but a IBM microkernel, so drivers do not follow the OS/2 APIs at all and cannot be included, in any statement, with the OS/2 x86 drivers.

My two cents

—Claunia 00:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

JFS2 is also 32bit. There is documentation of sorts, but it's not exactly good.

The case of drivers in OS/2 PPC was a bit more complex too - you're mostly correct,

but GRADD was if I remember correctly backported to OS/2 x86.

--Syllopsium 16:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Various NICs and SCSI cards, as well as some sound cards (various Creative Labs), used the 32bit framework as well. It is conceivable to have an OS/2 system with entirely 32bit drivers running.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 17:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

2) The infamous SIQ does not stand for Single Input Queue. If it can be said to stand for anything, it would be Synchronous Input Queue. Events delivered to message queues by Presentation Manager are sent synchronously, because a very few messages (such as WM_ERASEBACKGROUND) require a reply to be meaningful. It has always been the case that a reboot was rarely necessary when an application stopped responding to events. Attempting to switch focus via ALT-ESC or CTRL-ESC brought up a dialog box asking whether to terminate the offending application. In later versions, Aynchronous Focus Change was added (it can be turned on and off at run time), which will remove focus from unresponsive applications without requiring that they be terminated - when they begin handling events again, they continue functioning normally. In rare cases, none of this works, requiring a restart of the Workplace Shell (and in rarer cases still, when it failed to restart properly, a reboot).

3) DOS and Windows executables can be launched in OS/2 commandline sessions. They are executed in a new DOS or DOS/Windows session. The popular 4DOS command interpreter has OS/2-specific functionality, including the START command, which lets OS/2 executables be launched from DOS prompts. There are also a handful of other third-party programs allowing synchronous execution of OS/2 executables from within DOS sessions.

The DOS virtual machine could either use the system's hardware BIOS, or for improved performance, the user could choose to use the OS/2 virtual BIOS which provided a software interupt that would start an OS/2 native program (Presentation Manager or Command Line). So starting an OS/2 session required NOT using the hardware BIOS Thos Davis 12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

4) While an integrated system cache for all file systems does indeed have great benefits, there are downsides as well, at least as implemented in Windows and even Linux. Moving large quantities of data in the file system around will use up all available system memory as file cache. While not fatal to new memory requests (as the cache memory is quickly freed), the peculiar decision (in both Windows and Linux) to allow memory to be swapped out to make room for more file cache means that already-running programs must often be swapped back into memory when focus is restored after a lot of file system activity. Having a fixed cache size at least prevents this nuisance.

I really don't think a fixed cache is an advantage - an expandable or shared cache that has a minimum size has to outperform the horrid 2MiB limit of HPFS, not to mention the nasty default FAT cache of 'D' or 'D2' which equated to something silly like 10% of memory.

It's the same thing with memory mapped files - this has to be a good thing, and IBM's workaround to support them on OS/2 was truly horrid (it required loading them as a DLL and taking advantage of the paging system, I think).

--Syllopsium 16:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there were a bunch of changes made in the memory arena, including to the virtual address space sizes. Also, JFS and HPFS386 handled such things a little differently and were not limited to such small memory pools.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 17:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

5) Isolating Windows programs in their own Windows session is optional, not required. It's perfectly possible to run many Windows programs in a single Windows session. The ability to separate programs into separate sessions is an advantage that allows one to run, simultaneously, multiple Windows programs that don't get along well with others. An ability that did not appear in Windows NT derivatives until much later.

My memory is fuzzy on this one, but I'm pretty certain Windows win16 process isolation arrived in early versions of NT. Probably as early as 3.51, possibly even back to 3.1 - can anyone verify? It was a checkbox on program settings..

--Syllopsium 16:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My memory is kinda fuzzy on this too, but I am sure that such isolation did not exist, unless it was simply because you could only run one DOS based app at a time - which would thus isolate it from all other DOS based apps since there were no others running.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 17:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

6) One limitation which is not mentioned is that for reasons of maintaining compatibility with 16-bit OS/2 programs (running natively), the process address space was limited to 512MB, some of which was shared memory. In practice a typical OS/2 program has between 300 and 400MB of address space. With Warp 4 FP13 and later, however, the kernel offers a newer memory allocation option that gives applications to up to 3GB of address space, with the caveat that a number of API's cannot be used with memory so allocated.

First sentence, not quite correct. You would need to do a lot of reading on EDM/2 to understand (a) how it used to work, and (b) how it works with the latest (10 year old) kernels. Your last sentence is wrong in the last section (after comma) as the APIs all could be used. Your error is as follows. It should be written like this: "With Warp 4 FP13 and later, however, the kernel offers a newer memory allocation option that gives applications to up to 3GB of address space, with the caveat that OLDER apps that do not support the new APIs will not be able to take advantage of the increased memory space, but will still work as originally designed."

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 17:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually even some APIs introduced with FP13 such as DosOpenL (open files that are over 2GBs) are not high memory safe. Newer apps built with kLIBC need to include os2safe.h before os2.h to avoid crashes caused by using these APIs from high memory. See os2safe.h for the list which is mostly file APIs and even DosSetDateTime.

Dryeo (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

7) The TCP/IP included with OS/2 Warp was indeed for dial-up only, but there was a separate (and more expensive) version called Warp Connect which offered complete LAN support. LAN capability had always been available as an add-on to OS/2 with a separate package prior to OS/2 Warp.

7 - is only correct if you are talking about the non-network version of OS/2 Warp 3.0 All later versions of Warp included all of the networking components, and were simply called OS/2 Warp vX.Y

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 08:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

OS/2 usage in IBM products

I started a table listing products from IBM that used OS/2 as part of the product. Does anyone know any other major products I have missed? Does the table need more detail? Luckydog429 (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There were certain models of ThinkPads with OS/2 built in, IIRC. Haven't made a search though. -Mardus /talk 16:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Which company stalled on Windows 95 license?

From the article:

As a result of the dispute, IBM signed the license agreement 15 minutes before Microsoft's Windows 95 launch event, which was later than their competitors and this badly hurt sales of IBM PCs. IBM officials later conceded that OS/2 would not have been a viable operating system to keep them in the PC business.

The text says only that "IBM signed the agreement" much later their competitors, but it does not say if it was IBM's intention to sign the agreement 15 minutes before the Windows 95 launch event, or if Microsoft didn't want IBM to sign the agreement earlier. -Mardus /talk 16:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on OS/2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130309020041/http://support.microsoft.com/kb/82298 to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/82298

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Conflicting histories about OS/2

Those that win the battles usually write the histories. Although I believe that whoever wrote the article was being as straight-forward and honest as possible, it is difficult to escape some of the FUD surrounding OS/2 created by Microsoft all those years ago.

I was one of the unfortunate souls that worked on OS/2 from the IBM side. Fresh out of university, I found the OS/2 project challenging and full of potential. With the option of working with such a powerhouse as Microsoft, how could it go wrong?

It did go wrong, and it was not all IBM's fault for it to go so wrong.

Microsoft had a very active role in making sure that OS/2 would never succeed. I seriously doubt their intentions post 1989/89. I suspect IBM gave them key funding that helped them push through both Windows and NT development. NT was supposed to be OS/2 3.0! It doesn't get much more visible than this.

The overall point is that OS/2 had weaknesses that were being addressed starting in OS/2 2.0. Things like DOS and Windows support were no longer a major issue and the potential for having a fully 32-bit development environment was strong. It would not be until 1995 with Windows 95 that Microsoft would crack this open.

It turned out not so much to be about technology but rather strategy in the market. Microsoft made it next to impossible at that time to sell an alternative operating system. Bulk licensing implied that hardware vendors were paying Microsoft license fees regardless of what operating system was pre-installed. Vendors had no reason to look elsewhere.

I think the most annoying thing was that Microsoft would start the mantra of the limitations of OS/2 1.x without focusing on the possibilities of 2.0+. It made sense for them to grab the whole OS pie instead of just half. Why share when you can have it all.

I became a bit jaded after this experience and left IBM in 1993 to join a startup company called Citrix. Suprisingly, Citrix developed a successful variant of OS/2 called WinView in that same year. We found that we had more success if we avoided mentioning OS/2 and focused instead in what we could do.

IBM helped to sink OS/2 but Microsoft was largely to blame for its failure. That which could be used by Windows and NT was salvaged from initial work done on OS/2. Innovations quietly got sucked in to become Microsoft only domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.82.110 (talk)

Unless you can cite sources for the above, that readers can check, your personal testimony is not useful to the article. Uncle G 16:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is pretty widely known (and discussed in the NT article) that Windows NT was developed by MS from the OS/2 3.0 project. A personal anecdote doesn't belong in the article, but it can be useful as background for editors working on it. --Blainster 21:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  - No, it cannot. Personal testimony merely serves to fuel outbreaks of the operating system wars on talk pages that are meant to be for discussion of editing the encyclopaedia article. Useful background for encyclopaedia editors are sources, plain and simple. Uncle G 02:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    - Yes, it can. Without saying it, the personal testimony here is implying that this page does not have a neutral point of view relating to historical events. That may or may not be true, but is worth looking into. DigitalEnthusiast 20:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    - I wrote this clip. If you feel it is worth making the claims more valid I will take the time to find the sources you want. Some of these are fairly obvious (like OS/2 3.0 and the licensing) but some are harder to prove. I admit that what I wrote is a mix of fact and opinion. I wrote this because I felt no one was talking about what happened inside IBM and the frustrations everyone inside IBM OS/2 had related to MS. I could easily say that MS was just as frustrated with IBM for other reasons. It was not a very solid partnership. I just added a email I received in 1990 related to the split in development. Jeffmuir 02:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As the CEO of Advanced Programming Techniques, I can testify to the severn year court battle with IBM about the tradename WARP - a section removed from the article but now added back as of today - I am also the author of "Warp" - a product that competed with IBM for hardware dollars in the mainframe market by improving performance of batch programs - It suited IBM to quash the product alonside "borrowing" the tradename to make their PC operating system product sound sexier than the "OS/2 3.0".

While my company were being drained of cash to fight IBM, the CEO of IBM was receiving an honorary knighthood for donating PC's (that they couldn't sell) to schools.ken 18:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

--> The arguement over whether the dissolution of the joint venture of OS/2 was truely because of differences of opinion on how OS/2 should have been, or the conspiracy theory of Microsoft subterfuge (easily fueled by documented tactics used against other companies, and the focus change by Microsoft after working with OS/2), probably won't be proven as one company's "evil" or "insane" plans. It may be best to cover both sides of the coin on this one, as accurately as possible and let the reader decide the final opinion.70.178.46.38 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this debate still goes on? Fact, Microsoft's original name for NT3.1 was OS/2 NT (there is even a screenshot of a disk or two out there). Here's an article on it: http://wiki.oldos.org/Windows/WinNT31 - and if you have a copy, you can still find certain portions or internals where Microsoft didn't swap "OS/2" with "Windows"

Fact, Microsoft did a lot of dirty dealing and misappropriation of development work to push what became the actual NT release (see above statement, associated link, and do your own research) - at the expense of OS/2. Simply read through the documents on the government's anti-trust case against Microsoft as it pertained to OS/2.

I have no intentions of fixing or updating the article on this. I'm simply pointing you all, who seem very vocal on this, towards where you need to go to find the answers you seek.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 09:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

For a good time, go to the Wikipedia Team OS/2 page and do a search on "Steve Barkto" or better, do a web search on "Steve Barkto". -motorfingers- 17:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorfingers (talk • contribs)

Disputed

The claim in the section "virtualization" includes the following text: "The lack of official VMware support for running OS/2 created the opportunity for a new virtualization company. A large German bank needed a way to use OS/2 on newer hardware that OS/2 did not support. As virtualization software is an easy way around this, they desired to run OS/2 under a hypervisor. Once it was determined that VMware was not a possibility, they hired some Russian hackers to write a host-based hypervisor that would officially support OS/2. Thus the Parallels, Inc. company and their Parallels Workstation was born." This is disputed as for one Parallels was founded before VMWare, and there is no citation or proof that it was started by a bank and coded by Russian Hackers. Frak 06:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

i added a ref for this story. it does seem to check out as some of the names of the people referenced can still be seen on the parallels corporate page. does this resolve the dispute? nate 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. They're right in that as VMWare wasn't a possibility another product was needed. That product was called VirtualPC from Connectix, and now from Microsoft. It works very well. Syllopsium 13:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Oracle VM VirtualBox runs OS/2 (in 2016). It's free (see article) and is commonly used for Linux windows on Windows machines. -motorfingers- 17:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorfingers (talk • contribs)

OS/2 FAQ

I have found [this usenet tread] about this articel whit contains some comments that possibly can be used to improve this articel. giskart 23:14 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)
Response: <wickipedia-reply@paperlessconscience.com> We clearly need to clarify our positions, the OS/2 FAQ (deemed credible because it was written by an IBM employee) states that 3.1 was an old update, and that Windows 95 code-name 'Chicago' would not compete with it.

http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/os2/faq/os2faq0106.html

Clearly, IBM released 3.0 without Microsoft, and (also according to the same source) eventually offered to use an existing copy of Windows for compatibility. This suggests that the Microsoft relationship was tenatious, and that they eventually denied OS/2 the prospect of full compatibility.

Why am I being cautious? Because the usenet thread is vauge, and the e-mail addresses (some @home.com) are dead. Sam

Edit details:

changed the time things started to fall apart to 1.3, since this is when IBM took over fully, according to the FAQ. The Usenet link agrees with me.
An encyclopedia should never (IMO) put things in its articles that are debatable.. so I removed "being 32-bit" and added "eventually supported 32-bit APIs" . My guess is that the usenet poster was failing to distingush between emulators, and the native OS application architecture. In other words, OS/2 supported 16bit applications, but was not 16-bit. [somebody has since edited the article to clarify versioning, stating that 2.0 was 32-bit. This is fine. Thank you.]
added links to websites I looked at, and a note that Windows 3.1 may not have been a response to OS/2.

I would like to add that while 2.0 was 32 bit some subsystems, notably device drivers, have remained 16 bit. Also 2.0+ fully supported the 16 api from 1.x Dryeo 04:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Motorfingers is here because I noticed "Until release 2.0 in April 1992, OS/2 ran in 16-bit protected mode and therefore could not benefit from the Intel 80386's much simpler 32-bit flat memory model and virtual 8086 mode features."

This is at least partly incorrect; OS/2 has always used the 80286 protected mode which has a flat memory space of up to 16 GB. I am personally acquainted with exactly this problem because, in 1990, I needed a large flat address space for some work I was doing, and I found that my alternatives were the Phar Lap linker or OS/2 1.3. I determined that the Phar Lap linker paged memory and bought OS/2 1.3 and used current OS/2 releases until 2001. My understanding from the IBM people at Warpstock 1997 was that OS/2 runs in protected mode from the first release of 1.0, with multitasking and multi-threading, albeit with a command-line user interface until 1.1 came out.

Also, please note that OS/2 1.3 and Windows 3.0 were introduced jointly (on the same day, May 22, 1990)^[1]^[2], and the Windows press release stated that Windows 3.0 brought the OS/2 1.3 user interface to the DOS user.

-motorfingers- 18:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorfingers (talk • contribs)

References

"ArcaOS Blue Lion 5.0" OS/2 release

At https://www.arcanoae.com/blue-lion/, there seems to be an operating system continued from or at least based off OS/2 Warp code. The website says that the operating system, ArcaOS is set for GA on March 31, 2017.

Considering the version number being "5.0", which directly follows "4.52", it may be possible that the source code for Warp 4.52 was licensed to Arca Noae, LLC and development continued. Should this be put as a section on the article, a new article, be renamed to "ArcaOS"? or the current version being updated to "ArcaOS 5.0 \ March 31, 2017" and the working state changed?

As the Managing Member of Arca Noae, LLC, the company which develops and markets ArcaOS, let me clarify a few points:

ArcaOS was indeed versioned at 5.0 for its direct follow-on to OS/2 Warp 4.52 (a/k/a MCP2, or Merlin Convenience Pack 2).
Arca Noae did not obtain a source code license from IBM for OS/2 Warp 4.52. Instead, Arca Noae has an OEM agreement with IBM to distribute OS/2 Warp 4.52 as a component of ArcaOS. We also have a limited ability to engineer and release binary modifications to a subset of the original IBM OS/2 files as shipped with Warp 4.52. Finally, as part of our OEM agreement, Arca Noae is permitted to include the SMP kernel with the Warp 4.52 component. (The Warp 4.52 component we include is the client edition of OS/2 Warp 4.52, as opposed to Warp Server for eBusiness. As the SMP kernel was originally limited to being an option for the server, we had to work out special arrangements to include this with the Warp 4.52 client.)

I'll leave it to others to make the desired updates here, other than a minor tweak to the inset which mentions eComStation as the currently developed version (the last release of eComStation was several years ago - version 2.1 - and the last beta of 2.2 was December of 2013). LGRosenthal (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on OS/2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on OS/2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia

Citation 25 cites Wikipedia. The article it references has no sources itself. Is this against policy? ItsProgrammable 22:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a valid source, of course it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.44.117 (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Separation of OS/2 1.x and 2.0 onwards, more critical information early on

The article as listed is rather jumbled; it really needs a clear separation between 1.x and 2.x+ product lines. Whilst they are both members of the same product family and 2.x+ inherited a large amount of code from 1.x the basic architectural and usability differences are such they should effectively be considered different products.

I also believe the emphasis should either be :

OS/2 in its most commonly available form - i.e. Warp 3 or 4, rather than eComstation, or 1.x/2.x, followed by all the history, politics and so on.

or preferably to copy the model of the Windows wikipedia pages and have the OS/2 page as a general history/overview of OS/2 with separate pages for Warp 4,3,2.x etc

--Syllopsium 12:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. There were clearly 3 generations of OS/2, the 1.x developer version, the 2.x, and 3.x GUI versions, 4.0/Warp and the after IBM versions, and the dual development/offerings. Clearly. RTFA.

and here is OS/2 1.0 running in a VM ( pcjs ) https://www.pcjs.org/blog/2015/12/27/

142.254.26.9 (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Licensing deal with Commodore

The article indicates that IBM and Commodore entered into an agreement, with Commodore getting REXX for the Amiga, and IBM getting "design ideas" from Commodore for OS/2.

This is cited in multiple places around the internet but they all point back to the single source cited here, a posting on an OS/2 BBS. The claim there has no further citations.

This seems unlikely: REXX was an integral part of AmigaOS after version 2.0 as ARexx, but ARexx wasn't written by IBM. It was a clean-room implementation by William Hawes based on the language as described in the published REXX book. ARexx was, as claimed in its manual, written entirely on the Amiga in Motorola 68K assembly language, and contains no IBM code. Commodore bought ARexx from Hawes, not IBM. There were many other implementations of the REXX language from vendors other than IBM; AFAIK nobody needed a license to implement the language. The ARexx manuals make no mention of IBM at all -- no trademark assertions or mentions of licensing from IBM at all.

Going the other direction, there is very little Amiga-like in OS/2 so if IBM did license "design ideas" from Commodore they didn't use them for anything as far as I can tell.

This would appear to simply be an erroneous claim. I would argue for its removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordDimwit (talk • contribs) 19:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.os2museum.com/wp/os2-history/os2-timeline/

[2] ttp://www.zdnet.com/pictures/windows-1-0-to-10-the-changing-face-of-microsofts-landmark-os/3/

[1]

[2]