PCs dying and WoW

Games, Gaming and Hardware
Prev 1 5 6 7


Yes, OS/2 was mainly sold for 80x86 platforms. About Power PCs and OS/2, wrong. Hopefully my memory isn't that gone.


Meaning OS/2 was sold for Power PCs.


No it wasn't.
OS/2 never supported anything other than x86 platforms.

You are either confusing it for OS/400 (which was for their mini-frame AS/400's) or the largely still born Workplace OS, which was suppose to be the successor to OS/2. It was designed in a similar vein as Windows NT with the ability to run on different hardware architecture (x86, PPC and I think ARM as well).

But it was a mess and never really made it out of alpha stage.


Meaning OS/2 was sold for Power PCs.


No it wasn't.
OS/2 never supported anything other than x86 platforms.

You are either confusing it for OS/400 (which was for their mini-frame AS/400's) or the largely still born Workplace OS, which was suppose to be the successor to OS/2. It was designed in a similar vein as Windows NT with the ability to run on different hardware architecture (x86, PPC and I think ARM as well).

But it was a mess and never really made it out of alpha stage.


I also remember a brief period, about a month, when people thought BeOS was going to destroy both windows and os/2.

The problem with the people making predictions, is they think that a superior successor product will succeed and dominate. However history has taught us things tend to go differently.


No it wasn't.
OS/2 never supported anything other than x86 platforms.

You are either confusing it for OS/400 (which was for their mini-frame AS/400's) or the largely still born Workplace OS, which was suppose to be the successor to OS/2. It was designed in a similar vein as Windows NT with the ability to run on different hardware architecture (x86, PPC and I think ARM as well).

But it was a mess and never really made it out of alpha stage.


I also remember a brief period, about a month, when people thought BeOS was going to destroy both windows and os/2.


That would be the "let's add threads because who doesn't love more threads and we should add threads for the sake of adding threads, and who cares if the use case doesn't need it. Doesn't everyone like to calculate fractals?!?" period.

Yeah, it was pretty idiotic.

So many people fixated on the tree and lost sight of the forest: I.e., it's the applications stupid, not the OS.


I also remember a brief period, about a month, when people thought BeOS was going to destroy both windows and os/2.


That would be the "let's add threads because who doesn't love more threads and we should add threads for the sake of adding threads, and who cares if the use case doesn't need it. Doesn't everyone like to calculate fractals?!?" period.

Yeah, it was pretty idiotic.

So many people fixated on the tree and lost sight of the forest: I.e., it's the applications stupid, not the OS.


I think BeOS was actually an excellent design and far ahead of its time.

My point though, is that isn't enough.


That would be the "let's add threads because who doesn't love more threads and we should add threads for the sake of adding threads, and who cares if the use case doesn't need it. Doesn't everyone like to calculate fractals?!?" period.

Yeah, it was pretty idiotic.

So many people fixated on the tree and lost sight of the forest: I.e., it's the applications stupid, not the OS.


I think BeOS was actually an excellent design and far ahead of its time.

My point though, is that isn't enough.


Well new technologies need to have a noticeable and obvious benefit to the average user before they get adopted. For example CD/DVD's vs tapes, discs won out because they were easier to use and more reliable where as 8 track tapes didn't catch on even though they were technically better tech but the average user either didn't have the equipment or the capabilities to appreciate the difference.
05/07/2013 12:08 AMPosted by Novaila
I keep hearing that PC sales and declining


PC sales are declining because more people are realizing it's better to buy the parts and build your own. You get more out of your money that way.


It's a lot of work building your own computer. It can take you days or even weeks if something goes amiss in the process.

It would be easier if there were bespoke computer sales places, where you just pick out all the stuff you want, buy it, then they put it together for you and you pick it up whenever.


I think BeOS was actually an excellent design and far ahead of its time.

My point though, is that isn't enough.


Well new technologies need to have a noticeable and obvious benefit to the average user before they get adopted. For example CD/DVD's vs tapes, discs won out because they were easier to use and more reliable where as 8 track tapes didn't catch on even though they were technically better tech but the average user either didn't have the equipment or the capabilities to appreciate the difference.


Right... and are tablets/cells really that big a jump?

I don't think they are... and how long until we hear that tablets/celphones are dying because of things like google glass?


Well new technologies need to have a noticeable and obvious benefit to the average user before they get adopted. For example CD/DVD's vs tapes, discs won out because they were easier to use and more reliable where as 8 track tapes didn't catch on even though they were technically better tech but the average user either didn't have the equipment or the capabilities to appreciate the difference.


Right... and are tablets/cells really that big a jump?

I don't think they are... and how long until we hear that tablets/celphones are dying because of things like google glass?


Well right now I think they serve different purposes there's things I can't or would not want to do on a tablet and vice versa with a PC so there's a very good reason to have both in the same way that having an expensive sound system at home doesn't mean you also don't want an ipod.

Although I am interested to see how the windows 8 tablets with attachable keyboards turn out since they provide the functionality of both devices.


Well right now I think they serve different purposes there's things I can't or would not want to do on a tablet and vice versa with a PC, although I am interested to see how the windows 8 tablets with attachable keyboards turn out since they provide the functionality of both devices.


Well... as someone with a pc, a celphone, and a tablet/laptop...

The whole notion that one is going to replace the others is kind of silly to me.

Each has their place and purpose.
Let Snowfox lay this flat out for you.

For 20 years I've been hearing that PC's were dying. I've heard everything from Amiga's are coming back and going to kill it, to the apple newton would, to macs would, to consoles would... and now celphones and tablets.

It is not dying.

That's just hype people use to sell page hits.


I would agree. I personally love p.c. games. 20 years ago we had games like leisure suit larry and idk what else came after. But I seriously don't think p.c. gaming is dead by any means.
It would be easier if there were bespoke computer sales places, where you just pick out all the stuff you want, buy it, then they put it together for you and you pick it up whenever.


These exist - The problem is that putting together a computer isn't difficult. Most people that have taken the time to identify the components they want will have the knowledge, or be willing to research how to put it together themself and save the extra $.
05/08/2013 11:47 AMPosted by Theriouthwee
(i.e. mom and dad bought a PC for homework and wouldn't spring for the xbox or PS3 so now I'm limping by and playing COD on my Dell)


Just wanted to make the point that today's mom and dads are most likely players too. It's not like once we become parents our brains get timewarped back to the 1950s.


As a dad that plays this game to spend time with his daughter, I understand :)
I can remember my first 8bit personal computer that required the tv to view the basic text based rpg games that you require you to type in the code line by line from a pc mag before playing.

I can see the future where I am wearing only a headset and my brain waves are controlling my actions and not moving out of my seat. I can see tubes feeding into my veins and feeding me synthetic vitamins while living inside a virtual world 24/7

Miss Fox,

1. DOS is dead. Does it matter what killed it? OS/2 failed because it was based on Power not intel,


Lol wut?

I think you're confusing OS/2 with OS/400. OS/2 was never Power based.

Without going into a whole lot of history lessons, DOS wasn't killed by OS/2. It was killed by Windows--and it was a slow, slow death.


Actually for many iterations Windows was a WIMP shell running within DOS. It wasn't until recent versions of Windows that DOS became emulated and Windows was truly the Operating System. Doesn't anyone remember typing "win" at the command prompt?

And there's a good case to be made that OS/2 did succeed and is still very much alive and well with us today. Windows NT came out of the Microsoft half of the OS/2 partnership with IBM, NT eventually was merged into the consumer OS line with XP (it's actually NT 5.x). Looking at the progression from XP to Vista to 7 to 8 there are still important components that grew out of OS/2. It will likely remain that way until we get a true "longhorn" style OS (although admitted I haven't been following that saga for a couple years now).

Giggli: thanks for helping to inject some real data into the debate
I can remember my first 8bit personal computer that required the tv to view the basic text based rpg games that you require you to type in the code line by line from a pc mag before playing.

I can see the future where I am wearing only a headset and my brain waves are controlling my actions and not moving out of my seat. I can see tubes feeding into my veins and feeding me synthetic vitamins while living inside a virtual world 24/7


Have you met Mr Kurzweil (sp?)? Welcome to the singularity :)
05/08/2013 03:49 PMPosted by Jaeron
It would be easier if there were bespoke computer sales places, where you just pick out all the stuff you want, buy it, then they put it together for you and you pick it up whenever.


These exist - The problem is that putting together a computer isn't difficult. Most people that have taken the time to identify the components they want will have the knowledge, or be willing to research how to put it together themself and save the extra $.


Or that audience is just too cheap to pay for a professional that will perform the service better than they will. There's a skill to things like cable management or plumbing a water cooling system that are not inherent to being able to read a guide on Tom's Hardware and put things in a NewEgg shopping cart.

There's also the value of time. I'm at a point in my life that my time is more valuable than the cost of good service. I'll gladly pay Apple and Alienware (let the hate begin ;) ) to assemble and warranty my systems and subsequently not have to waste my time with them. Obviously I'm buying packaged solutions these days but if I wanted a completely custom unit I'd hire a local expert to assemble; I appreciate craftsmanship and would rather spend my limited time in some other way.


Lol wut?

I think you're confusing OS/2 with OS/400. OS/2 was never Power based.

Without going into a whole lot of history lessons, DOS wasn't killed by OS/2. It was killed by Windows--and it was a slow, slow death.


Actually for many iterations Windows was a WIMP shell running within DOS. It wasn't until recent versions of Windows that DOS became emulated and Windows was truly the Operating System. Doesn't anyone remember typing "win" at the command prompt?

And there's a good case to be made that OS/2 did succeed and is still very much alive and well with us today. Windows NT came out of the Microsoft half of the OS/2 partnership with IBM, NT eventually was merged into the consumer OS line with XP (it's actually NT 5.x).


DOS being subsumed by Windows (starting with Windows 95, aka DOS 7.0) and later becoming an emulation layer under NT (NTVDM) is what effectively killed off DOS. And it took Microsoft close to 6 years to do it.

And claiming because NT (which is basically Windows XP and later) is successful, OS/2 can be considered successful is nuts.

Some history lessons: MS and IBM initially shipped OS/2 1.x. as the "next DOS". It brought with it a fair bit of similarity with Windows 2.x and 3.x.

But after that point, MS wanted to drive OS/2 towards the 386 architecture while IBM wanted to continue pushing OS/2 towards the 286 architecture. It wasn't the only reason, but it was a fairly significant reason that led to the break up.

Once MS broke up with IBM, IBM continue to push their OS/2 vision. Microsoft decided to create their own version of the next DOS/Windows: Windows NT. They brought on Dave Cutler, who architected VMS to head this project. And the rest is geekdom history.

So no, Windows NT is not OS/2. OS/2 is OS/2. Windows NT was a from scratch new OS that came about in spite of IBM's OS/2. If anything, given the chief architect, you could almost argue VMS is NT's predecessor (almost...although if you walk kernel the name space and see all those $, it does make you wonder).

Looking at the progression from XP to Vista to 7 to 8 there are still important components that grew out of OS/2.


Such as?

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum