OS/2 Servers have been a stable and powerful platform more many years and are depended upon by many businesses. This is especially true in the banking industry where OS/2 Servers are trusted to run the software that supports the branch office environment. However, as the industry looks to renew its branch office operations, many banks are looking to make a transition from there OS/2 Servers to a platform with wider industry support.The two logical target platforms for this transition, says IBM, are a Microsoft or Linux solution. Both of these solutions have there own benefits and costs.
This redbook provides a technical guide for OS/2 administrators to help them plan for and implement a transition to which ever platform is right for their business. Using this redbook as a guide, OS/2 administrators and technical personnel will be able to develop and implement a plan for a smooth transition from their current OS/2-based domains to either a Microsoft Windows and Active Directory solution, or a Linux-based solution utilizing LDAP and SAMBA V3.0 for file and print sharing, or in many cases, a mixed environment containing both platforms.
OS/2 is technically an awesome OS. Rock solid.
IBM is a washout. Giving up on OS/2 dosen’t speak well for them. I wouldn’t listen to any OS advice from IBM when abandon customers like this.
IBM has made a business decision. Get over it.
it just doesn’t have much mainstream following to make it worth my while…*sigh* … I like neither linux nor M$ — wish there were another x86 solution (buying new hardware is not an option)
“make a transition from there OS/2 Servers”
it should be….
make a transition from them there OS/2 Servers
No, you’re close by it actually should be:
make a transition from those there OS/2 Servers
IBM has made a business decision. Get over it
Like I said I won’t be taking OS advice from them again. They let customers down by dropping OS/2.
One of their migration plans involves the competition ? That sounds like a company with their crap together alright!
It depends on who is buying the systems. If a 24 year old who only knows MS because he/she plays games on it then for sure go with MS. If a skilled a security minded person wanted to provide the type of financial security needed for billions of dollars of trade each day then maybe a smarter choice should be made. One that has nothing to do with anything other than function. Sadly the OS/2 team has been trimmed and only a few markets ever were sold on such a good system.
It would do IBM well to opensource OS/2 if they do decide to finally stop supporting it.
YES,
its often a complete nonsense to do a transition if the “goal” is just win2000 or Linux plus SAMBA. If you need this file sharing stuff you still can stand with your rock solid OS/2, no need for extra money spending!.
And if you do a transition towards Win2000 as recomendation by IBM i can just laugh, next month the tell you win2000 is crappy (with it is
and better use OS/3 
BTW: this might become a problem for some linux-stuff as well, as IBM recommend always everything (so Windows too), so a lot of companies stay with winxx as they get the same support by IBM, so why use OS/2 by IBM , or this new “Thing” called “Linux”?….. a sad story!
OS/2 is a rock solid low maintenance server product. It is still profitable for IBM, but low maintenance means low income. Getting people to move to Windows, whilst naturally retaining contracted support from IBM means more $$$$.
It is therefore in IBM’s interest to move customers away from OS/2. It is in the customer’s interest to resist doing so for as long as possible.
Windows 2000 (now ’03) is the logical continuation of the codebase that began with OS/2. A ten-year-old OS is not rock-solid just because it is old. Going the W2K route or the free Unix route is better than staying, because support is much more easily available for these platforms. Come on, HPFS doesn’t even have proper journaling.
“HPFS doesn’t even have proper journaling.”
Well for SERVER usage there is/was HPFS386 (!=HPFS)
and of course if you like journaling, use JFS!!!!
🙂
People are still using this? In large scale eployments? No. Ok? No. Can someone prove this?
And if they are they are then IBM should open the code so that Linux can provide affinity for OS/2 as a migration path.
> People are still using this? …. Can someone prove this?
Next time you go to your bank, ask the teller to turn there monitor so you can see… HSBC, Standard Bank, First National Bank, ABSA, just to name a few…
Or check out the ATM at your bank. Most of those are still OS/2.
Airports seem to love it as well.
OK, bad example. 😉
OS/2 since Warp 3.0 were awesome OSes. Back in 1994, I was running OS/2 Warp 3 on a 386 DX/40 with 4 MB RAM and 105 MB HDD, and believe me, I did get serious work done with the buggy IBM C compiler. Only the compiler was buggy!
I was working on an application that took advantage of preemtive multitasking.
OS/2 was extremely stable. I don’t remember it crashing at all, no BSODs, no anything. DOS support was exceptionable. Windows 3.1 support, too (running PhotoStyler)
OS/2 had a scripting language called REXX that was light years ahead of DOS batch languages. REXX even had an eval operator, like in LISP.
I’m sorry to see OS/2 go. However, there are still chances that my next product will run in full steam under OS/2.
Windows 95 was a definite step back. IBM didn’t take advantage of the situation and let OS/2 slip. For multimedia, IBM had revealed DIVE, the equivalent of DirectX, in 1994, and it did work. OS/2 or something resembling OS/2 could have won given substantial IBM backing.
make a transition from those there OS/2 Servers
That makes absolutely no sense what so ever. It should be:
“migrate from their OS/2 Servers to….”
Why make a sentence longer and more convoluted than necessary?
>> Why make a sentence longer and more convoluted than necessary?
You didn’t get the redneck/hick, dialect/slang sarcasm there
Anyway, I think the main reason why IBM didn’t compete with ms by really getting behind OS/2 is the suits at IBM didn’t want to deal with the average joe consumer, and all their mismatched hardware…
As for DIVE, it just wouldn’t do for the IT officer of some bank or whatever know that DooM and Quake, etc… would run very nicely on their prospective new OS. It put it in a consumerish, nintendo kind of light IMO.
OS/2 is technically an awesome OS.
Ah, not really. I mean, it’s not *bad*, but it’s not particularly *good* either. Compared to, say, DOS, MacOS and Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 it was pretty good. Compared to most others it’s nothing flash. Not designed to be multiuser, for example.
The WPS, OTOH, was excellent, even if it did suffer from some silly semantic issues (like insane keyboard shortcuts).
Windows 2000 (now ’03) is the logical continuation of the codebase that began with OS/2.
Windows NT is in no way, shape or form a continuation of the OS/2 codebase – logically, physically, practically or otherwise. They are completely different OSes.
Ah, not really. I mean, it’s not *bad*, but it’s not particularly *good* either. Compared to, say, DOS, MacOS and Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 it was pretty good. Compared to most others it’s nothing flash. Not designed to be multiuser, for example.
The last time I ran OS/2 was 1994. My last impression of it was very good. I realize things have changed in 9 years and it dosen’t hold a candle to what we are typically running today.
You’re wrong. When IBM and Microsoft decided to stop developing OS/2 together, they took what they had with them. Much of the code and expertise behind OS/2 2.1 went into NT, for example, NTFS is descended from HPFS, which NT originally used. Although ex-DEC engineers did provide most of the core stuff, OS/2 played a major role. Thus, Win2k is the logical continuation of the Microsoft branch of the OS/2 clan.
When IBM and Microsoft decided to stop developing OS/2 together, they took what they had with them.
NT was developed, from scratch, by Microsoft, to be the successor to OS/2. That’s about the only way they’re connected. They had different design goals and have fundamental architectural differences. No released version of OS/2 bears any resemblance to NT from the design or implementation perspectives.
OS/2 (starting from 2.0) was designed to be an i386-specific single-user desktop OS to replace DOS and Windows. 1.x versions were targeted at the i286.
NT was designed to be a portable, microkernel(ish), multiuser OS to compete with Novell and Unix.
I suppose you could perhaps consider NT a continuation of OS/2 because IBM and Microsoft were still working together at its inception, but only if you scrunched your eyes up just right.
Much of the code and expertise behind OS/2 2.1 went into NT, […]
Er, no. Much of the code and expertise behind OS/2 2.1 went into OS/2 3.0 – OS/2 2.1 was released ~3 years after the IBM-Microsoft split and ~6 months after NT 3.1. About the only similarities between OS/2 2.1 and NT (at the time) were the ability to run DOS, Win16 and OS/2 binaries. Other than that, they’re very different.
[…] for example, NTFS is descended from HPFS, which NT originally used.
Firstly, NTFS was built specifically for NT and is not derived from HPFS – although Microsoft was heavily involved in the creation of HPFS, so techniques used with HPFS were undoubtedly used creating NTFS.
Secondly, NT “originally used” NTFS. Different versions have drivers for some other filesystems – FAT16, FAT32 and HPFS – which it could also be installed onto, but the “native” filesystem has always been NTFS, with HPFS and FAT16 as options for backwards compatibility. Heck, FAT16 is more “native” to OS/2 than HPFS is to NT.
Although ex-DEC engineers did provide most of the core stuff, OS/2 played a major role.
Dave Cutler & Co. designed and built NT from scratch in an independant development team, not from any existing OS/2 code base.
Thus, Win2k is the logical continuation of the Microsoft branch of the OS/2 clan.
Windows 2000 is the continuation of Windows NT, which was supposed to be the successor to OS/2 back in 1988. However, NT and OS/2 share no heritage apart from both being conceived while Microsoft and IBM were still working together. NT is about as much a “continuation” of OS/2 as Linux is a “continuation” of BSD. Realistically, not even that close – BSD and Linux have a lot more in common than OS/2 and NT.
If you were to draw a “family tree” it would need to cover three distinct products:
OS/2 1.0 -> 1.1 -> 1.2 -> 1.3;
OS/2 2.0 -> 2.1 -> 3.0 -> 4.0 -> (whatever IBM called OS/2 after that); and
“The OS that became Windows NT” (I believe it was actually codenamed OS/2 NT for a year or two).
> it just doesn’t have much mainstream following to make it
> worth my while…*sigh* …
Why is a mainstream following a requirement when choose an OS for one’s own PC?
What types of software do you need to run?
> I like neither linux nor M$ — wish there were another x86
> solution (buying new hardware is not an option)
There are many alternatives, including (but not limited to) OS/2, BeOS, FreeBSD, and Solaris.
Some of them have surprisingly robust development communities and can meet a number of needs in spite of the poor showing they have in the trade rags.
OS/2 was good. OS/2 Warp 4 came on one CD, and combined with Lotus SmartSuite was basically all I needed. It ran all my legacy DOS and Windows programs side by side, in a reliable manner, without hassle, which Windows 95 didn’t, and ran well on the same hardware.
It was expensive though, I somewhat resented having to pay for yet another Windows licence (part of the cost, needed for the built in Windows emulator).
Then I got hardware upgrades, and (since there was no version released after 4) required progressively more software upgrades, eventually including even software upgrades to upgrade the software upgrading software. All free, but a nightmare to install.
Oh, and despite the overall stability, I actually had the bundled text editor crash on me once (a well known problem apparently, one that caused much embarrasment to IBM, I think.)
It was probably the best option at the time. But I wish Linux had been as usable then as it is now. (Also, I wish Linux ran DOS programs now as well as OS/2 did then. And I wish Linux was as lean now as OS/2 was then. But nothing’s perfect.)
Why didn’t IBM continue development? It is amazing that it has lasted this long. I know for a fact that its used in a bunch of ATM’s has to be rock solid to do that.
IBM should port OS/2 features to linux. They are going to loose their customer base to MS. Why does every computer company but MS do this? Compete damit!#%@$
I ran Os/2 4 Warp on a 486 about two years ago to see how it was like. Man I was in for a surprise. I heard it was rock solid but wow it is. If banks are still using this os as there atm and other things and considering a move to a M$ solution. Remind me not to take money out of a ATM anymore. A shame IBM didnt market it correctly back in the day. But I agree with those that said after IBM drops it completely. They should let it go open source. I bet the open source community could make it live on even longer than it has.
I have seen the comment about OS/2 running ATMs here a couple of times. I wasn’t sure if those were attempts at humor, but earlier in the week, Bank of America announced it will be switching all of its ATM OSes from OS/2 to Windows NT – and they claimed because Windows was an “open” OS! What are THEY smoking? “Open”, my arse!
This is kind of related but, anyway. I work at Best Buy, and their kiosks are made by IBM, but run Windows NT. Ours crash all the time and it takes a good 5 minutes for a reboot. I hate them. Also a year ago I used to work for a newspaper company and their stackers (put papers into bundles from the press) ran off of Win 3.1 (i’m guessing because it booted off of dos) and those crashed all the time. Oh well.
As I understand it, IBM makes more money out of Windows-related business units than either their AIX, AS400 or Linux groups. Which is not entirely surprising. While I don’t doubt that IBM needs to maintain OS options of its own (both to support exotic hardware, and to prevent it becoming entirely beholden to a 3rd party; a mistake they are unlikely to make a second time), a Windows migration path is in no way a ‘loss’ for them.
“Windows NT is in no way, shape or form a continuation of the OS/2 codebase – logically, physically, practically or otherwise. They are completely different OSes.”
Well maybe some of the glaring similarities between OS/2 and NT are purely coincedence but in the writing of Bill Gates of the Microsoft Corporation in his book “The Road Ahead” makes statements quite to the contrary, it must have been a typo or something. However, in the book “Babarians Led By Bill Gates” more supporting evidence is offered. The author of that book was a very prominent Microsoft employee, sorry can’t remeber who. I once noticed several native 32 bit OS/2 applications ran fine in NT, another coincedence I suppose.
“NT was developed, from scratch, by Microsoft”
Apparenty you have a lot to learn about the VMS connection as well.
I once noticed several native 32 bit OS/2 applications ran fine in NT, another coincedence I suppose.
I suppose 16-bit VIO OS/2 applications?
Well maybe some of the glaring similarities between OS/2 and NT […]
For example ? I can’t think of any.
There are fundamental differences – like the ones I listed – between OS/2 and NT. They have little in common.
I once noticed several native 32 bit OS/2 applications ran fine in NT, another coincedence I suppose.
Not in the slightest. OS/2 was one of NT’s API “personalities”, just like Win32 and POSIX (although it only ran command-line binaries). Indeed, it was originally going to be the “native” personality until Windows became such a success.
However, binary compatibility means little. FreeBSD happily runs Linux binaries, but it is hardly an offshoot of it.
Apparenty you have a lot to learn about the VMS connection as well.
Not at all. The fact that Microsoft hired engineers who had worked on VMS, and those engineers used the same principles making NT does not change the fact it was built, from scratch, by Microsoft employees.
I once noticed several native 32 bit OS/2 applications ran fine in NT, another coincedence I suppose.
Not in the slightest. OS/2 was one of NT’s API “personalities”, just like Win32 and POSIX (although it only ran command-line binaries). Indeed, it was originally going to be the “native” personality until Windows became such a success.
Just to follow up on this, I’m almost certain releases after NT4 (ie: Win2k and later) did not include the OS/2 personality. Also, by “native” personality I mean the one the majority of applications were supposed to be targeted at – NT has its own internal API that the “public” APIs run on top of.
You can read all about this stuff in “Inside Windows NT”, an excellent book on its design and history. I also highly reccommend “Inside NTFS” by Helen Custer for those who have any suspicions NTFS and HPFS are somehow related.
IBM is a washout. Giving up on OS/2 dosen’t speak well for them. I wouldn’t listen to any OS advice from IBM when abandon customers like this.
<p>
IBM had some fantastic engineers alright. It is too bad that they decided to adopt the McDonalds business model and get out of the innovation field. I guess the accounting and marketing types that run the company believe that there is more money to be had from running a big fancy helpdesk. . .Pathetic what bean counters will do to a company if you give them the reigns.
<p>
Think about this though: It certainly would be an entertaining turn of events if SCO wins their suit against IBM and IBM is forced by court injunction to stop shipping AIX and Linux. Would they swallow their pride and confront the lousey management decisions that they have been making? Would they dust off the WorkplaceOS code and put a little effort into getting that ready for public consumption? Hmm. . .There are possibilities here. . .Maybe I’ll start cheering for the SCO side!
Windows NT 5.0 (aka Win2K) still had support for 16-bit OS/2 apps. It wasn’t until NT 5.1 (aka WinXP) that it was removed.
do a search for ‘OS2’ in Win2K, and it’s still there, and yes, it does still run OS/2 apps. Some things people still run do still need that, if they moved away from OS/2.
As for NT and NTFS, neither were designed as the next step. NT was purchased by M$ from NewTech (or new technology at the time, and modified to be compatible, as a lot of apps at the time were OS/2 and Win 3.1 based. NT is not a “from scratch” product of M$, as with most of their “products.”
NTFS is a DIRECT descendant of IBM and M$’s work on a filesytem. The first version of it was just a renamed HPFS. Heck, you even go into an fdisk, and not even it can see it as they have the same type.
As for open-sourcing OS/2, it will never happen as much of it’s code still belongs to other companies. M$ being one of those companies. Too much of it relies on those parts to be rewritten well enough to bother. And the time to do it would be a waste given the end result. This is also what they hit when they did the PPC port of OS/2 (how many of you knew there ever was a PPC OS/2?).
They’ve written or updated dozens of device drivers for the platform, some of them quite recently, and they’ve released *15* public FixPaks for Warp 4 over the past seven years.
They also continue to provide support for the product. Look at their web site for details…
As for NT and NTFS, neither were designed as the next step. NT was purchased by M$ from NewTech (or new technology at the time, and modified to be compatible, as a lot of apps at the time were OS/2 and Win 3.1 based. NT is not a “from scratch” product of M$, as with most of their “products.”
Sounds like an entertaining story. Source ?
NTFS is a DIRECT descendant of IBM and M$’s work on a filesytem.
In much the same way Windows and MacOS are DIRECT descendants of the work done at Xerox.
Heck, you even go into an fdisk, and not even it can see it as they have the same type.
Ext2 and ReiserFS use the same partition ID as well – are you going to try and say one is descended from the other ?
do a search for ‘OS2’ in Win2K, and it’s still there, and yes, it does still run OS/2 apps. Some things people still run do still need that, if they moved away from OS/2.
do a search for ‘OS2’ in Win2K, and it’s still there, and yes, it does still run OS/2 apps. Some things people still run do still need that, if they moved away from OS/2.
(Try pasting my respone this time).
Windows in any of its bitter flavors has never had 32bit OS/2 application support and has never supported OS/2 applications that have a Presentation Manager interface. This is not very much of a surprise however since Microsoft has yet to ship an OS with a GUI that has the power and features of PM.
What this means is that of the thousands of apps one can find on the internet for OS/2, only five or a half dozen will run on some version of WinNT.
While WinNT is advertised as having support for 16 bit OS/2 apps the truth is quite different from what is promised by the glossy brochures. We have all become accustomed to there being a gulf between Microsoft’s marketing claims and their product capabilities so. . .anyway, I tried installing the 16 bit OS/2 version of Brief (a wonderful text editor originally from an outfit called Underware and later acquired by Borland) on my Win2k machine. . .no joy. One should apparently not even expect 16 bit OS/2 apps to run on Win2k. Just a warning to anyone thinking of betting the bank on running their legacy 16 bit OS/2 code on Windows machines.
It should be noted that this version of Brief ran fine on an old OS/2 v1.3 test system so it isn’t as though the install media is suffering from bit-rot.