Article: What Good Is Native .NET On Power?

[Martin Iturbide]

This is not an OS/2 related article, but it mention it. Wrote by Timothy Prickett Morgan: http://www.itjungle.com/tfh/tfh111615-story01.html

It says:

As IBM learned during the OS/2 Warp fiasco, where it was trying to emulate Windows inside of its own OS/2 operating system to have a larger addressable market, the emulated code was clunky and offered poor response time compared to the actual Windows, and IBM was always playing catch up with its support.

I can not decide myself to say if Windows 16bits is emulated in OS/2 or not. I always thought that Win16 run directly on OS/2 without the need of running a full instance of the Win16 OS. Maybe like Wine or Odin, which is not an emulator, but a clone of the libraries. ... or a clone of the libraries is also called an emulator? not sure.

Additionally it says " the emulated code was clunky and offered poor response time compared to the actual Windows"....maybe a Wikipedian will say... find a me a reference for saying that.

Regards

[Dave Yeo]

Sounds like Timothy Prickett Morgan doesn't know what he is talking about. Winos2 is real complete Windows with patched video subsystem running on OS/2 instead of DOS and my first OS/2 install, Warp 3 Redbox used the existing Win3.1 install I had.
The advertisements said a better Dos then Dos and a better Windows then Windows and they were right, mostly due to the better disk subsystem, especially when using HPFS, which made Winos2 faster then Win3.1 on real DOS.
Perhaps he tried it on a memory starved system and all the paging made it seem slow. My brother bought Warp 3 and installed everything on his 4MB 486DLC, and yes, it was a horrible experience. I ran it without the WPS on a 386/33 with 4MBs and it worked fine.

[Martin Iturbide]

There had been on the past several "history-rewriting" attempts and this is not the exception.

I don't know if the author did it with bad intentions, or if it based on something wrong he read, or it is based on a single personal bad experience.

Just some other case... I was reading the other day what John Soyring (IBM) said on the US vs Microsoft case that a lot of the harm caused to the OS/2 market was because of the Microsoft policies with OEM PC sellers if they do not sell PCs exclusively with Windows. After that MS defense was to say that IBM OS/2 marketing was incompetent (which is not far from the truth), but it is also interesting to see all the articles generated by the media at that time supporting that IBM killed OS/2 and not MS monopolistic actions   This was a good strategy to try to bend the reality with another truth.

So it is good to have our heads up when "history-rewriting" is trying to be done.

Regards.