[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

What people want is performance, not pretty pictures. That is what hurt it. If MS can’t optimize the performance to bring it in-line with XP, without having to have twice the memory and processor, then it is the second coming of OS/2.

[Gorzaloon]

If MS can’t optimize the performance to bring it in-line with XP, without having to have twice the memory and processor, then it is the second coming of OS/2.

Haha, more like the Second Leaving.

I remember OS/2. It was better than Vista, and it was a train wreck. The OS/2 Team worked their hearts out trying to get mine to work, and I felt sorry for them.

I cannot work up that sympathy for MS. Anyone who would do what Vista did to their customer base deserves whatever happens.

PS: DRM, anyone?

[TomGuy]

What people want is performance, not pretty pictures.

That is 'xactly what I said when I was forced into Windows ---- 3.0 ---- 1990.

DOS was plenty good, especially with a few GUI programs.

Actually, without all the add-on crap, Windows is just a fancy menuing system. XP still runs some old DOS programs in a DOS window.

[tarheelswamprat]

What people want is performance, not pretty pictures. That is what hurt it. If MS can’t optimize the performance to bring it in-line with XP, without having to have twice the memory and processor, then it is the second coming of OS/2.

Nonsense. OS/2 was a much better OS than the Windows of its time. It was faster on equivalent hardware, better at multi-tasking and far more stable than Windows ever was. What killed OS/2 was internal politics and battles over their business model between different corporate factions of IBM.

The IBM OS/2 division was never able to persuade IBM management to fully support OS/2, and management finally just killed it just as OS/2 Warp was generating excitement among consumers, was selling off the shelves in stores, and was finally poised to give Windows some real competition.

It was a classic case of corporate dinosaur mentality on the part of IBM.