Quote:
Originally Posted by WillAdams
OS/2 was quite nice, the problem was IBM was more realistic up front about the memory requirements, so it was perceived as much more expensive.
|
It *was* more expensive.
Not everybody sprung for all those upgrades. Not everybody needed full-spec OS/2 functionality. (Just as today there are people just fine with netbooks and 1GB WinTabs.)
That was the real reason for the split.
Entire swaths of users, especially in small business thrived on 1 and 1.5 MB systems. There were still tons of installations using PCs as word processors/terminal emulators.
(And even if they did, it was installment payment buying.
)
OS/2 fans always reminded me of pascal and smalltalk users.
More recently, epub evangelists.
The real world wants quick, cheap solutions, not elegance, or specmanship.
As Adam Osbourne used to harp on: "Adequacy is sufficient."
Win 3.11 was adequate.