Hi again, did you 16-Bit OS/2 fans among of us ever thought about networking?
It's possible, apparently, even with the basic OS/2 installation.
https://www.os2museum.com/wp/1989-networking- … an-manager-1-1/

I have interest in the earlier days of local networking, but mainly peer-to-peer for gaming purposes (which OS/2 support was weak on until the point it was already dead as a consumer OS).

BaronSFel001 wrote on 2025-06-24, 14:35:

I have interest in the earlier days of local networking, but mainly peer-to-peer for gaming purposes (which OS/2 support was weak on until the point it was already dead as a consumer OS).

Ah, I see! I would recommend OS/2 Warp 3 Connect here. 😃
It's the counterpart to Windows for Workgroups 3.11, so to say!

Edit: OS/2 Warp 4 has networking, too, of course.
But it's more of a rival to Windows NT 4 Workstation now.
- There also were server versions of Warp 4 sold casually, just like with NT.

Previously, the OS/2 server editions (aka Extended Editions) were rather meant for big corporate customers.
With Warp 4, OS/2 was closer to Windows NT's selling method.

Speaking under correction, though.

Edit: About OS/2 being late to the party.. Yes, it was. Connect was sold in 1995, I think.
A year after Windows for Workgroups 3.11! And Novell DOS 7 with Personal Netware.

https://www.os2world.com/wiki/index.php/Getti … %80%93_Part_Two

However, I must say that Peer-to-Peer Networking had been an early-mid 90s thing.
Before 1992 or so, there weren't much P2P users yet. 🙁

So it's no wonder that OS/2 v1.3 from 1990 (latest 16-Bit OS/2) had no peer-to-peer networking shipped.
Not to mention OS/2 2.11, the now forgotten star on the horizon of 90s OSes.

Even Macintosh users had to wait until System 7 included "Personal File Sharing" in 1991.
That's when Netware Lite (the proto Personal Netware) was released.
https://machut.net/mirrors/mac512.com/filesvr.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_NetWare#NetWare_Lite

On DOS, there had been cheap network solutions before, of course.
Such as Little Big LAN (aka Kirschbaum-Netz) or LANtastic.

LANTastic also was available on 32-Bit OS/2, too. In 1994.
https://www.os2world.com/wiki/index.php/LANtastic_for_OS/2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LANtastic

Edited.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-06-24, 15:56:

Previously, the OS/2 server editions (aka Extended Editions) were rather meant for big corporate customers.
With Warp 4, OS/2 was closer to Windows NT's selling method.

And getting beaten badly at that. Microsoft may have left IBM high-and-dry, but IBM arguably had been dragging Microsoft down for years by denying them necessary flexibility; had the two companies stayed allies things would have been VERY different. One of those chapters of history in which it is difficult to tell who the real villain is (or whether computing today is better off for it), yet both companies continue to prosper today within their respective niches.

This is why I bounced for a while with close consideration for OS/2, specifically exploration of its capabilities as a consumer OS rather than just a business one. For a time it was the ideal development and server platform including for Microsoft themselves; Windows prior to NT came nowhere close in terms of overall capability, but OS/2 was expensive, relatively inaccessible, and at the consumer level ultimately at its best as a stable multitasking environment for Windows applications. Collapse of the PowerPC edition proved even IBM was ready to give up on OS/2 right when it had a chance (prior to Windows 95) to break through for them.

BaronSFel001 wrote on 2025-06-24, 18:27:

And getting beaten badly at that. Microsoft may have left IBM high-and-dry, but IBM arguably had been dragging Microsoft down f […]
Show full quote

Jo22 wrote on 2025-06-24, 15:56:

Previously, the OS/2 server editions (aka Extended Editions) were rather meant for big corporate customers.
With Warp 4, OS/2 was closer to Windows NT's selling method.

And getting beaten badly at that.
Microsoft may have left IBM high-and-dry, but IBM arguably had been dragging Microsoft down for years by denying them necessary flexibility;
had the two companies stayed allies things would have been VERY different.
One of those chapters of history in which it is difficult to tell who the real villain is (or whether computing today is better off for it),
yet both companies continue to prosper today within their respective niches.

Good point!

BaronSFel001 wrote on 2025-06-24, 18:27:

This is why I bounced for a while with close consideration for OS/2, specifically exploration of its capabilities as a consumer OS rather than just a business one.

I see! Personally, I guess I've "always" thought/felt of OS/2 being more of a small business OS.
Like the little brother of Windows NT Workstation, if you will.
Something that replaces DOS and Windows 3.0.
Something you'd use in a town hall, at the receptionist, in the office for productivity software.

Something cozy, town-scale in terms of environment.
An OS used by city administration of a town or smaller city,
where the number of people isn't that high and were networking isn't required yet.

..and then I tried OS/2 Warp 3 first time and finished installation of my PAS16 soundcard.
After re-boot, I almost fell from chair by all these spacey sound effects! 😂
That's when I realized that OS/2 wasn't such a bureaucratic dinosaur, at all.
Rather contrary, the personality was more like BeOS than Windows NT.

It's as if OS/2 1.3, the nerdy kid from the 80s, had underwent a change of style.
Gone were the glasses, the wool sweater and the Beatles haircut.
Now the kid was a 90s teen with a skateboard, blinking shoes, jeans and some 90s undercut hairstyle.

BaronSFel001 wrote on 2025-06-24, 18:27:

For a time it was the ideal development and server platform including for Microsoft themselves; Windows prior to NT came nowhere close in terms of overall capability, but OS/2 was expensive, relatively inaccessible, and at the consumer level ultimately at its best as a stable multitasking environment for Windows applications.

I think same. At least here in Germany, OS/2 was a serious threat to Windows.
Microsoft wasn't happy that PC sellers such as Escom/Vobis sold PCs with OS/2.
Microsoft tried to threat them, but they stuck to OS/2.
It's one of these few times I was sort of being "proud" of my fellow countrymen for not giving in so easily.

And then they messed up. By selling OS/2 PCs with 4MB of RAM! 😮‍💨
The experience wasn't great of curse and people went back to Windows 3.1x.

- Despite recognizing and honouring that OS/2 was indeed better by design.
The 90s - That's when our users here still were thoughtful enough to see through.

Unfortunately, money did matter even back then and especially us Germans are seemingly penny pinchers by heart.
Which I'm not proud of, it angers me. Quality should be honoured, not price.

Sigh. If these PCs merely had 2MBs more (6MB) it would have helped adoption rate a lot, maybe had saved OS/2.
8MB+ were ideal, of course, but that was twice the RAM costs.

4MB was barely enough for Windows 95, even. NT 3.1 Betas needed 16MB minimum.
But surprisingly, majority of users didn't call them bloatware for some reasons.

But that's just my two cents here.

OS/2 2.0 already was being welcomed in my home country.
Coming from Atari ST/Amiga platforms, users here were so glad to be able to have something stable.

Now that I think of it, OS/2 2.11 was when OS/2 was at its height here, maybe.

It had reached Windows 3.1 compatibility,
had a serious and calm interface and some multimedia capabilities (MMPM/2).

I mean, sure, Warp 3 was the most popular/iconic in the press and that's what most users feel nostalgic for now.
It also had better hardware support, more drivers!

But here, where I live, it maybe was OS/2 2.x which silently had been the working horse.
It was late to the party, but still sufficiently far away from Windows 95 era.

OS/2 2.x was something that ran at Siemens, I think, for example.
It was the software platform to get things done, simply.

Before OS/2 got mainstream, in short. It was everyone's Windows NT before NT 3.1.

OS/2 had not been callled a "Migrationsplattform" (migration platform) for nothing, after all.
Even without the native applications it was something to migrate (flee) to.

BaronSFel001 wrote on 2025-06-24, 18:27:

Collapse of the PowerPC edition proved even IBM was ready to give up on OS/2 right when it had a chance (prior to Windows 95) to break through for them.

Yes, that's a shame. Power PC was neat, the ARM platform of its day.

On other hand, the PPC build did aim to remove all 16-Bit support. Well, for OS/2 at least.

Which would have been very bad, since all the classic/big commercial OS/2 applications -at the time- were in fact 16-Bit (just have a look at the shareware CDs).
Things like Willow, the Family API, command line tools etc..

It's as if Windows 95 had suddenly removed support for Windows 3.x software,
so drastic were the consequences.
Thus, OS/2 for Power PC would have ended up as a Java platform, maybe.
Another hyped thing that ordinary users didn't really care for.

Edit: My apologies for the long posting, my wording wasn't best also.

In retrospect, I don’t think that OS/2 ever was a failure.
While it never reached the mainstream adoption everyone hoped for, it served everyone well behind the stage.
It simply did its job, in short. Without attention seeking. That's fine, I think.

OS/2 Warp 4.x had been supported by IBM for ages and there are now two successors, even.
With ODIN, users can run Win32 applications for over 25 years now.
It's still in use and has outlived Windows NT 4, even.

Nowadays, GNU tools and POSIX compatibility are available to OS/2.
There are Firefox ports for OS/2 even, which I think is remarkable.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-06-26, 14:56:

And then they messed up. By selling OS/2 PCs with 4MB of RAM! 😮‍💨

I face a crossroads like that now. My primary laptop's days are numbered anyway, but since it lacks the necessary specs to upgrade to Windows 11 that is a certain hard-stop point. I have had it with Microsoft and begun looking into how a Steam Deck can make for a daily driver.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-06-26, 14:56:

Unfortunately, money did matter even back then and especially us Germans are seemingly penny pinchers by heart.
Which I'm not proud of, it angers me. Quality should be honoured, not price.

It can vary depending on which product. I have looked into items made in Germany (while I prefer made in the US, I am willing to settle for eschewing anything made in China or another rival country) and while some are attractive others completely blow my lower-middle class American budget. Nonetheless, my father has an affinity for German engineering and I must admit there is something special to it.