Category: Geeks r Us
hello everyone,
today I want to talk OS/2. That's right, probably an operating system not many of you have heard of, but you know, it's still floating around :)
OS/2 was developed during a time when IBM and Microsoft were still good pals. Well, fairly good. The reason it actually was abandoned was because Microsoft gave up on the project to go with Windows and make it the dominant operating system, and IBM never really marketed the operating system well.
But we may be able to say that if these 2 factors would not have occured, os/2 would probably be one of the major-if not the major competetor to Apple and Linux. If Microsoft would not have been able to get Windows to run in protected mode ( v3.0 of windows), they would of had to continue working with IBM on the OS/2 project.
The cool thing about OS/2, at the time, was that it could run both Windows, OS/2, and dos applications seemlessly together. This meant that to the user, there was no difference begtween running in a command line textmode window and one with a graphical user interface, apart from perhaps the lack of icons in the former. However,
OS/2 was abandoned in 2001, which was when the last version was released for IBM systems. People say the lack of hardware support was a major problem with the OS-however, eComStation was what it has become today. So, today you can still buy and use OS/2 on newer hardware, if you buy eComStation.
The question of accessibility and screen reading comes to mind here. Os/2 had a screen reader called screen reader/2, which was actively developed up until 1997. It supported primarily hardware speech cards, and at the time used a numerical keypad with 18 keys, though from documentation I have read, this keypad was optional in that later on they made the reader work better with actual keyboard commands.
Beyond this, I don't have much info. I currently own a copy of an OS/2 virtual machine, which runs. I also have the braille & Speak emulator Tyler Spivey developed (it's in my windows 3.1 vm and works well), and also have all the documentation for OS/2 as gathered from an ftp site.
I still lack the install disk for the product, but would love to get OS/2 working here, and maybe dabble in eComStation as well since it appears to be a revamp of that OS with support for newer hardware.
Below is a link to IBM's ftp server, which contains some files for screen reader/2. It does not contain the 2 floppies that were used, however.
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/sns/sr-os2/
please, if you know more of OS/2, let me know. This by no means is too outdated, especially if eComStation could be made to work. The problem rises up with using it outside a VM, as the emulation driver only creates a virtual serial port.
All the best,
Tomi
I never used it, it never had widespread commercial application, but I find your reasons for its failure somewhat misguided.
Good luck with the hobby: There is no doubt OS/2 Warp forums out there, as there are forums for the TI99 from Texas Instruments, the Commodore 64 and the Amiga.
Each of these platforms had some unique niche but you're right in saying OS/2 was uniquely suited to a plethora of applications, we can't say either cross-platform or platform-agnostic.
However, IBM at the time was largely an Enterprise company, selling large mainframe systems to corporations. What Apple is becoming for end users is what Microsoft once was: Microsoft by far had the concept much better when it comes to deploying systems to end users. IBM suffered as all enterprise-only companies suffer, with lack of end-user support, pricing that often kept end users out of reach, and the list goes on. OS/2 did die on account of hardware, at least in part, but the reality was IBM never did a really good job of establishing partnerships with big software outlets, the CompUSA's and Circuit Cities that were so prolific in the 1990s.
When I worked on deploying Internet applications both server and end-user in the mid 1990s, we literally had a separate case for the boutique group of users using OS/2, and the other larger pocket of enterprise users using it, and IBM handled both in separate models. Not necessarily a bad idea, but IBM was extremely good at getting mainframes and other technologies up and running in banks / corporations 24/7. And when they said 24/7 they meant it: it was no buzz word. So OS/2 was more an adjunct. An interesting experiment, if you will.
How well did their reader work? I don't know: I was never very close to it, I only imaged systems remotely with it, but that was using Novell networking tools.
This is all I know, I never really heard from OS/2 users unless they needed a dialer or something for remote usage. I don't remember how well or poorly their dial-up networking solution worked: must have been reasonably good or I would have remembered the headakes: Open Transport 1.1 from Apple, anyone?
This is just a perception thing, but it was always my impression you didn't have your average Joe running OS/2 or even OS/2 Warp, it was more a geeky solution, though not so much as a Unix system of the day. Generally speaking, the geekier the solution, the fewer people are going to use it because they have a computer to use, not piddle with.
You're more the geeky type, so I think you'll have fun piddling with it. It has all your basic networking components, of course, so you'll be on the web. However, I don't know if it can support a Windows greater than Windows 98 2nd Edition (you can take a pass on Windows Millennium).
I'm actually interested in this as well. I know very little about it and didn't even know that there was much of an effort put into screenreader use. I like the idea of it being able to handle programs from various operating systems and having the option to switch between cli and gui. Please let me know how this works out for you. It might be a good idea for me to get one of these machines as well. *smile*
One word for you outdated operating system people, before you give up after not finding things:
Usenet.
It's still around, and you may have to pay to use a Usenet service anymore since ISPs don't offer Usenet groups free, but you can even often find stuff through Google on Usenet forums.
That's where all the oldie technology folks / people with 80 piercings go hang out.
Maybe doesn't shine with all the glitz and glamor but therein lies your source, there's hundreds of thousands of groups to subscribe to out there.
Wow! So incredibly cool! I've heard of usenet but have never used it. Do you know of any accessible readers for it or can Firefox actually handle it? I was under the impression that they require a special reader.
They do require a reader, yes.
I haven't used Usenet in 6 years and used to use Outlook Express. I haven't used it seriously since 2001. I'm rather surprised if it wasn't a blindy haven, it is all text after all.
Outlook Express / Windows Mail can do newsgroups (Usenet).
Yes you have to have a reader though Firefox may have a plug-in for you.
Quit worrying about acessible this and accessible that, and try one. People use that word to mean anything anyway. Try a Google Search or use Outlook Express to do it, you'll need to connect to a server and no I don't know what yours is, or if your ISP has one. Anymore they're hard to find but often charge a subscription fee now.
I haven't used Outlook Express in years, since I now use Gmail and it's webmail but it's very good to know that OE can handle usenet. Great to know that we're dealing with pure text here! Glad some things are still cool.
I actually used OS/2 with screenreader2 for three years between 1994/1997, because the company I worked for used windows and at that point access software for windows was pretty much unavailable.
As I recall it was a fairly unstable OS which crashed on a fairly frequent basis.
In terms of accessibility it was pretty basic. i.e. access for email (then microsoft mail) was good, equally with word, and it allowed me to do my job effectively. But there was a lot that was not accessible even with a screenreader.
I changed jobs in 1997 at the point where people were upgrading to jaws and never looked back.
Isn't it funny how those of us who actually had to make a living on old systems can have such a different perspective than a modern hobbyist looking back through the lens of how they wish it was?
Shoot I second your apinion Leo gardion, I did not have to make a living off old technology but lets see outspoken hendered me when I was trying to get a certification in MS. office 97. I never want to see that program again!.