OS/2 should have been the next-generation operating system for the PC
after DOS. It was originally a joint production
of IBM and Microsoft, but the two companies had different priorities.
Bill Gates wanted to skip the 286 entirely, since it could not support
true multitasking of DOS programs, and make OS/2 a 32-bit operating
system for the 386 from the beginning. IBM however had promised their
customers a multitasking OS for the AT and had a company policy of
keeping promises even if it made no economic sense. Besides, they had
a license to produce 286 themselves.
IBM and Microsoft split in 1990. Microsoft released Windows 3.0, which did everything OS/2 was supposed to do, and had better hardware support. A month after IBM finally released the first 32-bit OS/2 (2.0), Windows 3.1, with full multimedia support, was launched. A year later Windows NT followed, a standalone 32-bit operating system influenced by VMS.
IBM was not very good at marketing OS/2. A persistant rumor that it would run on original IBM hardware only, or even only on PS/2 machines, didn't help. Though this rumor was unfounded, hardware compatibility remained a problem for OS/2. It was something of a minor player into the early millennium. It always had its ardent fans who claimed it was vastly superior over Windows, and conspiracy theories about its lack of success abound.
Personally I have very little experience with OS/2. I found a complete set of Warp installation disks but never managed to actually install it on anything. Now I have a PS/2 77 with 2.1 installed, so I'll finally be able to form a first-hand opinion.
Presentation Manager,a GUI that looks exactly like Windows 2.x. The file system now supports
Big FATpartitions up to 2GB. This version includes one game,
Brick Walls,a Breakout clone.
extended attributesand can store icons or descriptions along with a file. Icons can have 16 colors now, the GUI looks just like Windows 3.0.