A Possible Future for OS/2?

OS/2 is now officially dead.

But I wonder if it cannot be revived. Bear with me, this will have a conclusion that explains the optimism.

First, we'll have to find out what OS/2 can do, specifically what OS/2 can do and other systems cannot. And the answer is simple: there is nothing. OS/2 can do absolutely nothing that other systems cannot do. This means we must go back to the general, and find out what OS/2 can do that other systems can do as well. Or we can turn around the answer and find out what OS/2 can do worth than other systems. That will at least give us a new perspective.


OS/2's "features":

1. Bad hardware support. OS/2 supports merely a small subset of all available hardware.

2. No current applications. All available applications have been written to run on systems with inferior hardware, low video resolutions, and bad sound systems.

3. No support for standard application environments like Win32, Carbon, POSIX, Cocoa; but support for Java, DOS, and 16 bit Windows. OS/2 cannot run (in general) current applications available for desktop computers.

4. Similar to Windows both for the programmer and the user. OS/2's GUI is familiar and similar to Mac OS' and Windows' GUI. It is also better than any of the GUIs available for UNIX/Linux.

5. OS/2 is not portable. A version for PowerPC once existed but was dropped quickly. OS/2 relies on a 16/32 CPU hybrid made in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Luckily modern CPU still support that mode. OS/2 does not run on and will not be ported to 64 bit CPUs (it does run in AMD's compatibility mode).

6. OS/2 has decent network support (TCP/IP and Netbios). There is no support for LDAP (that I know of).

7. OS/2 has multitasking.

8. OS/2 is a single-user system.


These eight "features" are very bad for a desktop operating system. But perhaps they are advantages for a palmtop system?

Let's go through this:

1. Bad hardware support. But if OS/2 was sold pre-installed on handheld devices made by IBM and/or licencees support for random hardware would become a non-issue. OS/2 would only have to support the devices it comes on.

2. Handhelds have very small screens. Yet 640*480 is not out of the question. In the old days when OS/2 was still a big player on the desktop market, 640*480 (VGA) was a common screen resolution and many OS/2 applications were written to run in low resolutions.

3. Handhelds do not run desktop applications. Yet they do require some applications. IBM Works could possibly be made to run on a handheld. It comes with a personal information manager. Java is required, I guess, to run applets on Web sites. (OS/2 does have a small Web browser called IBM Web Explorer. There is also a port of Mozilla.)

4. The OS/2 desktop is very neutral. It does not insist, like Mac OS', that a menuline be on top of it, nor does it require a start bar (the Warp Center can be used but is not required).

5. OS/2 runs, with decent speed, on old Intel CPUs. A 100 MHz or slower 16/32 bit CISC CPU might not use a lot of electricity. Perhaps Intel could produce ARM CPUs with support for 16 bit code. Perhas OS/2 could be ported to such a CPU. But perhaps this is not even needed and the handhelds could simply use Intel CPUs (like some early handhelds have).

6. OS/2's network support, even Netbios, could be used for synchronisation tools. Handheld OS/2 could easily support Windows and Mac OS and sync with ActiveSync (Windows) and iSync.

7. OS/2 has multitasking. While not perfect compared to current desktop and server systems, OS/2's multitasking competes well with other handheld systems.

8. OS/2 is a single-user system. And what else is a Personal Digital Assistant?


I believe Handheld OS/2 would have many advantages over other handheld systems available today.

Its multitasking is better than PalmOS', its application support could be better than Windows CE's, and its position in the market could be better than Linux', what with IBM as a hardware maker and OS/2's more polished look and impression.


What should the name be?

I prefer "Handheld OS/2", but perhaps a name involving "OS/2" is not the best choice. Perhaps "MoBIle" or "Mobile OS" would be good, or "Impulse" ("Warp" was the desktop version. Get it?).