This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Computing: Software Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance). Microsoft Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Reimer, Jeremy (25 November 2013). "Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2". Ars Technica. Condé Nast.

ESR has a good resume of history of OS/2 in The Art of Unix Programming: see The Art of Unix Programming Davidme — Preceding undated comment added 07:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a section that claims that IBM became concerned with Microsoft diverting funds to Windows development. I've never read anything reputable that claims this. Certainly, one could make a case that because OS/2 3.0 became NT, that this could be called "diversion", but I don't think so. IBM got full rights to Windows 3.x in the deal, and Microsoft was legally given rights to the code they'd developed for OS/2 3.0 in the breakup. Is there any credible source that can corroborate this allegation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.87.61 (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone(s) should flesh out the following summary of a neglected part of the OS/2 history. I can contribute, but certain authoritative references might take considerable effort to obtain.

IBM was a member of the Open Software Foundation, and participated with Digital Equipment Corp. on the OSF Research Institute's OSF/1 Mach kernel (OSFMK 7.3 kernel) microkernel design. That microkernel was derived from both the CMU CS Mach microkernel and the CMU CS Alpha real-time microkernel. Alpha's contributions were primarily application-specific scheduling algorithms and distributed threads. IBM Boca and Austin (VP Larry Loucks) decided to base the microkernel of Workplace OS for Power PC on that OSF microkernel. DEC had acquired most of the key Alpha designers, and was developing a real-time OS product based on MK7.3A. IBM contracted with the DEC Real-Time Business Unit to consult on the design and implementation of the WPOS/PPC microkernel. That collaboration included some key Alpha and MK7.3A designers at the OSF/RI. The IBM WPOS/PPC project was subsequently cancelled (as is documented herein), the OSF morphed into being the Object Management Group, dissolving the RI (its key MK7.3A designer went to Apple), and DEC's Real-Time Business Unit was terminated when Compaq purchased DEC. E Douglas Jensen (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

during the mid 90s, os/2 was still under development and was a new thing. a coming soon thing. the article also says that protected mode was present in the 286 processors. it was not. i tested protected mode games on a 286 processor and they did not work, because of a lack of protected mode. this is not a joke 84.212.100.141 (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure as to what specifically your objection "during the mid 90s, os/2 was still under development and was a new thing. a coming soon thing." refers, but feel free to be more specific as to what sections or sentences you feel are incorrect or inappropriate. As to the 286 protected mode, all RS I have been able to find documents the ability of the 286 to enter protected mode, but it certainly seemed like it was very difficult to use in practice, and one of it's main criticisms was especially the fact that you could not escape protected mode without resetting the 286. This thread on stackexchange explains in detail how to put a 286 in protected mode, if you are interested. askeuhd (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

286 did have a protected mode and it could be 'exited' (return to RM). I think the OP was trying to run 386 PM software on a 286 which isn't going to work for obvious reasons. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The commands list (OS/2#Commands) seems to break up the general flow and seems to provide excessive information considering the rest of the article. Seems out of place, placing {{summarize section}} tag until further input has been received on what should be done with this section. Vghfr (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]