Apparently the original video was about 12 minutes long but the poster on YouTube cut out this section.
Warning: It’s painful.
Related posts:
- Priceless moments in Microsoft history – Ballmer loving the company
- Priceless moments in Microsoft history: Windows 3.1 Launch Party
- Priceless moments in Microsoft history: Ultimate collection of commercials
- Priceless moments in Microsoft’s history – Microsoft Bob
- Priceless moments in Microsoft history: Ballmer sells Windows 1.0
















I used to be an OS/2 specialist. Of course it's been a long time, but as I recall it only OS/2 release 1.0 looked anything like Windows – and it didn't run on a i386 – more precisely, it didn't use the i386's features, it was built around the i286's architecture, limited to 1MB RAM (actually, 2MB, but no OS at the time used distinct address spaces for data and code). OS/2 2.0 and later were built for the 386 architecture. In fact, it used the i386's features much better than even Windows 7 does (current Intel and AMD processors still have the same features as the 80386).
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeI actually liked it better than the Windows 95 party. I'll grant that the storyline was silly, but it did effectively show the strengths of the OS - the ability to run multiple applications, the ability to incorporate data from multiple sources into a single document, and the familiarity to those who had gone down the OS/2 path. We take multitasking for granted today, so it's hard to put our minds back into the frame of seeing it on a personal computer for the first time (I still remember "Switcher" on the old Macs - talk about painful!). Much more impressive than showing the ability to record messages and order a pizza.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeFunny how we have technology with ten times the power but the inability to do cut & paste or multi-tasking :). But yeah, this thing is painful to watch, lol.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeI used to be an OS/2 specialist. Of course it's been a long time, but as I recall it only OS/2 release 1.0 looked anything like Windows – and it didn't run on a i386 – more precisely, it didn't use the i386's features, it was built around the i286's architecture, limited to 1MB RAM (actually, 2MB, but no OS at the time used distinct address spaces for data and code). OS/2 2.0 and later were built for the 386 architecture. In fact, it used the i386's features much better than even Windows 7 does (current Intel and AMD processors still have the same features as the 80386).
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeI actually liked it better than the Windows 95 party.
I'll grant that the storyline was silly, but it did effectively show the strengths of the OS - the ability to run multiple applications, the ability to incorporate data from multiple sources into a single document, and the familiarity to those who had gone down the OS/2 path. We take multitasking for granted today, so it's hard to put our minds back into the frame of seeing it on a personal computer for the first time (I still remember "Switcher" on the old Macs - talk about painful!).
Much more impressive than showing the ability to record messages and order a pizza.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeFunny how we have technology with ten times the power but the inability to do cut & paste or multi-tasking :). But yeah, this thing is painful to watch, lol.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like