Inside Microsoft OS/2 v1.3, and the setup troubles it gave me!

[@MotownBatman]

Gooooood Morning from Michigan! Sweet Video Brotha!

[@crabdonkey6381]

Only one person in our office loved OS/2. He had an optical disk with many 32 GB partitions. Windows would not mount all of them, but OS/2 would. He was bad about filling up the C drive and would blindly start deleting stuff. I would have to reload the stuff he broke and move some stuff to the optical drive. He had either an ibm computer or a good clone.

[@ReedHansen84]

As a child, my father ran OS/2 Warp 3 on our main computer (perfect dos emulation, OK windows emulation). It's good to see the earlier version.

[@lemagreengreen]

Very interesting! despite being around at the time and very interested in PC's I never saw OS/2 actually running

[@askthecortex]

Looking for a 2nd OS for my 286 I found your Xenix video. When I realized Xenix was cool but almost useless, I installed v1.3, so here I am again! Unfortunately there isn't a lot of information out there about it.

[@marcbarilla5584]

Nice video. Thanks

[@Galaxy.Windows]

8:56 you tried Windows 3.1. Windows 3.0 OG is compatable with OS/2 1.x. Windows 3.1 is not

[@ryodatimekeeper]

Have you heard about 86Box? It's a fork of PCem that has some more recent updates and focuses a little more on accuracy

[@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR]

Actually no. But I will have a look at it. Thanks for the input!

[@EpsilonsReviews]

I wish OS/2, and for that matter any *NIX derivative, would detect a picoMEM for storage! My 486 is suffering, and I’m running out of CF cards!

[@johntafoya2770]

The only computer I was able to install OS/2 1.3 on was an IBM ThinkPad 770 with a pentium 233. It was the IBM version not the Microsoft version, I was able to install MS windows 2.03 in a Dos session no problem.

[@cleverlyblonde]

It looked like you tried Windows 3.1. Windows 3.0 should actually work. I have seen it in action. They are not the same. :)

[@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR]

Good hint. Indeed I tried 3.1. Will give it a try using 3.0.