Author Topic: OS/2 - Graphic User Interface - Desktop - Personal Experiences ?  (Read 28444 times)

Martin Iturbide

  • OS2World NewsMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5671
  • Karma: +50/-1
  • Your Friend Wil Declares...
    • Martin's Personal Blog
Re: OS/2 - Graphic User Interface - Desktop - Personal Experiences ?
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2023, 02:06:24 am »
Hello.

Another things I was thinking about is the "copy of directories with the same name" via the GUI. I noticed in other OSes, when you copy a directory into a place that already has a directory with the same name, it asks you to "combine" the content of the directory (or sometimes it even does ask you, it just combine it). While OS/2 asks you if you want to only replace the directory with the new one without any combine option.

Regards
Martin Iturbide
OS2World NewsMaster
... just share the dream.

Sabon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +2/-0
Re: OS/2 - Graphic User Interface - Desktop - Personal Experiences ?
« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2026, 07:54:37 am »
Hello

I want to discuss these for months, but I had been holding back, I don't know if it is for fear or lack of time to organize the thoughts.

Sometimes when we discuss about OS/2-ArcaOS we say: "The Graphical User Interface needs some love" (Figuratively speaking  ;D ).

1) The question would be, what features you think ArcaOS and OS/2 are lacking when referring to the GUI that you think will be useful?
- Since this is a personal option question, there are no right or wrong answers. I just want to know more about it.

2) Once you install ArcaOS or even OS/2, what utilities (or customization) do you use to improve the GUI as you like?
- For example, for me now it is must XWP 1.0.16 with xCenter big icons
- Or some others like X-It to have more function buttons on their desktop windows.

Again, this is not a discussion to impose a way to working with your machine, just to try to see what I (or We) may be missing while working with the ArcaOS GUI.

Regards

I was a VERY enthusiastic OS/2 user for both personal and work in the 1990s until IBM said they weren't going to support OS/2 anymore, at which time I switched to Mac. Note that I never "loved" using Macs nearly as much as I did OS/2.

Well I'm retired after programming and systems analysis for 40 years and now I can use any [censored by me] operating system that I damn well please and I'm very excited and very worried about OS/2 as of today (March 1st, 2026).

1) There WILL come a time when 32 bit computers are hard to find or will be expensive. Not that computers in general are Inexpensive. But you know what I mean. What will happen to OS/2 in the future? Windows is VERY substandard compared to OS/2 as a user experience for me. Apple, since Steve Jobs died, has no direction because the people running the show have no clue about design and function for an operating system. Linux is FAR too fussy for me. I want to spend time using my applications, not fiddling with things to get the operating system working. OS/2 is like a Honda where it is stable and with a little general maintenance it can run for a LONG time without reboot or other stupid things that you have to do with Windows like rebooting once a month or even once a year unless there is a big update to the OS (meaning OS/2).

So ... my BIG question is this. I KNOW that one or more groups has tried to create an open source version of OS/2 in the past and that petered out and died. To be blunt, without a 64 bit version of OS/2, the companies that currently pay for support will wither and die and the OS/2 will die due to lack of income for Arca Noae and we will be left with whatever the last updated version of OS/2 that we have at that point. I don't want that to be the case.

2) We NEED a version of OS/2 that is inexpensive even if that means creating a limited version of OS/2 that will allow nerds that are interested in alternate OSs to be able to try out OS/2 and see why people like or in my case LOVE OS/2.

3) Now that I'm back to using OS/2 I will be trying to start creating small programs to get myself back up to speed on OS/2 programming. Again, it's been close to 30 years since I wrote programs in C or C++ for OS/2 so I need to get reacquainted with it.

Are there any resources for programming in OS/2 that someone can point me to including a compiler. I've been trying to find resources other than the Arca Noae website which doesn't have any of this kind of information.

4) I want to find people that are interested in talking about OS/2 and working together on projects that I might be able to help out with. Unfortunately most of my programming for the last 15 years has been with Visual Basic which I HATED but it paid for my mortgage and my retirement. And no, I didn't work for Microsoft or any company where I made money from stock. I worked for organizations that didn't have stock but did have a retirement package through a union.

Hopefully someone will see this and respond.

Martin Iturbide

  • OS2World NewsMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5671
  • Karma: +50/-1
  • Your Friend Wil Declares...
    • Martin's Personal Blog
Re: OS/2 - Graphic User Interface - Desktop - Personal Experiences ?
« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2026, 05:48:35 pm »
Hello, and welcome back to the OS/2 community.

I was a VERY enthusiastic OS/2 user for both personal and work in the 1990s until IBM said they weren't going to support OS/2 anymore, at which time I switched to Mac. Note that I never "loved" using Macs nearly as much as I did OS/2.

Well I'm retired after programming and systems analysis for 40 years and now I can use any [censored by me] operating system that I damn well please and I'm very excited and very worried about OS/2 as of today (March 1st, 2026).

1) There WILL come a time when 32 bit computers are hard to find or will be expensive. Not that computers in general are Inexpensive. But you know what I mean. What will happen to OS/2 in the future? Windows is VERY substandard compared to OS/2 as a user experience for me. Apple, since Steve Jobs died, has no direction because the people running the show have no clue about design and function for an operating system. Linux is FAR too fussy for me. I want to spend time using my applications, not fiddling with things to get the operating system working. OS/2 is like a Honda where it is stable and with a little general maintenance it can run for a LONG time without reboot or other stupid things that you have to do with Windows like rebooting once a month or even once a year unless there is a big update to the OS (meaning OS/2).

So ... my BIG question is this. I KNOW that one or more groups has tried to create an open source version of OS/2 in the past and that petered out and died. To be blunt, without a 64 bit version of OS/2, the companies that currently pay for support will wither and die and the OS/2 will die due to lack of income for Arca Noae and we will be left with whatever the last updated version of OS/2 that we have at that point. I don't want that to be the case.

2) We NEED a version of OS/2 that is inexpensive even if that means creating a limited version of OS/2 that will allow nerds that are interested in alternate OSs to be able to try out OS/2 and see why people like or in my case LOVE OS/2.

3) Now that I'm back to using OS/2 I will be trying to start creating small programs to get myself back up to speed on OS/2 programming. Again, it's been close to 30 years since I wrote programs in C or C++ for OS/2 so I need to get reacquainted with it.

Are there any resources for programming in OS/2 that someone can point me to including a compiler. I've been trying to find resources other than the Arca Noae website which doesn't have any of this kind of information.

4) I want to find people that are interested in talking about OS/2 and working together on projects that I might be able to help out with. Unfortunately most of my programming for the last 15 years has been with Visual Basic which I HATED but it paid for my mortgage and my retirement. And no, I didn't work for Microsoft or any company where I made money from stock. I worked for organizations that didn't have stock but did have a retirement package through a union.

Hopefully someone will see this and respond.

Just feel free to create a new thread on this forum and ask.

a) Like it was posted on a different thread, visit the ArcaOS Information for Developers first:
-- https://www.arcanoae.com/wiki/information-for-developers/

b) I also have a collection of OS/2 applications source code. I played in the past with some Presentation manager Samples.
https://github.com/orgs/OS2World/repositories?q=DEV-SAMPLES-PM

I'm not a developer, I was just interested in the compile and linking procedure to learn more about it.

c) Our resource for OS/2 development articles is EDM/2, but it is down now, let see if gets back later.
- https://www.edm2.com/


Also, if you want to develop for OS/2, it depended where do you want to start:
- Do you want to start compiling some sample?
- Maybe later you can escalate to a simple port with gcc and later to more complex ports with gcc and Qt5 ?
It depends of you skill.

Or maybe later we can look around for a more specific necessity of the community and focus on bringing something there.

Just keep asking, create a new thread with an specific topic and we will see what we can do.

Regards
« Last Edit: March 03, 2026, 05:58:11 pm by Martin Iturbide »
Martin Iturbide
OS2World NewsMaster
... just share the dream.

JTA

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
  • Karma: +2/-0
Re: OS/2 - Graphic User Interface - Desktop - Personal Experiences ?
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2026, 09:15:37 pm »
WRT Sabon's many recent comments and thread posting, and specifically to "where now, OS/2?":

Current OS?2 problems:
  - platform ... it's 32-bit, and this won't easily change
  - hardware (running os/2 native), device drivers (wifi, etc.), and so on ...
  - software ... little to no new native apps, but much porting of unix/linux apps to os/2

and much more. Searching this and other forums points out the many problems with OS/2. That said, there is still much that can be done with it, and I think it will last quite some time.

What I do to solve all the above problems, is:
  - run a host os (Win10) ... solves all 64-bit, device driver, etc. type of problems
  - run virtualbox on this host os ... run any os in a vm, and more than one ... test anything, forever
  - run one or more OS/2 (ArcaOS) in vm's ... solves many os/2 ram, fs, wifi, etc. (guest additions)
  - run Winflector on host os ... 64-bit apps on host os are delivered into OS/2, in a window.

My original notes on all this are in the virtualization subforum ... AToF threads ... this should carry us on OS/2 long into the future. Perhaps it will give us time to get some form of OS?2 to 64-bits.

Specifically for developers, you can run multiple OS/2 vm's, perhaps one that is compiling, while your main OS/2 desktop is serving up your desktop of daily stuff. Host OS is running in the background, doing everything else on your 64-bit machine ... yep, Win10 is in effect, slaved to OS/2 and doing things for OS/2.

If you (or anyone) think there is some problem that AToF can't solve, or that doesn't have a modern workaround, please let me know (in a new thread, in the virtualization sub-forum).

I use AToF daily, finally getting the most out of my 64-bit, 64gb ram, and SSD's machine, running OS/2 (ArcaOS). I test all kinds of weird OS's ... from early dos, win, os/2 version, thru linux/unix, on up to mainframe os's ... all of them in vm's under the host os, and it all just works. None of the OS's know that they aren't running natively, but they have access to the modern world.

Many on this forum want to run OS/2 (ArcaOS) natively, as the host os ... nothing wrong with that, other than it is very problematic. Arca Noae's efforts are huge in this area, and we get a version of OS/2 that will carry us far, if you can work around or look past those problems.

ArcaOS works very well for me in a vm. But, I can't run natively, so a host os, virtualbox, winflector, and everything else in one or more vm's is my answer to every single one of OS/2's problems, as described in this forum. This will carry me way into the future, and OS/2 will continue to do everything I need it to do, via the AToF system.

Hope this helps ...

Sabon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +2/-0
Re: OS/2 - Graphic User Interface - Desktop - Personal Experiences ?
« Reply #19 on: March 05, 2026, 12:26:53 am »
Thanks JTA for your reply to my comments.

1) I don't do Windows ... PERIOD! If it is the last thing on earth will no other option for computers would STILL not use Microsoft products. And yes, I realize that Microsoft and IBM created OS/2 together. But it is plainly obvious that the best parts of OS/2 didn't come from Microsoft or Windows '95 and all future products would have been to the current versions, SIGNIFICANTLY better. Even if I was fine with MS up through say Windows 7, everything they have done with Windows 10 and 11 would have me rather eating the most disgusting things possible would be something I would rather do than use 10 or 11 and eventually if you use Windows, you would have to use their newer OS. So no, MS not happening in my house/computers.

2) When IBM said they weren't going to continue to work on OS/2 back in the 1990s my main OS was OS/2. I tried out over a dozen different Linux distros and they were like riding a Harley where there is just too much maintenance. I like OS/2 because it is like a Honda car/motorcycle. You do a little bit of maintenance and it will run forever. I spent over 500 hours working with different distros of Linux so it wasn't like I put my toe in but jumped in and really learned it and I never came to love it or really much like it compared to OS/2.

3) Which led me to other operating systems where I spent a LOT of time trying out BSD, FreeBSD, etc., etc., etc., and again, too much work when I wanted something that "just worked" like OS/2 did. Well it *mostly* just worked. Much more so than UNIXs including Linux.

4) All of which led me to Apple in 1998 when I bought my first Apple computer, a Bondi Blue iMac.

At the time I was doing a lot of video importing and editing and burning to DVDs and uploading to the internet where I managed quite a few websites. OS/2 allowed me to automate a LOT of what I did on websites using REXX which I've never been able to replicate on any other OS. Mac OS Classic was tolerable but Mac OS X was coming out and I tried the first versions of it and it is my third favorite OS behind OS/2 and BeOS (an open source version of BeOS named Haiku is 64 bit and stable but they are still limited on applications, the latter part like OS/2 but much more limited.

Anyway, I've been sticking with Apple since then until late 2020 when I bought my last iMac because they don't make 27" iMacs anymore and I am holding out on Apple until they build a new 27" iMac (or larger) which sounds like never.

5) I'm retired now and I don't have to do Windows anymore so I'm not going to. So with Apple not building 27" iMacs anymore I started looking around for alternative OSs which got me thinking about how much I loved ONE OS significantly more than any other and that was OS/2. Which led me to buying my first PC since the late 1990s and I'm in the midst of getting all the hardware I need to build my OS/2 (Arca Noae) computer and I've got almost everything I need. I'm waiting on a package for an internal HDD for my computer and then I should have everything I need. Hopefully everything I need.

It's not easy going from Mac to OS/2 because they don't support new Mac hardware for part of the process (which I hope someone can update to stop another door being in the way of anyone using a Mac that might be interested in "alternative" OSs from trying it out. All it takes is an uneven floor for some people to turn the other way and a door (non supported hardware) (I'm talking about the creating of a bootable USB stick for Arca Noae using a Mac).

I haven't seen anything about anyone running ArcaOS 5.1 virtually on a Mac but I will look for that or maybe someone is doing it with UNIX/Linux and maybe I can do it that way in the future. But I would MUCH rather work with people in any way that I can to help create a 64-bit version of OS/2 which can run everything the 32-bit version can run PLUS run native 64-bit OS/2 apps too. (The odds that Microsoft would agree to let us run 32-bit/64-bit Windows apps on OS/2 is close to negative one billion or lower but who knows, anything is possible.)


JTA

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
  • Karma: +2/-0
Re: OS/2 - Graphic User Interface - Desktop - Personal Experiences ?
« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2026, 01:20:03 am »
Not trying to convince you to run windows ... the host os can be either windows or linux. The host os, if windows, is stripped of everything that MS does to it to make it objectionable ... at this point, it's more of a service. If host os is linux, it's like running a "server" version, so it's also stripped down.

These days, even mac is linux, so there's no reason it can't be the host os. And yes, I believe folks have used mac versions of virtualization to run ArcaOS. The goal is to bypass OS/2 limitations on modern hardware, where said limitations just won't go away.

Again, many folks live with all the problems of OS/2 or ArcaOS natively on modern hardware, with OS/2 pulling that modern hardware back into the past, or not supporting it to much of a degree. Nothing wrong with that, if the limitations are acceptable ...

When you have time (and if you haven't done so allready), you'll enjoy all the threads where folks try to envision 64-bit OS/2, or such ... the barriers are formidable, the numbers (of users) are small (I think more folks are using WinXP thru Win7 than will ever use OS/2 variants), and dev is most likely reducing down (perhaps to zero).

I do my best to help fight this tide with AToF, which could feasibly help turn that tide ...

In any case, best of luck with however you choose to run OS/2!


Dave Yeo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5773
  • Karma: +152/-1
Re: OS/2 - Graphic User Interface - Desktop - Personal Experiences ?
« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2026, 04:50:09 am »
I haven't seen anything about anyone running ArcaOS 5.1 virtually on a Mac but I will look for that or maybe someone is doing it with UNIX/Linux and maybe I can do it that way in the future. But I would MUCH rather work with people in any way that I can to help create a 64-bit version of OS/2 which can run everything the 32-bit version can run PLUS run native 64-bit OS/2 apps too. (The odds that Microsoft would agree to let us run 32-bit/64-bit Windows apps on OS/2 is close to negative one billion or lower but who knows, anything is possible.)

You can't run ArcaOS, or any X86 OS, virtually on a newer Mac, different CPU architecture and virtual means mostly using the hosts CPU. You have to emulate it and there are people running ArcaOS in Dosbox-X of all things. QEMU can also do the job. Someone did at point boot ArcaOS 5.1 on real hardware on an Intel Mac.
As for a 64 bit OS/2, the CPU architecture does not allow mixing 16 bit and 64 bit code, and our kernel is largely 16 bit along with things like device drivers at the low level and still some of the API.
So need a new kernel, device drivers, some API updated, even cmd.exe is 16 bit. And even then old 1.x software would not run, same with DOS and Win16. A huge job.

Sabon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +2/-0
Re: OS/2 - Graphic User Interface - Desktop - Personal Experiences ?
« Reply #22 on: April 01, 2026, 04:45:13 am »
Hello


Sometimes when we discuss about OS/2-ArcaOS we say: "The Graphical User Interface needs some love" (Figuratively speaking  ;D ).

1) I would make it a 64-bit OS which can also run all the current software that it can run now. But that isn't what you are asking.

2) I would update the icons to look more like Apple icons were when they were 3D for the best artist for each icon.

3) I would add some color in ways that windows can NOT add color, like making the outlines of the windows be different colors pertaining to their feature maybe like according to the color codes that were used in Star Trek.

Key Uniform Divisions:
Red: Command (Captains/Bridge Crew in TNG) or Operations (Engineering/Security in TOS).
Gold/Yellow: Operations (Engineering/Security in TNG) or Command (Captain/Officers in TOS).
Blue: Science, Medical, and Counselors (across most series).

Note that I like the color schemes for the Original Series vs Next Generation and other versions.

Sabon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +2/-0
Re: OS/2 - Graphic User Interface - Desktop - Personal Experiences ?
« Reply #23 on: April 04, 2026, 07:45:08 pm »
I haven't seen anything about anyone running ArcaOS 5.1 virtually on a Mac but I will look for that or maybe someone is doing it with UNIX/Linux and maybe I can do it that way in the future. But I would MUCH rather work with people in any way that I can to help create a 64-bit version of OS/2 which can run everything the 32-bit version can run PLUS run native 64-bit OS/2 apps too. (The odds that Microsoft would agree to let us run 32-bit/64-bit Windows apps on OS/2 is close to negative one billion or lower but who knows, anything is possible.)

You can't run ArcaOS, or any X86 OS, virtually on a newer Mac, different CPU architecture and virtual means mostly using the hosts CPU. You have to emulate it and there are people running ArcaOS in Dosbox-X of all things. QEMU can also do the job. Someone did at point boot ArcaOS 5.1 on real hardware on an Intel Mac.
As for a 64 bit OS/2, the CPU architecture does not allow mixing 16 bit and 64 bit code, and our kernel is largely 16 bit along with things like device drivers at the low level and still some of the API.
So need a new kernel, device drivers, some API updated, even cmd.exe is 16 bit. And even then old 1.x software would not run, same with DOS and Win16. A huge job.

Mac OS [edit] became UNIX with Mac OS X (post Mac OS Classic) in 2000 but most people didn't start using it until 2004 or later.

You're right that you can't run Arca Noae on M series Macs because the hardware is very different. So running it on Macs is a dead end. My iMac is the last iMac with Intel inside and it is from late 2019 so we're talking seven years old and there aren't or won't be any security updates for it soon. Note the last version that runs on Intel Macs is Sequoia 15.7.4

Windows ... I don't care how stripped down Windows can be. It would still mean giving Microsoft money. Not going to happen! There is no version of hell where I would give in and use Windows. And yes, I realize that Microsoft is probably making money off of OS/2 which is why I'm also seriously looking at Haiku OS, an open source version of BeOS which is 64 bit and people are working on every part of the OS because they recreated it from the ground up without access to the original code. But it doesn't have all the programs that I need (I don't care about brand, only functionality) which is where OS/2 comes in which runs 16-bit Word Perfect for Windows (I bought the license for it and installed it on my work computer and used it for _most_ of my documents and saved what I needed to in .doc or docx format and Lotus 1-2-3 which amazingly STILL has more functionality than Apple's Numbers spreadsheet which is new and Lotus 1-2-3 hasn't been worked on for over 25 years.

Anyway, once we get back into our house I will be able to get Arca Naoe installed on my HP computer and start loving computing again with OS/2 and Word Perfect (BEFORE they replaced the scripting language with Visual Basic) and Lotus 1-2-3. And then see where things go from there.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2026, 05:05:38 pm by Sabon »

Doug Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Karma: +18/-1
Re: OS/2 - Graphic User Interface - Desktop - Personal Experiences ?
« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2026, 03:59:26 pm »
There appears to be a perception that the source code for OS/2 is not available.  That is inaccurate.

As per the last warpstock conference in Little Rock, the source code can be had, it is just expensive.  Very expensive.  And the reason for the cost is IBM would have to assemble a team to scrub out third party source that IBM does not have copyright to distribute. The decision was that it was not worth the money.  And I would say that experience has shown that to be true so far.

As for converting OS/2 to 64 bits - it will never happen.  Even with the source code it will not happen.  The conversion process is not as simple as changing a few #defines or some compiler switches and recompiling on a 64 bit compiler.  And if you COULD convert it to 64 bits you would probably lose a lot of functionality that currently exists in OS/2 and makes OS/2 valuable - like running DOS, Win16 and OS/2 16 bit applications without a virtual machine and the ability to run 16 bit device drivers that currently run in OS/2.

Hope this post isn't too "get off my lawn"-ish

JTA

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
  • Karma: +2/-0
Re: OS/2 - Graphic User Interface - Desktop - Personal Experiences ?
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2026, 09:30:45 pm »
"The decision was that it was not worth the money."

A. I'd have to guess that AI can do the actual work, because everyone is laying off real humans, and switching to AI ... so, droves of humans won't really be needed, and therefore it won't really be that expensive.

and ...

2. If MS can opensource code (v4.x of dos and such), I'm not sure why IBM can't (os/2 1.x or later).

and finally ...

c. there's OS/2 for PowerPC, a different ball of wax altogether ... that is the code that ultimately needs to be open-sourced. If IBM would just get the other players to release their rights (or retain them only if money does get made), then it can be open-sourced. It's really old stuff now, and deserves to be in the public domain, to foster good will (surely worth something) for all the players involved.

There is (most likely) a path to x64, it's just very convoluted ... but that's OK, because there are many smart minds out there that can un-convolute it, no matter what it "was then".

just release the code bits ... heck, just leave it where it can be stolen, and you're off the hook for not having "released" it.

... sigh ...

Dave Yeo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5773
  • Karma: +152/-1
Re: OS/2 - Graphic User Interface - Desktop - Personal Experiences ?
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2026, 03:08:36 am »
AI needs lots of shepherding, by skilled shepherds, to keep it on track.
There's lots of 3rd party software in OS/2. For example, IBM made a deal with Commodore for some UI stuff from the Amiga. They traded Rexx. Probably a lot more similar stuff. Whereas MS pretty well owned all the DOS IP.
The PPC code would be ideal, especially 20+ years back. Mostly IBM IP. Written in C so could easily be recompiled for X86 and possibly not that much work for 64bit. Already has the emulator for running DOS/WinOS2.
Problems, no support for LX binaries including DLLs. Would need some type of virtualization layer to run all our OS/2 programs. Even more so for OS/2 v1.x LE binaries though losing the ability to run V1.x programs wouldn't be a big deal, at least to me.
No device drivers, PPC supported basically one or two machines. No network stack. Though it was called Warp Connect, I don't think it supported even one network card. It was basically Alpha state code even though it was claimed to be a beta,
Rumor says the PPC source was lost.
Still the PPC code could likely be moved to 64bit and with quite a few man years, be working. IBM spent a lot of money and time getting it to the point where it booted.
There were leaks of the OS/2 code base. I found the code for Warp v4 utilities at one point, winworld or similar site.
There was also a leak of the kernel code. Some say the OS4 kernel is based on it. As a beta tester for AOS, it has been made clear that we better have nothing to do with the OS4 code as Arca Noae is worried about IBM's reaction.
Be one hell of a lot of work going down any of these routes, and the ship has sailed at this point. Beginning of the century it might have been a possibility but now, to find the 100's of man years required, especially on a volunteer basis, is unlikely to happen.

Sabon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +2/-0
Re: OS/2 - Graphic User Interface - Desktop - Personal Experiences ?
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2026, 05:36:45 pm »
There appears to be a perception that the source code for OS/2 is not available.  That is inaccurate.

As per the last warpstock conference in Little Rock, the source code can be had, it is just expensive.  Very expensive.  And the reason for the cost is IBM would have to assemble a team to scrub out third party source that IBM does not have copyright to distribute. The decision was that it was not worth the money.  And I would say that experience has shown that to be true so far.

As for converting OS/2 to 64 bits - it will never happen.  Even with the source code it will not happen.  The conversion process is not as simple as changing a few #defines or some compiler switches and recompiling on a 64 bit compiler.  And if you COULD convert it to 64 bits you would probably lose a lot of functionality that currently exists in OS/2 and makes OS/2 valuable - like running DOS, Win16 and OS/2 16 bit applications without a virtual machine and the ability to run 16 bit device drivers that currently run in OS/2.

Hope this post isn't too "get off my lawn"-ish

1) I don't trust AI. On the other hand it COULD be used as a first and maybe second and third pass through for AI to look for code that it thinks is from different companies. Usually (not always) you can find specific things you can tell it to look for which it could mark in different colors and THEN have humans look through it. It if doesn't turn out to worth the time to run it through AI, it just proves that IBM should not be ready to get rid of as many programmers as they might be thinking about.

2) We could always have someone ask for a rough dollar amount so at least we know the starting point for any possible negotiations.

3) "As for converting OS/2 to 64 bits - it will never happen." Converting 32-bit OS/2 code to 64-bit might not happen but eventually some company or groups of people will find the right leader that won't give up or give in and will write the code from scratch. Again I don't trust AI, and people will get sick of me saying that but at the same time saying, we could also have AI run in the background of a straight boot up (no virtual session) of OS/2 will people using OS/2 so it can see what calls are being made kind of like Tesla is doing with Tesla cars where it learns from the miles driven and the situations that they didn't expect or couldn't predict.

It could then made a first attempt at writing a new version of OS/2, maybe called "ForeverBlue" or whatever, which can run EVERYTHING OS/2 can now but also be 64-bit at the top and in VMs underneath run 32-bit, 16-bit, 8-bit OS/2 and also (freeDOS?) and 16-bit and 8-bit windows AND also create a more mature version of WINE for OS/2 so that it can run windows games. And to be honest, a lot of times people try operating systems if they can run games MUCH better than on what they can now. Like DOS games run SIGNIFICANTLY better in an OS/2 DOS session than straight up DOS by itself or under windows.

64-bit WILL happen some day. Companies will EVENTUALLY demand it or they will rewrite their code for Linux or Windows DESPITE Arca Noae continuing to write drivers for the newest hardware. NEW BLOOD NEEDS to join Arca Noae. What is the average age of the people working for Arca Naoe? Don't tell me that the average age isn't much higher than what is working for other operating systems. You WILL find it harder and harder to recruit. You might "pass it on" to the next person that is in charge of Arca Naoe but EVENTUALLY Arca Noae has to have something for younger people to be excited about joining in keeping OS/2 going or it will die. And by the time that Arca Noae hears about companies ending up with people in charge that will want OS/2 to go away and will start pushing customers to other platforms unless we can find a way to have faithful stewards be in charge of OS/2's destiny.

Yes, I know I'm just another person to come along and say this. It doesn't mean that none of them were wrong. They just didn't have the right leader that was willing to play the long game like the team at https://www.haiku-os.org that started with an OS that was DEAD and had zero code and a LOT less finished OS/2 that they can look at and understand what the best people at IBM (and even some at Microsoft) were doing when they wrote OS/2 2.0 and after. Arca Noae doesn't have to be the team that does this.

President John F. Kennedy delivered his iconic "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard".

Nobody reached the highest peaks in the world for maybe 2 million years of hundreds or thousands of human like beings that lived on this planet. Homo sapiens were not the first to evolve from whatever. At some point civilization got to the point where people looked UP and saw the peaks of mountains and decided they would be the first to climb to the top. And while the first ones aren't remembered because they weren't good at keeping records or they didn't have a good publicist (I'm kidding ... sort of) but person after person decided to take on the fight to the top. Someone WILL eventually start that fight to the top and others will pick up the mantle and make it there.

Ok, so the https://github.com/osfree-project didn't have the right leader to keep things going or at least keep a head of steam (you really have to understand steam engines to fully appreciate that idea). But SOMEONE will stand on the shoulders of other people and take things further until REAL progress is made. It WILL happen. It WILL happen. It WILL happen. Repeat to ∞