I ran OS/2 Warp and was a fan of it... But to say that it was simply "better" than Windows 95 is a bridge too far. It had its strengths (rock solid multitasking) but also plenty of rough edges.
If we ignore the fact that it required 1000 euros more in additional hardware, thus most folks went with DOS/Windows 3.x instead, and when Windows 95 came around it was already too late for adoption.
I ran OS/2 Warp and was a fan of it... But to say that it was simply "better" than Windows 95 is a bridge too far. It had its strengths (rock solid multitasking) but also plenty of rough edges.
Honestly any OS with real multi-tasking, real security, and real memory protection was better than Windows 95 (and 98).
OS/2 was better. BeOS was better. Linux was better. Windows NT was better.
If we ignore the fact that it required 1000 euros more in additional hardware, thus most folks went with DOS/Windows 3.x instead, and when Windows 95 came around it was already too late for adoption.
To pick a nit, I highly doubt you bought your OS/2 hardware with euros. :D
If I used Escudos it would be useless for the folks reading my comment.
Not so, now I know the pre-EU denomination of Portguese currency
It’s ok. The pedantry was unavoidable.
Exactly: it depends on what you mean by "better". OS/2 had a much more modern basis, but:
* it was painful to program compared to Windows
* it required a lot more hardware (and thus money) to achieve the same level of performance.
* the UI was terrible