Also IBM f*ed up the OEM deals. OEMs preferred Microsoft which wasn't a direct competitor in the PC business.
The big issue that no one is mentioning is that OS/2 needed 8MB of RAM to run decently, preferably more, but this was when most machines were 2-4MB and extra RAM was still a big cost.
That's OS/2 2.
OS/2 1 is the one that flopped, and nobody had 286 computers with 8MB of RAM.
Hell, the IBM 286 PS/2 machines shipped with 1MB and they cost $6-7K in '87-'88!
You're thinking of OS/2 2.
OS/2 1.x is what flopped and OS/2 1 didn't run Windows apps because there were no Windows apps worth a damn yet.
https://winworldpc.com/product/os-2-1x/10
No, I get your point, and in that position I'd have wished I kept a set, too, but it was not lost to history.
FWIW a beta of Microsoft OS/2 2.0 was found earlier this year and I wrote about it.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/11/trying_ms_prerelease_...
Yes, Microsoft 32-bit OS/2 two, not a typo.
My point is, Letwin was wrong: it was not the apps that sank OS/2.
The 16-bit version killed its changes, and that did have some big-name native apps.
And it didn't need 8MB -- although it would not have objected.