DRL writes: Windows 3.x showed the way by using the 386 properly.
As we know, OS/2 1.x was a 16-bit protected mode operating system. It had a very limited DOS box due to the limitations of the 286 processor. Win/286's DOS support wasn't so hot either. OS/2 1.x only really became a high-quality operating system at version 1.3 - after MS stopped being involved in it.
OS/2 2.0 was written for the 386 and released in 1992 - it supported Windows 3.0 and most Win 3.0 apps. [link|http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/windows.htm|Windows/386] that was released in 1987 and supported the 386 processor. OS/2 2.0 was generally available about a month before Windows 3.1 in 1992. Wouldn't one think that with 5 years between Win/386 and Win 3.1 that Windows DOS support would be vastly better than OS/2 2.0's due to MS', um, greater experience? But it wasn't.
OS/2's DOS support was so good because IBM made it good to support their customers. MS didn't care about DOS by the time Win 3.1 was released - they were trying to hide DOS as much as possible. While there was undoubtably some cross-pollination between MS and IBM, based on the quality of the products, I think it's clear that IBM was able to execute excellent DOS support while MS wasn't (for whatever reason).
But I think we've been through some of this history before, talking about MS's [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=29466|intensions]....
Cheers,
Scott.