Windows 1.0 was released 20 November 1985.

OS/2 version 1.0 was announced in April 1987 (about the time Windows had reached release 1.04), and released in December of that year.

Windows 2.0 was released December 9, 1987.

As to the whole backstabbing thing:

Volumes have been written about this, but key was that Microsoft had more at interest than selling Windows - Microsoft was selling a platform for its Office products, and maybe a chance at file format lock-in for business applications. That meant they wanted as many copies out there as possible. IBM, on the other hand, wanted to sell overpriced PS/2 machines, and had no interest in cannibalizing this by bundling OS/2 with the likes of Dell, Gateway, Compaq, and Packard-Bell, whereas all of these companies desperately needed someone to supply an OS to complete a turn-key product. Microsoft did a simple business assessment, and concluded they could team up with the clones and blow the doors off the market if they weren't bound somehow to promoting IBM's hardware.

We had 'em in Pittsburgh. IBM was doing a joint-venture with CMU, and there were so many around campus in public clusters they seemed ubiquitous. My first encounter with Unix (with a GUI and a large-screen display, great keyboards). Pretty sweet at the time, but hell to maintain and repair. Anyway, IBM dropped out of the project, one of the many "what the?" moments IBM would generate as they stumbled over cheap, semi-capable (but steadily improving) PCs.

Wasn't IBM forced into doing this by the roaring success of a company called Netware? Yeah, Netware. Remember them?
The reason the PC succeeded was not because it was great out of the box... it was because of legions of 3d-parties hacking DOS with TSR add-ons that expanded the capabilities of the machine. Microsoft would play catch-up, incorporating the best of what was out there (e.g., memory managers), finally culminating in Windows, which was more than just a GUI... it was memory management, standardized device drivers, and networking packaged together.

IBM was always late to the game. The RS/6000 line came late after Sun, Apollo, and DEC had already proved a market for desktop workstations (except for academia, did the PC/RT even count?) Then, they realized that Microsoft and Netware were slowly hacking the PC into a multitasking, networked workstation for a fraction of workstation prices. Businesses could buy 5, 10 Windows PC's for the price of one workstation, and manage it themselves without a service contract. By the time OS/2 came along, the war was already over, because as lousy and crashy as Windows could be, it had become ubiquitous, and anyway, when you want to sell MILLIONS of PC's, it's never about the OS... it's about the killer app(s) that runs on it. Windows was a platform to sell copies of Word and Excel. Nobody had any reason to write any killer app for OS/2 when they could write it once for Windows and get rich.

That joint-venture? Too little, too late, again. IBM in the 80's and 90's was a string of awful decisions, and before it was over it was entirely feasible that the great IBM would disappear entirely (check out their stock price, rock-bottom in 92, 93).

Cite? Seriously, that's a hell of a thing to measure. Is there some kinda metric to back that up? Not being snarky, I truly wanna know.

The insightful AC forgot to cite, but the title was enough for a Google search. First hit: No need for the pharmacy; just press print. When it comes out, let's call it Dial-A-Drug and plug it in right next to the fridge.

This thread is making me wonder, Is it feasible we will someday see a USB-like device for home organic synthesis, like a 3-D printer but for products of organic chemistry?
Impossible? Waiting to happen?

Logic Supply ML100G-30. Pricier, but silent.

I never met him, but I'll bet Sir E. and Bernie worked hours and days and weeks just to get one of their songs hitworthy.

Yes, with a computer and something like GarageBand, recording a passable song is doable. But writing a GREAT song is still really fucking hard and time-consuming as it always has been.

Firefox can also come without that "shit". From the article:

As stated in TFA, the Mozilla foundation had to choose whether to support DRM in its own code according to HTML standards, or else accept that most users will resort to awful buggy plugins like Flash or simply switch to Chrome, Safari, or Edge to get the content they want so bad. I, myself, prefer Firefox not become a marginalized has-been project with single-digit adoption.

Choose your poison. There's a silver lining in DRM over browser: it encourages more content over Internet as opposed to cable TV, encouraging more people to dump their overpriced cable subscriptions and have a stake in the net-neutrality war.

It's not just porn and MMORGs. The Verge posted a story on slot machines where the industry puts a LOT of effort into figuring out what kind of bells and whistles best hit the reward-center of your brain to keep you playing. Now, designers of other kinds of games are getting in on it:

Check out the thing they call the "zone", where players get so absorbed by the machine they pay no attention to their surroundings.

If you've ever taking a stroll through a casino, you've seen this. No reason it can't go on in some kid's bedroom.