I think it's fair to say that OS/2 had better Windows compatibility (for it's era) than Wine offers (in this era). The problem was that Microsoft introduced breaking changes with the introduction of Windows 95. While old Windows applications would continue to run under OS/2, IBM felt that it would take too much effort to introduce a compatability layer for Windows 95. If I recall correctly, it involved limitations with how OS/2 handled memory.
Besides, binary compatibity has never really been a big thing in Linux since the majority of software used is open source. It is expected to compile and link against newer libraries, but there is no real incentive for existing binaries to remain compatible. And if the software doesn't compile against newer versions of libraries, well, Windows has similar issues.
A windows95 compatibility layer would have been feasible if OS/2 had more sales volume.
The latest multi-platform packaging systems like Nix or Flatpak have largely solved the binary compatibility problem but providing some guarantees of library versions. This approach makes more sense in modern contexts with cheap storage and fast bandwidth.
I think it's fair to say that OS/2 had better Windows compatibility (for it's era) than Wine offers (in this era). The problem was that Microsoft introduced breaking changes with the introduction of Windows 95. While old Windows applications would continue to run under OS/2, IBM felt that it would take too much effort to introduce a compatability layer for Windows 95. If I recall correctly, it involved limitations with how OS/2 handled memory.
Besides, binary compatibity has never really been a big thing in Linux since the majority of software used is open source. It is expected to compile and link against newer libraries, but there is no real incentive for existing binaries to remain compatible. And if the software doesn't compile against newer versions of libraries, well, Windows has similar issues.