PDA

View Full Version : Multiple Operating Systems



DimensionDude
June 16th, 2005, 05:55 PM
I'm just curious, how many different operating systems have you had on one computer?

In January 1993, I bought a new IBM PS/1 (486DX 33) that came with OS/2. I really liked OS/2 and used it for quite a long time. Of course, there were a few programs that didn't run well under the OS/2 emulation so a DOS partition was required. Not long afterward, local internet access became available but my version of OS/2 didn't do networking so I had to get Windows 3.11. Eventually Windows 95 was released and then OS/2 Warp.

I added a second hard drive and, using OS/2 Boot Manager, could select from the following at startup:

DOS (5.0 then 6.22) mostly for DOS based games
DOS and Windows 3.11
OS/2 2.1
Windows 95

I remember having at least one data partition that all of the boot partitions could see.

Hmm...having a thought... :idea:
I now remember using OS/2 e-mail and usenet software, and after looking in my disk collection I find Netscape for OS/2 so there must have been another reason for going to Windows 95.

I will say one thing about Windows 95 and later, it sure installs a lot easier than OS/2 of any flavor. :wink:

Anyhoo...did anyone else do something similar during that period of operating system transitions? I enjoy hearing (reading) stories like that.

Kent

Terry Yager
June 16th, 2005, 06:49 PM
For a while I ran OS/2 2.1, DOS/Win3.1, and linux on my first '486/66. Bad as the OS/2 was to install, back then, linux was even worse. You had to install everything in just the right order too, or the installation would fail. Even with Boot Manager, I had to use lilo too to get the linux to work.

--T

carlsson
June 17th, 2005, 06:22 AM
I believe a friend to mine was actively using at least two OS/2 flavours, some DOS/Windows, Linux and maybe even SCO Unix at the same time, on the same machine. I can't remember the details, but he should've had at least four or five systems to boot to.

Mad-Mike
June 18th, 2005, 12:13 AM
I've had quite a fair share....

IBM PC-330 486 DX4-100 running OS/2 2.1, Windows For Workgroups 3.11/DOS 6.22, and Windows 98 SE. Quite an incredible setup that was, I later even added a small install of Slackware Linux to it (Slackware 96' as it was called in the book I bought at a thrift shop). All boot swaps were done via the BIOS as this particular model of computer had an option of starting off of the master drive on either controller, and I'd just swap by going into setup and restarting.

I had a 486 DX5-133 running Windows 2000 and Slackware 96 soon after I setup the last one. Yes it DID run 2000, even if only for the reason to prove it CAN be done. It did not run half bad either. That computer was amazing, the case was painted in a nasty array of black/gold/red rattle can paint, had the chassis bent on accident when I tripped and fell in my room while throwing it together (I was klumzy teen at the time), lots of the little case tidbits were from other computers almost totally incompatible with it (a speaker from an IBM PS/Valuepoint and LED's from a Compaq Deskpro XL 466). IT looked like crap but ran great till the VLB IDE controller crapped out on me. I might post a picture later on, it's pretty weird.

I still have my Duracom 5110D laptop with the swappable hard disk drive caddies. I would just change hard disks to change O/S, which was the same three as the PC-330 (OS/2 2.1, DOS 6.22/Windows For Workgroups, and Slackware Linux 96' running FVWM 95').

I also still have the XT clone hot-rod Pentium I built using a New Old stock chassis, it runs Red Hat 6.1 only now, but when I started off while running it through my TV set, it ran Red Hat 6.1 and Windows 98 SE as well as Windows 3.11 for Workgroups.

The system I'm on now is a dual boot between Win98 SE and Red Hat Linux 9.1 Fedora. I don't know if it's just me, or is Windows 3.1 seeming more and more moot to use at this point. My 286 can get on-line using NetTamer, my 486's do great with Arachne, and shoot, I could use Firefox in Linux or IEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! on Win98 (and even then I may soon dump 98 for just gaming and game creation relatied tasks once I get to where I'm going).

carlsson
June 18th, 2005, 04:42 AM
Sheesh. And I thought I was brave to install Windows 2000 on a few Pentium 166 MHz computers. Despite only having 64 MB, it run fairly well as long as one didn't attempt to open Microsoft Office programs or run some fancy web browser like Netscape (IE 5/6 was more integrated in the OS).

At work I used to have a dual Win ME/2K setup because we had an old parallel port scanner for which there was no drivers for W2K. After a while I found some W2K drivers for a different scanner, and it turned out to work like a charm with this one too. After that I could reinstall with only one operating system.

Chris2005
June 29th, 2005, 12:17 AM
what the hell is a '486 DX5/133??? DX4 with overdrive?

Mad-Mike
June 29th, 2005, 10:37 AM
what the hell is a '486 DX5/133??? DX4 with overdrive?

It's another name for the AMD 5x86 P-75 "Pentium Overdrive" that was made for Socket 3 motherboards in the mid-late 90's. It's actually nothing more than a 486 with a Pentium style cache tecnique and overclocked to 133 MHz (though they marketed it as a "75 MHz" Pentium which is just untrue).

A really crazy thing about those is that they ran rather cool at 133 MHZ, so some people used to put them on certain motherboards such as the Biostar MB-8433UUD and overclock them to 150-160 MHz, they were almost on the level of a Pentium 120-166 when run that way. The computer above used to be my old roomie's PC, which had Windows 95 on it when she used it. It ran pretty darn good under that setup with 64 MB of EDO RAM.

Terry Yager
June 29th, 2005, 10:56 AM
We used to sell a lot of 'em at the computer store, and a big selling point was to tell the buyer that it ran 7% faster than the Pentium 75MHz, but for a lot less money. I don't really remember where that figure came from, but I believe it was published by AMD themselves, based on some standard benchmarks.

--T

carlsson
June 30th, 2005, 12:28 AM
Heh. How big die sizes and which clock frequencies could you theoretically achieve with 486-ish technology with mods on top? Not considering if it is commercially possible or not, could you make something to match the speed of a 200 MHz Pentium? A 266 MHz Celeron? How much cache, buffering capacity and special buses on the motherboard would it take? :)

Mad-Mike
June 30th, 2005, 11:34 AM
Heh. How big die sizes and which clock frequencies could you theoretically achieve with 486-ish technology with mods on top? Not considering if it is commercially possible or not, could you make something to match the speed of a 200 MHz Pentium? A 266 MHz Celeron? How much cache, buffering capacity and special buses on the motherboard would it take? :)

It might be possible to make something that would be able to pull up in the 200's category. My old IBM 486 DX4-100 was about the same speed running WIndows 98 SE as my Pentium 120-166 was, it took it the same amount of time to load, loaded internet sites at the same speed over a 56K connection using IE 6, rarely ever crashed.

The newer programs I've gotten working on 486 technology include but are not limited to....

Windows 98 SE - Runs great on a 486 with 32MB of RAM or better, only downside is sound at high sampling rates, or being streamed (but me having a 56K connection for streaming media might have been the reason). It also seemed to be slowed down by midi as well. But those few small Multimedia issues aside, it ran great, never crashed (I think I only had 2 BSOD's the whole time that system was set up), and accepted almost any piece of software stuck on it with the exception of a few rare titles that required MMX or code specific features of the later chips, which would have been avoided by the programmers already, apparently.

Diablo - Yep, the original Diablo runs 100% perfectly on a 486, even though the authors advise vehemently against it. I had it both on a DX/2 66 running Windows 95 with only a minor slowdown in refresh rate, and on my DX4 running 98, where it ran just as good as my Pentium 200 MMX that was my main computer at the time ran it.

Open GL Screensavers - I once tossed in a hard disk from a Pentium 233 on the DX/4 with Direct X 9.0 and so on on it, all the latest updates and stuff, and yes, even the open GL screensavers work on a 486, though a little slowly. I think with a little more RAM things would have run smoothly (say about 128-256 MB, I know there's a guy on Uncreative Labs who claims to have a board that can hold 256 MB of RAM).

Even then, you could have the modern amenities on an old 486 by just using a setup like what I've got now. My first decent computer was a 486/DX-33 which is now upgraded to a DX4-100. In there I have an FM Radio Card, a TV Tuner Card (I Can watch my VCR AND my DVD's on it), high speed serial card (56K Internet connections), an accelerated ISA graphica card (running at a nice 640X480 @256 colors as my TV tuner card will only support that level of color), and even with that setup, it gives off some pretty good graphics, plays anything Windows For Workgroups 3.11 can play (and if not, DOS holds quite a goldmine of games and apps too), and it also serves as a secondary programming rig.

Alot can be done with the older 486 technology as is, but I think if they really stuck with it, they could have pushed it as far as a Celeron 266 or farther with what carlsson is speaking about (die size changes, modern features, personally a DX4 w/ MMX would rock). Like I've said for awhile, If it were not for Robot Arena or The Sims or Cyber-DVD, I'd probably still be using a 486 as my main machine.

Chris2005
June 30th, 2005, 04:53 PM
I were told by a college professor that the early pentiums were 2 '486's wired in parallel or sumthin.

Terry Yager
June 30th, 2005, 06:43 PM
I were told by a college professor that the early pentiums were 2 '486's wired in parallel or sumthin.

I heard that the Penti- part of the name referred to the 5-layer sub-strate. Others have speculated that it was about it being fifth in the x86-series. Intel has denied this though, claiming that it really means nothing at all. (I wonder why Gary Kildall never thought of that one)?

--T

joe sixpack
June 30th, 2005, 07:05 PM
I try to avoid running more then 1 OS per system, takes a lot of planing
and can get messy.

The most i had on one system was a p166 w/128mb and 8.4gb
Win 98se, win 2k, redhat 7.1. it was messy and a lot of hdd space
it was just for testing and was promptly formated 2 weeks later.

Prob my fav configuration was Dos 6.22 (with or without win 3.1), NT 4 wks, & Slackware 8.
I ran this on my pen100 w/40mb and 1.2gb T.I laptop
however there was almost no space left for anything else.

Dos + NT seems to be a good match up, both are very stable.
Only problem with NT is there is'nt any power managment so very bad
on a laptop. sometimes the bios can take over that job but not as nice.
Other wise you gotta go huntdown 3rd party software and it does'nt offer
USB. but it's lot easier to run then win2k.. BTW dont run defrag from dos
if you are using a fat16 FS for NT lol.. i wish there was a way to run 2k in 24mb's lol



what the hell is a '486 DX5/133??? DX4 with overdrive?

It's another name for the AMD 5x86 P-75 "Pentium Overdrive" that was made for Socket 3 motherboards in the mid-late 90's. It's actually nothing more than a 486 with a Pentium style cache tecnique and overclocked to 133 MHz (though they marketed it as a "75 MHz" Pentium which is just untrue).

A really crazy thing about those is that they ran rather cool at 133 MHZ, so some people used to put them on certain motherboards such as the Biostar MB-8433UUD and overclock them to 150-160 MHz, they were almost on the level of a Pentium 120-166 when run that way. The computer above used to be my old roomie's PC, which had Windows 95 on it when she used it. It ran pretty darn good under that setup with 64 MB of EDO RAM.

Ya i have one of those, it's the ultimate cpu for your socket 3 board.
if you get one of those CPU's hold on to it.


I were told by a college professor that the early pentiums were 2 '486's wired in parallel or sumthin.

im not an expert on the pentium's guts but the way i understand it. it's just that. the pen 60, 66 was based off of 2 486 cores smashed together, im sure theres
much more to it then that however, the pen 60/66 had a nasty flaw and would offten return incorrect information. i had a pentium 60 but not realizing
it was worth anything i gave it to a friend who then tossed it in the trash. :( live and learn i guess.

Chris2005
July 8th, 2005, 05:49 AM
there was a floating point error in the early pentiums. I think the government made Intel replace them all.

Mad-Mike
July 9th, 2005, 12:19 AM
I've got one of those old Pentium 60 chips stored away in my spare parts bin. Along with the floating point unit problem, they also had cooling issues even under their normal cooling setup. The chip I had came out of an AST advantage that would overheat and reboot every 30 minutes no matter what I did.

Chris2005
July 12th, 2005, 09:44 PM
I aren't an atomic physicist, but there always seems to be a way of cooling chips down. I suppose the architecture could have been flawed though. But in the celeron 300 days, they used to use liquid nitrogen, or something as freaky, to overclock these things to like 1200 mhz....I've been told.