PDA

View Full Version : Os/2



Charrisa
July 19th, 2015, 06:50 AM
Despite not really knowing it's workings well really at all, I have a pretty big respect for this OS's legacy.

I kinda wanna get a computer to run it naturally, so I was wondering, does anyone know what the maximum newest tech that works with it? Because I know it doesn't work with any newer systems, unless you use the new version under the name "eCS/2".

Chuck(G)
July 19th, 2015, 08:21 AM
Your best bet is to stick with a P1 system with the usual stuff--or better yet, run it in a virtual machine manager, like VirtualBox. Even so, you'll find that, particularly, if you want networking, you'll have to put a lot of (usually floppy-based) stuff together to get a fully useful system. OS/2 was a good OS, but it's showing its age badly.

krebizfan
July 19th, 2015, 09:38 AM
Newest tech I ran an IBM branded OS/2 on was a Pentium III with an S3 video card. It was nicely responsive on that hardware. Almost too responsive since the sound effects often take longer than the event that triggered the sound.

You may have trouble finding drivers for lots of equipment. Some of the sites that used to have drivers for OS/2 are gone now.

Chuckster_in_Jax
July 19th, 2015, 03:19 PM
The safest bet would be an IBM PS/2 with a 486 processor or one that has a CPU upgrade. Name brands and clones with boards from major manufacturers should work fine. I have heard of people having trouble with some of the cheaper computers like Packard Bell.

Caluser2000
July 19th, 2015, 04:02 PM
It'll run on clones fine if you can find suitable drivers and good hardware. I've got OS/2 v3 running on my DECpc Lpv+433 with 486DX2/66 with 16megs of ram, a DE220(finding the driver was a trivial exercise) nic, using Warp v4 Servers network client software just fine, off it's CD no less. I use it to chat on #vc using PMIRC. OS/2 v3 supported all the DECpcs hardware out of the box. Ran v4 on a clone P3 system no problem at all. That had the scitech display driver which works on a few popular later video cards.

Link to my thread about the DECpc http://www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum/showthread.php?21290-Digital-decpc-LPv-series

Charrisa
July 20th, 2015, 05:42 PM
Looks like an OS/2 system won't be hard to find at all then, which is nice. I'll probably look into it after I get my TS1000 workings.

Moondog
July 21st, 2015, 07:39 AM
I've only touched two OS/2 workstations in my life, however I recall them being very similar to Windows. I was on a desktop upgrade / standardization project, and we were rolling out new desktops with a standardized base image. Before the project, it was up to each facility's IT staff to purchase hardware and configure the workstations. This made it harder for the central corporate helpdesk to diagnose problems. There was a hodgepodge of pc's running Win 3.11, Win95, NT 3.51, NT4, OS/2 and occasionally some Macs.

The strange thing was for what the group that had the OS/2 machines were doing, they didn't have any special requirements to be running it. Either someone in the group requested it for applications that may have needed it at some time, or the department had been part of an OS/2 evaluation. Worst case was they were being used as test subjects so the local admin could get some hands on time with OS/2.

Chuck(G)
July 21st, 2015, 08:10 AM
I'd been a OS/2 developer since version 1.1 until its being overtaken by NT in the 90s. Back in those days, you started with the OS/2 development kit, which came in a box that might put you in danger of developing--a hernia. Bunches of professional, slick printed manuals and piles of floppies, to be replaced in subsequent months of more piles of floppies. The documentation was painstaking and very clear, not the garbage that Microsoft was producing. I can see why, for a time, that OS/2 was the choice for applications such as ATMs--very stable, but not flashy.

It's a shame that BillG thought being duplicitous in his dealing with IBM and the IBM developer community. There's a story there that's seldom told.

Beerhunter
July 21st, 2015, 09:38 AM
I well remember that meeting in Las Vegas. I see the hand of Ballmer rather than St. Bill. Although the latter was the front man back then.

Chuck(G)
July 21st, 2015, 10:14 AM
Maybe Ballmer; I don't know. But it certainly was buddy-buddy here--later followed by a knife in the back. Funny (?) thing was that Microsoft was handling all of the developer community for the next version of OS/2 and many had paid for the preview and development kit. Microsoft then said it would send NT 3.1 instead. Fortunately, threats of lawsuits quashed that. It's a wonder that IBM didn't sue them.

Beerhunter
July 21st, 2015, 10:36 AM
It's a wonder that IBM didn't sue them.
I think that it was partially shock. Us IBMers at the time thought that we were among friends. One of the IBMers in that meeting was one of the nicest guys in IBM, if not the industry. He simply could not believe that he could leave a meeting thinking that he had an agreement only for it to be scuppered three weeks later.

I do not believe that they would not have got away with it with earlier generations of IBM execs, like "Vinnie" for example.

krebizfan
July 21st, 2015, 10:57 AM
MS's internal memos that were released make it fairly clear that MS management saw IBM's plans for OS/2 as being disastrous for MS. MS did anticipate the loss of trust with developers once the split was announced and hoped the profits from Win16 software would assuage the developers. Considering how IBM dawdled on the release of 32-bit OS/2 and then diverted billions to focus on WPOS (with little ever offered for sale) even when faced with MS's competition, I doubt IBM would have been speedier in an universe were MS partnered with IBM longer. The split between IBM and MS was inevitable: MS needed new software to sell but IBM could rely on mainframe revenue to perfect an optimum unified infrastructure. Either MS split from IBM or MS became a Mac only software firm before getting swallowed by Adobe.

Chuck(G)
July 21st, 2015, 11:27 AM
It wasn't that MS went their own way--it was the way it was carried out. For example, in 1990:


OS/2 is our top priority

Now, if you were an OS/2 developer (and by that time, it was being billed as "Microsoft OS/2") how would you feel about "Forget what we've been saying. You really want to develop for our brand-new-stable-as-warm-Jell-O operating system". I was furious and I suspect that others were also.

griffk
July 21st, 2015, 03:33 PM
It wasn't that MS went their own way--it was the way it was carried out. For example, in 1990:



Now, if you were an OS/2 developer (and by that time, it was being billed as "Microsoft OS/2") how would you feel about "Forget what we've been saying. You really want to develop for our brand-new-stable-as-warm-Jell-O operating system". I was furious and I suspect that others were also.

The OS/2 community should have been kept "in the loop" much better ***by both sides***. It didn't really make sense for MS to hawk IBM's goods at any rate, but both companies should have been more up front.

I was a direct report to one of the managers on the NT 3.1 group, who had come directly out of OS/2 development, and he even seemed, at first, to have that "deer in the headlights" look...

Business wise, IBM was known for their disdain of anything that ran on metal weighing <= 2tons (look how they f'd up their PC biz), and MS knew it! They just didn't handle the dev "handover/support" very well...

gwk

Chuck(G)
July 21st, 2015, 05:35 PM
You could see that IBM figured that they made a mistake. After Warp's lackluster launch (it really was a very nice system), they mailed out CDs free with Warp and the devkit, including the C computer, which was a big deal. I don't know that "The IBM Developer Connection" ever gained a lot of traction.

Caluser2000
July 23rd, 2015, 11:23 AM
Charrisa if you haven't found it already you may like to look at Al Savages page on installing v4 Warp http://asavage.dyndns.org/os2/warp4install/warp4install.html

Just be aware though, as mentioned, that it may not be walk in the park of far as setting it up. Sometimes its far to easy to waste a lot of time getting things functional. On my old v4 install ended up backing out out FP15 settling on FP14. Having a play in a VM might be the better option.

Charrisa
July 24th, 2015, 11:53 AM
Wow this has been really cool and informative.
I already have the last OS/2 available on a CD and 3 floppies. My issue is it doesn't work with any hardware I have at the moment.

Caluser2000
August 1st, 2015, 04:46 PM
Sounds cheesy but the OS/2 Blond Guy has some good info as well http://www.blondeguy.com/InstallWarp4Essay.html

Chuck(G)
August 1st, 2015, 06:52 PM
To get OS/2 Warp 4 running on a P3 system that I had, it took a bunch of downloads to get it running--and all of those were off of floppy. I don't think I'd want to do it again.

On the other hand, the eComStation variety of OS/2 and seems to be alive and well, at least according to OS/2 World (http://www.os2world.com/). So go figure...

Caluser2000
August 1st, 2015, 07:32 PM
It is http://www.ecomstation.com/. Last time I looked at OS/2 World it looked like it was a on the decline. Damned if I can remember my old login.

Unknown_K
August 1st, 2015, 07:42 PM
OS/2 was pretty much dead after Warp 3 shipped, Win95 launch just finished it.

OS/2 2.x on an IBM PS/2 is kind of fun to run since everything is supported. Support for anything outside of Ethernet, SCSI and Tokenring on commodity hardware of the time is not that great. Also updates are a royal pain in the rear of floppy flipping.

Chuck(G)
August 1st, 2015, 09:50 PM
Also OS/2 News (http://os2news.warpstock.org/) still active.

I wouldn't venture that Win95 did OS/2 in--the latter was far more stable than any version of Win9x. On the other hand, things were pretty much over when NT 4.0 debuted. You could still find OS/2 embedded in various applications, such as ATM devices. And remember that NT could run OS/2 console applications.

There is information about setting up OS/2 Warp 4/eComstation on VirtualBox on OS2world (it's a great way to test out systems on modern hardware--VB abstracts the host hardware so that no matter what you're using as a host, the hardware interface is standard.) Very handy if you want to run, say, an early version of Xenix on your modern super-by-gosh-bleeding-edge system running heaven-knows-what.

Caluser2000
August 1st, 2015, 10:02 PM
I had v4 running on MS Virtual PC 2004 on an XP P4 box with 512meg of ram running along side Red Hat 6.2 and Dos just for the hell of it.

krebizfan
August 1st, 2015, 10:26 PM
Lou Gerstner's announcement of the reduction of push behind OS/2 came slightly before Win95 got released. I think the real problem was the out of control spending on Workplace OS, OS/2 for PowerPC, and regular OS/2 with sales nowhere near the level needed to break even.

g4ugm
August 2nd, 2015, 01:08 AM
I think OS/2 had many problems. In many ways some are the same problems Linux has, one of which is it needed a techy to manage it. I think the biggest one was that IBM made the same assumption BT made about ISDN, that is:-

1. Folks had to have it.
2. You could charge a premium price for it.

If you don't think this is true for Linux look at the price for a RedHat support contract and then when you have an issue with UBUNTO try and explain to your risk manager you chose a release with no commercial support....

OS/2 wanted to be every ones answer to every ones prayer. I think IBM saw mainframes and AS/400 vanishing, which they almost have, and wanted to be first on the game with a new wonder machine. Just like the "Future Systems" project they tried to deliver too much software on hardware that wasn't yet up to the job.

When Windows/95 came out it ticked 90% of the boxes for 90% of the people, and as some one else said, that's just enough to get elected president. Windows/95 came with TCP/IP built in. For MOST WARP releases it cost more than the basic OS. Yes there was dial-up support, but in reality that meant IBM was charging more for the TCP/IP LAN interface than they were for the rest of the OS.

Then there is that old chestnut of reliability. In practice OS/2 was no more reliable than Win95. It has a major flaw in its input queue processing so if any app gets stuck and stops processing its input the whole OS locks up. I used it for a while as we tried to down port an application from SunOS to a commodity PC platform. It just didn't cut it.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/11/half-an-operating-system-the-triumph-and-tragedy-of-os2/5/

in practice, once you knew which apps caused problems in Win95 you went and found a different one that didn't cause problems, so it stayed up pretty much all of the time. Because its really a very sophisticated DOS extender its really very quick . On the other hand with with OS/2 you were lucky to find one native app, and it wasn't quick...
... and as for modern Windows, well I have been retired for 12 months but we used to run about 300 windows servers in my last job. We seldom had a windows crash. On the other hand the Linux appliances, well they were appliances...

We still see the same mentality today. No one buys a piece of software because it ticks fewer feature boxes on a comparison test, then they complain what they have bought is complex and hard to use, well of course...

Chuck(G)
August 2nd, 2015, 10:24 AM
Well, for perhaps 90% of the user community out there, writing documents, running spreadsheets, email and web browsing functions would probably be sufficient. What half the stuff is on a Windows computer is for baffles me utterly. At least in Linux, I can pick and choose what I want--anything from a simple CLI-only system to a full-blown GUI desktop with all the gewgaws. I don't believe that Linux is any more reliable than other OSes, but you can omit troublesome features. Neither Windows nor OS/2 nor OSX allows me that luxury.

Creeping featurism is a disease that mankind has yet to conquer. I don't imagine that systems 10 years from now will be much faster than today's or significantly expanded in functionality, but that the OS platforms will be proportionately much larger--and the minimum ante for a system will have gone up considerably.

yuhong
August 2nd, 2015, 03:41 PM
Ah, this used to be one of my favorite topics, and for a reason. MS's attacks against it eventually got even worse (Microsoft Munchkins for example). And don't forget DR-DOS and AARD code etc too (OS/2 never depended on DOS)

Caluser2000
August 2nd, 2015, 03:47 PM
Well, for perhaps 90% of the user community out there, writing documents, running spreadsheets, email and web browsing functions would probably be sufficient. What half the stuff is on a Windows computer is for baffles me utterly. At least in Linux, I can pick and choose what I want--anything from a simple CLI-only system to a full-blown GUI desktop with all the gewgaws. I don't believe that Linux is any more reliable than other OSes, but you can omit troublesome features. Neither Windows nor OS/2 nor OSX allows me that luxury.


You can start OS/2 in cli only mode quite easily. http://www.edm2.com/index.php/Stupid_OS/2_Tricks/Command_Line_Tips

"6 Using OS/2 without the Workplace Shell:

To use OS/2 without loading the Workplace Shell, replace the following line in your CONFIG.SYS

SET RUNWORKPLACE=<drive>:\OS2\PMSHELL.EXE

with

SET RUNWORKPLACE=<drive>:\OS2\CMD.EXE

where <drive> is the letter of the drive on which OS/2 is located.

Note that you can always invoke the Workplace Shell by typing PMSHELL at an OS/2 command line. It can consequently be removed by closing it from the Window List."

You can use alternative shells as well.

Chuck(G)
August 2nd, 2015, 09:54 PM
I sort of remember something like that--too bad that I don't run OS/2 anymore.

So how do you get Windows 10 started in cli mode, without the GUI? Some sort of recovery mode?

Caluser2000
August 2nd, 2015, 10:05 PM
Charissa: the updated install disk creation files for Warp v4 are IBM created for thinkpads systems with hdds greater than 8gigs are called warp4iu1.exe and warp4iu2.exe. You can get them at this page http://greyghost.mooo.com/pccbbs/mobiles/ along withe the readme file warp4iu.txt

They'll work on a generic system in conjuction with the original installation boot disk.

g4ugm mention of SIQ is quite valid and it was never really resolved but later OS/2 variants were better behaved. I think I used a program called Buster to keep an eye on processes.

Couple of screenshots of my old setups. The first was on v4 on a Celeron 400 based machine running XWorkplace shell, FP14 and a couple of other enhancements. I was still dialup at time but it was networked to a Linux and Windows 98 box. The second and third on my DecPc with 486DX2/66 mentioned earlier with the Warp v4 Server network client installed on the second pic and the Connect package on the previous. The servers client package far better than the "Connect" network package and works with a plain vanilla v3 installation with no problems at all and gives you DHCP support.

g4ugm
August 3rd, 2015, 01:45 AM
I sort of remember something like that--too bad that I don't run OS/2 anymore.

So how do you get Windows 10 started in cli mode, without the GUI? Some sort of recovery mode?

I don't think Windows/10 will start in console mode, but most of the Server Editions feature "Server Core Mode" in which only the basics are installed:-

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Hh846323(v=VS.85).aspx

but it really removes lots of other features. With Server 2012 and 2012R2 things are much improved as you can do remote installs from server manager console.

g4ugm
August 3rd, 2015, 02:28 AM
What half the stuff is on a Windows computer is for baffles me utterly.

So that's 50% you do understand? Actually I really like Windows/7, it was nicely cut down, very little on there that you didn't need. The trouble is I ended up adding things to play with and now my W/7 box is as bloated as my XP machine. Windows/10 seems to have less clutter.

Windows/10 has a couple of nice features, if you don't like something in the start menu you can right-click on its icon and if it knows how to un-install it, it gives you an "un-install" option in the drop down list. In addition there are powershell commands to turn optional windows features on and off, so you can do a lot of things from the command line....

griffk
August 3rd, 2015, 04:49 AM
Actually I really like Windows/7, it was nicely cut down, very little on there that you didn't need. The trouble is I ended up adding things to play with and now my W/7 box is as bloated as my XP machine. Windows/10 seems to have less clutter.

I would agree with Dave. Win7 was very much a throwback to a leaner Windows, and it is very stable. If you don't add all the "gadgets" and such. it's very lean for Windows, and very usable.

For me, the jury is still out on Win10 - I have Pro running under VMWare 11, and it's exhibiting strangeness at almost every turn, so I'd say it needs an SP or 2 before it starts to shine. Maybe it's just my installation, but time will tell...

WAY better than 8/8.1 though!

gwk

Chuck(G)
August 3rd, 2015, 08:07 AM
I would agree with Dave. Win7 was very much a throwback to a leaner Windows, and it is very stable. If you don't add all the "gadgets" and such. it's very lean for Windows, and very usable.

So Win7 will run on less memory and disk storage than, say, Windows XP? Say, the same amount as Win2K--it being a "throwback" to earlier Windows systems and all?

Wow, that wasn't my impression. My impression was that it was an improvement over Vista, but that's not saying much, is it?

g4ugm
August 3rd, 2015, 08:23 AM
In my limited experience Windows/7 32-bit runs faster than XP on the same hardware. I haven't compared it with 2K, but I don't think its much different. However as always all performance is relative. It does need more disk space, because it copies the DVD image to disk so you should be able to add features without needing the disk.

Its really difficult to compare though. Memory plays funny tricks, I recently I booted up a Windows/95 P166MMX machine and was surprised how responsive it was...

yuhong
August 3rd, 2015, 09:01 AM
So Win7 will run on less memory and disk storage than, say, Windows XP? Say, the same amount as Win2K--it being a "throwback" to earlier Windows systems and all?

Wow, that wasn't my impression. My impression was that it was an improvement over Vista, but that's not saying much, is it?

Yea, Win8 tried to improve memory usage further, but it requires NX which is useless for older hardware like the i815 chipset capped to 512MB of RAM.

Chuck(G)
August 3rd, 2015, 09:11 AM
Hmmm, maybe I should dig out my Win7 DVDs and see how it runs on a 400MHz VIA C3 box with 512MB of memory...

yuhong
August 3rd, 2015, 09:16 AM
Hmmm, maybe I should dig out my Win7 DVDs and see how it runs on a 400MHz VIA C3 box with 512MB of memory...

There is a ZDNet article about this actually: http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-well-does-windows-7-handle-512mb/

Chuck(G)
August 3rd, 2015, 10:14 AM
Thanks for the tip--maybe I'll give it a try--I'm always curious about how well software performs on limited resources. But obviously, unlike the article, this will be a 32-bit install.

g4ugm
August 3rd, 2015, 12:59 PM
Try running W2k on that hardware and its fine until you load a program like Outlook or Word, although I used to run it on a 233Mhz box. How times have changed...

Chuck(G)
August 3rd, 2015, 02:13 PM
Good thing that I don't use Outlook or Word. My principal operating platform is Linux.

g4ugm
August 3rd, 2015, 02:22 PM
Even standard Ubunto recommends more that 400mhz...

Chuck(G)
August 3rd, 2015, 02:27 PM
Well, on slow old hardware, I tend to load X only when needed and use downlevel distros. For example, Debian Etch or Lenny seems to run fine on P1-series systems. I think most *nix systems tend to place too many resources into the GUI. I can't stand Unity--I use XFCE even on my modern systems. At least Linux (and BSD) seem to still put a lot of support behind the command-line interface.

Caluser2000
August 3rd, 2015, 04:00 PM
Funny how a simple query about OS/2 turns into an OS bashing contest. Any chance of getting back on topic?

Chuck(G)
August 3rd, 2015, 04:13 PM
Well, I apologize for hijacking, but I thought we'd covered the issue pretty well.

g4ugm
August 4th, 2015, 12:22 AM
Sorry my fault. I wasn't "bashing" Linux, just point out that what goes round comes round, and that Linux was having problems achieving corporate penetration, some times for the same reasons OS/2 did.

Caluser2000
August 4th, 2015, 01:20 AM
Just did a fresh install of v4 on my k6-2 350 box, with 256megs of ram on an 8gig drive partitioned in half for giggles. I'd forgotten how long the boot up screen is up. One could be forgiven the the system had hung. Just the basics so far. The system normally runs win2k but used a win 98 hdd to create 3 installation from my old 2000 APC magizine cd which was bundled with Rh 6.2 and BeOS PE along with Warp 4 workstation.

Once the desktop is up it is very snappy. It's obviously lacking any usb support. I'll track down a suitable nic and see how get on with networking. Video is constrand to 800 x 600 65k colour but that can be improved using the Scitech display driver. I've got a SB16 that I know is supported if I get serious with it.

Like most OSs installation is the easy part ;) To be cont......

griffk
August 4th, 2015, 08:08 AM
So Win7 will run on less memory and disk storage than, say, Windows XP? Say, the same amount as Win2K--it being a "throwback" to earlier Windows systems and all?

Wow, that wasn't my impression. My impression was that it was an improvement over Vista, but that's not saying much, is it?

Well, I wasn't meaning to infer that Win7 has less of a resource footprint, than say XP. Just that IMO it seems to be less encumbered by extraneous GUI addons (if you don't use the silly "gadgets" and such), and that it seems to be snappier and very much streamlined in its use of drivers (one of MS's big bugaboos over the years). Since the addition of extra GUI layers, and such things as ReadyBoost, subsequent Windows versions will ALL use more resources.

I would venture to say that ALL OSs post-Win2K/Linux-of-the-year/MAC-OS-of-the-year suffer from the addition of LAYERS of GUI and security/intermediate networking code that really don't add that much value, but slow the machines to a crawl in some cases.

gwk

Caluser2000
August 4th, 2015, 10:44 AM
Like most OSs installation is the easy part ;) To be cont......Ok. Tracked down an ISA SMC 10BaseT nic and installed MPTS/TCP/IP. Set them up on installation. Two reboots later networking is up and running. The network requester takes some time to kick into life after you get to the desktop so I just opened an OS/2 window and pinged the router. About 30 seconds, if not more, later I was getting a reply back.

Just put on PMRirc and gave that a try accessing #vc It worked like a charm.

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of lost in OS/2............

Caluser2000
August 5th, 2015, 11:03 PM
Well this is interesting. I decided to hook up my old 4 gig OS/2 v4 installation, shown in the LH screenshot above, just out of curiousity and run the FireBird browser up. Now this hasn't been online for quite some time and then only dailup. I'm posting this thread entry using it.

I need to track down a PCI 10/100 compatible nic and do some comparisons with my 200mmx Linux box. ;)

Tor
August 6th, 2015, 12:01 AM
Despite not really knowing it's workings well really at all, I have a pretty big respect for this OS's legacy.

I kinda wanna get a computer to run it naturally, so I was wondering, does anyone know what the maximum newest tech that works with it? Because I know it doesn't work with any newer systems, unless you use the new version under the name "eCS/2". The last time I personally was running OS/2 was with a 486/66MHz 16MB RAM system (upgraded from 33MHz). We had a product a work which used OS/2 on PS/2 model 70. The 486 system lasted only until my Unix Xterminal broke back in 1992, then the 486 box was updated to run Linux instead of OS/2. I kind of liked OS/2, but for me as a software developer it couldn't do anything useful for me unlike a *nix box. In the beginning the Linux system was basically used as an Xterminal for a Sun system.

As for while OS/2 didn't take the market the same as Windows - ignoring costs (and I don't really remember what they were), I think that what was important for the stuff we did with OS/2 at work, things like proper multi-tasking, the ease of writing software that could do a remote login to a running customer system (through X.25) etc, those kinds of features weren't something a gamer or a document writer on a personal PC were looking for. They wouldn't notice the features that we found useful at work. So, pro features, mundane needs, and OS/2 couldn't compete.

-Tor

Charrisa
August 6th, 2015, 04:58 AM
I leave for a week and VC breaks down over OS's.

That's very cool seeing #vc in OS/2! That's what I was going to do with it if I got it running.

Caluser2000
August 6th, 2015, 11:30 AM
That was PMirc 1.09. Pretty basic but works and does private chats ok as well. Runs just off a floppy disk ok as well.

Eudimorphodon
August 6th, 2015, 12:01 PM
Man, I really loved OS/2 (versions 2.0 and 2.1) for a while back in the day, despite the fact I had nearly zero native OS/2 software. It multitasked DOS programs so darn well, and somehow running Windows 3.x programs let you feel just a little less dirty than running them natively. Strangely enough it was Warp 3.0 that killed it for me. I'd never had that many encounters with the infamous SIQ problem (http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/11/half-an-operating-system-the-triumph-and-tragedy-of-os2/5/) before Warp but after upgrading from 2.11 it happened *constantly*. (Or maybe it was something else, because it seemed like CTRL-ESC would never work to unstick it? Whatever it was it happened on both computers I installed it on.)

Anyway, between that and some incredibly annoying issues with OS/2's internet dialup support I gave up, went back to naked DOS/Windows, and shortly thereafter ended up downloading a small Linux distribution out of curiosity. I've never actually experienced OS/2 post-"SIQ Fixpack"; thought about installing it just for grins a few times but generally end up fleeing when I realize just how many discrete little bits and pieces I'd have to assemble manually to make it fully functional. Eyes just sorta glaze over...

Caluser2000
August 8th, 2015, 12:46 AM
Found out I had the Mozilla Suite of this but can't use the attachment setup here like I can over at Vogons. http://www.vogons.org/download/file.php?id=19059&mode=view Chatzilla works fine and dandy btw.

yuhong
December 25th, 2015, 06:47 PM
The OS/2 community should have been kept "in the loop" much better ***by both sides***. It didn't really make sense for MS to hawk IBM's goods at any rate, but both companies should have been more up front.

BTW, my argument is not that it would have been particularly good, but that it would still be better than the alternative MS did instead.

geoffm3
January 12th, 2016, 12:17 PM
From a user's perspective, I remember using OS/2 was mainly painful. If something worked, it worked, but IIRC Windows 3.0/3.1 was generally easier to manage. By the time Windows 95 came around Warp was too little, too late.

Caluser2000
March 17th, 2016, 09:32 PM
As far as interface look-in-feel consistancy goes- win3.x/ NT3.x (Program Manager or possibly using Calmira II ,New Shell or alternative shel)or Win9x/NT4(new fangled Start thingy or another shell) up seemed more consistant to me being a user/hobbiest. There certainly were features in OS/2 that never made it to MS Windows of course but it could lead to look'n feel inconsitancies which was annoying. Anyway its all in the past now and as with back then one can use whatever they like. As long as it does what the user wants who really cares?

I had a Dos/WfW 3.11 setup until I bought a second hand Win98FE system which was updated to the latest unoffical fixpacks and usb mass storage updates. The family mainly uses Linux now as I've given up on the MS Windows merry go-round for the time being. The exception is my darling wife who has a Windows 10 laptop and that is used to interface with the wireless printer.

For anyone interested I'm having a play with Desqview/X at present just for the hell of it.

monoxrom
April 29th, 2016, 12:16 AM
I always had a question, maybe anybody know, OS/2 support two or more processors? like windows NT or like windows 9x?

Scali
April 29th, 2016, 01:39 AM
Yes it does, see here: http://www.edm2.com/0509/smp2.html

g4ugm
April 29th, 2016, 04:09 AM
So only in special editions, unlike NT4 which supports it "out of the box"...

Scali
April 29th, 2016, 04:15 AM
So only in special editions, unlike NT4 which supports it "out of the box"...

Ofcourse NT4 is a 'special edition' of Windows. The non-NT versions did not support SMP.

krebizfan
April 29th, 2016, 08:36 AM
Ofcourse NT4 is a 'special edition' of Windows. The non-NT versions did not support SMP.

Every NT4 box included support for SMP. Earlier versions of NT had support for SMP but it was trickier to get it installed. OS/2 SMP required convincing an IBM rep that one deserved the product.

The major difference between OS/2 SMP and NT SMP was NT did a better job of insulating programs from the vagaries of multiple processors. OS/2 SMP required some programs be adjusted to work.

Scali
April 29th, 2016, 08:41 AM
Every NT4 box included support for SMP.

Yes, but the point was that not all versions of Windows are NT4.


OS/2 SMP required convincing an IBM rep that one deserved the product.

Is that so? From what I understood, IBM bundled that version with their SMP hardware. If you bought a single-CPU system, you'd get the regular OS/2, but what were you going to do with the SMP version anyway?


The major difference between OS/2 SMP and NT SMP was NT did a better job of insulating programs from the vagaries of multiple processors. OS/2 SMP required some programs be adjusted to work.

Which probably explains why IBM abandoned it.
Some sources claim that the SMP code was mostly the work of one person, who had left the company. Which resulted in a major headache for maintaining the codebase.

krebizfan
April 29th, 2016, 09:14 AM
It was common to buy a server with multiple CPU sockets but only install one CPU in it. Sometime later, it would become obvious that a second processor should be added. IBM made it challenging to do that upgrade. MS made it comparatively simple; https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/156358

Scali
April 29th, 2016, 09:18 AM
It was common to buy a server with multiple CPU sockets but only install one CPU in it. Sometime later, it would become obvious that a second processor should be added.

A machine with multiple sockets is an SMP machine to me, regardless of the number of CPUs installed.
You mean to say that IBM didn't bundle the SMP version with these SMP-capable machines if you ordered them with only one CPU installed? That would be quite the failure on IBM's behalf.


MS made it comparatively simple; https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/156358

Since unlike IBM, Microsoft did not build and sell its own hardware, its entire business was dependent on their software being simple to install/upgrade.
It's a completely different business model.

g4ugm
April 29th, 2016, 09:49 AM
Since unlike IBM, Microsoft did not build and sell its own hardware, its entire business was dependent on their software being simple to install/upgrade.
It's a completely different business model.

That is the whole reason the wheels fell off IBM's plan to market OS/2. Microsoft delivered everything most users wanted "in the box". IBM delivered "half an operating system". So you want SMP, then that will be another wodge of money, you want to share files and folders, that's another option, oh and you want TCP/IP, we can do that but its really hard, so that will be more than the OS cost you in the first place...

.. don't get me wrong, I like OS/2, but IBM tried to package it like a Mainframe where every option costs an arm and leg, rather than as a commodity OS that had everything bundled.

krebizfan
April 29th, 2016, 10:16 AM
A machine with multiple sockets is an SMP machine to me, regardless of the number of CPUs installed.
You mean to say that IBM didn't bundle the SMP version with these SMP-capable machines if you ordered them with only one CPU installed? That would be quite the failure on IBM's behalf.

IIRC, IBM shipped the non-SMP version of OS/2 with any system that only had a single CPU. Made sense since OS/2 SMP could not run some software and I think SMP had problems booting if a only one processor was installed.

It has been far too long, I don't remember if the asymmetrical MP versions of Lan Server and some SQL products could run on SMP OS/2. I know IBM's had a big push in 1993 to migrate Personal Server 295s from AMP OS/2 1.3 to SMP 2.1. I never heard of anyone implementing it.

Caluser2000
April 29th, 2016, 04:15 PM
OS/2 SMP support goes right up to Warp Server for e-Business which was released in 1999.

Scali
April 29th, 2016, 11:46 PM
OS/2 SMP support goes right up to Warp Server for e-Business which was released in 1999.

From what I understood, they skipped a few versions with SMP support.

Caluser2000
June 30th, 2016, 07:48 PM
Looks like some one else has taken up the OS/2 batten- http://www.techrepublic.com/article/os2-blue-lion-to-be-the-next-distro-of-the-28-year-old-os/

acheter
September 16th, 2016, 01:18 AM
Looks like an OS/2 system won't be hard to find at all then, which is nice. I'll probably look into it after I get my TS1000 workings.

ardent-blue
April 14th, 2017, 03:34 AM
I know IBM's had a big push in 1993 to migrate Personal Server 295s from AMP OS/2 1.3 to SMP 2.1. I never heard of anyone implementing it.

Yes, the infamous 195 / 295 Parallan systems, neat-o for alpha-geeks. Best I knew, IBM withdrew them and either swapped them out for like systems or re-imbursed the customers.

http://ps-2.kev009.com/ohlandl/8600/Server_195.html

ardent-blue
April 14th, 2017, 03:38 AM
Looks like some one else has taken up the OS/2 batten- http://www.techrepublic.com/article/os2-blue-lion-to-be-the-next-distro-of-the-28-year-old-os/

I am curious, blue... One disturbing impression is the licensing model. The website is not as concise as one might prefer, but it seems to resemble IBM's AIX or AS/400 packages. This is NOT comforting.

Also, what hardware does it support? If it dropped microchannel support, then it doesn't interest me.