Grzyb wrote on 2023-02-18, 16:45:

Now, let's imagine this alternative history... […]
Show full quote

Now, let's imagine this alternative history...

1987

Instead of the elephantine 286 OS, a simple 386 OS is released.
Basically, it's like DOS, but 32-bit.
There may be also some "Pro" variant with multitasking, GUI, etc., but it's important that the basic variant is about as simple as DOS, and doesn't use much more resources than DOS - it's perfectly usable with just 1 MB of RAM. [..]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-MOS/386

Grzyb wrote on 2023-02-18, 01:32:

Jo22 wrote on 2023-02-17, 19:44:

To be honest. I never did understand the 8086 models.. They shouldn't belong to the PS/2 line. 😕
Even for simple diskless stations, the 8086 didn't make sense to me.
A slow 80286 or 386SX (if cheaply available to IBM via contract with intel) would have been much better,

Wait, they did. IBM sold 2 MB ISA cards for memory expansion..
https://www.minuszerodegrees.net/5170/cards/5 … rds.htm#2mb_xma
There was even a 12MB monster version.. 😳

It's 1987.
It is. 🥳
1987 was very modern! Notable things happening..

- Star Trek TNG aired in 1987
- The VGA graphics appeared
- IBM released PC-DOS 3.30 with AT and clone hardware support
- MS Windows 2 debuted
- The Clipper Compiler "Summer 1987" was released (famous!)
- ..

Grzyb wrote on 2023-02-18, 01:32:

I think the best-selling PCs are still Turbo XTs, so it makes perfect sense for IBM to provide a Turbo XT as well.

Yes, but maybe not from IBM. The Taiwanese clones were very popular around the mid-late 80s, afaik.
And theire products were often superior in terms of features, too.
People who bought clones could invest the money saved into a fixed-disk drive.

The original IBM Model 5150/5160 motherboard was very barebone, I think.
As if it was built by a couple of students that had just had left IT class.
It's not much different to a minimal CP/M system, albeit built around the 8088 instead of the Z80.

Grzyb wrote on 2023-02-18, 01:32:

286 machines are still much more expensive.

They costed peanuts in comparison to equally capable mini computer hardware.
Everyone that needed their power spent good money on them.

Grzyb wrote on 2023-02-18, 01:32:

386SX doesn't exist.

Maybe. It was announced in 1986, though.
I still remember computer magazine articles in which the press was stating
that the 386SX was a lame move by intel, essentially.

Grzyb wrote on 2023-02-18, 01:32:

2 MB memory expansions cost way too much to be installed by default.

Not for business/professional users. PCs costed a few pennies, compared to their alternatives.
With an appropiate tax delaration, the hardware was free under best cirumstances.

Both IBM's 2MB expansion card and the 12MB monster are from 1987 (-> date in manual).
This doesn't mean they were the first. Memory boards for ATs at such surely existed since 1984.

A lot of software supported extra memory at the time.
Especially cheap PCs without fixed-disks needed RAM drives somewhat badly.
Were to compile your Clipper programs on? A floppy disk?

Professionals had better to do than playing disk jockey like a C64 user all the time.
- Even Atari ST owners were tired of this. The dual floppy configuration was popular;
games often checked drive B for disk B automatically. The MSX platform was similar.

Even with a fixed-disk available (slow), programmers prefered to use a RAM drive.
I'm not talking about professionals only, here. Many private users had Turbo Pascal 3 or used Basic compilers.
Working with a RAM disk was just much more comfortable.

But to replace a floppy disk 1:1 in size - to copy over the content it held,
you needed at least 160, 360, 720KB of RAM.

So your 1MB 286 was still badly needed way back in 1987, not just in 1990, 1991, 1992 etc.

"Virtual disks actually make your computers memory act like a disk
drive. As a result, a virtual disk will be much faster than an actual
disk drive. MSDOS supplies a device driver to create this virtual
disc. Versions up to 3.3 were called VDISK.SYS. Version 4 calls it
RAMDRIVE.SYS."
Source: https://www.minuszerodegrees.net/5170/ram/vdisk.txt

"up to".. VDISK is much older than that. It dates back to 1984, afaik.
The 1987 releases support both EMS and XMS or Extended Memory, afaik.

Grzyb wrote on 2023-02-18, 01:32:

The point is: it doesn't matter what configs are technically possible, it only matters what's actually mass-sold.

Not in the business/professional field. If a city ​​administration needs, say, merely 20 000 new PCs for their operation, it's still an important business order.

Grzyb wrote on 2023-02-18, 01:32:

End users hardly ever purchase an operating system - they use whatever got preinstalled by the vendor.

In the 90s, yes. That was the time Microsoft got intro press for its OEM bundles (complete DOS 6.22+Windows 3.11 kits, Works, etc).
It also was the time when computer users without any prior education first appeared.

In the 80s, you simply had to understand DOS and read manuals:
In these days. people who bought home computers or PCs had to do some degree of research first.

So the 80s may have been different, still. You had to optionally select some software for your new PC.
Sure, there maybe was a MS-DOS 3.x + GWBASIC disk set as part of the PC purchase - to get it running.
But this was merely the OEM DOS with its custom drivers. Maybe a manual, too.
Windows or Works weren't included yet, afaik.

It wasn't before MS-DOS 5 that Microsoft sold MS-DOS directly to end users.
Before this, it was the duty of the PC manufacturers.

Grzyb wrote on 2023-02-18, 01:32:

So, a system that can't be preinstalled on 95% of *stock* configs has no chances for decent market penetration.

IBM never aimed that, I suppose. The idea was to "sell" OS/2 to the business partners.
The company started out by selling typewriters, the hardware was their core business.

Or let me put it this way: The official minimum requirements are never real. They're an understatement.

If you buy hardware or software, you always have to upgrade it in one way or another.
That's how capitalism works. Exploitation of man, by man.
(That was a pr*paganda statement teached in frormer East Germany, btw. But there's some truth within, I think. It's fitting into the 1980s era, too.)

If you buy a PC in a store or via mail order, it has the minimum configuration needed to satisfy the buyer.

That's because the seller tries to make as much profit as possible without hurting the user experience noticeably.
Unless he/she has a heart or truely cares about the customers satisfaction.
That's also possible, albeit a wonderful exception. Wise people are rare.

To make a computer setup usable in real life, you have to get some of the "optional" things listed, too.
RAM upgrades, bigger HDD, HD floppy drives etc.
With all these "luxury" items installed, you get the true "base line" configuration.
It's still not the end of the line.

I think the only place were this doesn't happening,
is in family operated businesses were the people in charge still have morals and/or a reputation to loose.

The second is in the wholesale, were business men buy their products for later resale.
That's a special area were normal end users aren't supposed to be around, however.

Edit: Research and education sector is also an exception, maybe.
Schools and universities who get money from the city and government can afford proper equipment.
Your 1MB 286 surely was around in school labs of the 1980s..

Edit: We're making a quick jump to 1994 : Added a picture of the minimum requirements for "OS/2 for Windows".
4MB weren't enough, really. 6MB was the sane basis configuration, as the sticker suggests.
This wasn't the optimum RAM expansion yet. 8, 12 or 16 MB wouldn't have hurt, rather the contrary.

The 4MB RAM configuration was what I had been using in my 286 for running Windows 3.1 on plain DOS (that fancy bootloader).
It's a wonder that OS/2 ran with 4MB, at all.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-02-18, 17:15:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-MOS/386

"PC-MOS/386, a successor to PC-MOS, can run many MS-DOS programs on the host machine or a terminal connected to it."

Yet another multitasker for DOS apps, right? No native 32-bit apps?
That would be exactly the opposite to what I dreamed of.

Grzyb wrote on 2023-02-18, 18:55:

"PC-MOS/386, a successor to PC-MOS, can run many MS-DOS programs on the host machine or a terminal connected to it." […]
Show full quote

Jo22 wrote on 2023-02-18, 17:15:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-MOS/386

"PC-MOS/386, a successor to PC-MOS, can run many MS-DOS programs on the host machine or a terminal connected to it."

Yet another multitasker for DOS apps, right? No native 32-bit apps?
That would be exactly the opposite to what I dreamed of.

Not exactly. It wasn't an application like DESQView or QEMM, it was a true operating system, aimed at the 386 processor.

It supports both multi-tasking and multi-user operation.
Something that didn't support OS/2 even, except for that Citrix version.

PC-MOS/386 had a preemptive kernal, could run DOS programs in preemptive multi-tasking (local/remote) - and much more.

But judging by your response, I'm afraid you don't realize how much
that had of an value to professional users and small offices. 🙁

I suppose there's a good reason why these products/solutions weren't marketed torwards end users.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-02-18, 18:05:

Grzyb wrote on 2023-02-18, 01:32:

So, a system that can't be preinstalled on 95% of *stock* configs has no chances for decent market penetration.

IBM never aimed that, I suppose.

Quotation needed!

Because in the last 30+ years, I've read countless times that OS/2 was supposed to replace DOS.
Before OS/2, the PC market penetration by DOS was nearly 100%, so it would be logical for them to aim at nearly 100% of the 286+ market for the OS/2.

Important:
I'm *not* claiming that the hardware requirements were *the only* problem with OS/2.
But they clearly *were* a problem, and - for many years - probably the *primary* one.
The secondary problem - resulting from primary - was poor market penetration.
The tertiary problem - resulting from secondary - was the lack of native software.
And so on...

There's no way to agree that:

Jo22 wrote on 2023-02-05, 07:51:

The hardware requirements weren't the problem, not primary one.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-02-18, 19:25:

But judging by your response, I'm afraid you don't realize how much
that had of an value to professional users and small offices. 🙁

I do realize that very well.
But at the same time I realize that running DOS apps wasn't viable as long-time solution.
We all know that there finally came 32-bit OSes and apps, and I can only regret it didn't happen earlier.

Grzyb wrote on 2023-02-18, 19:40:

Jo22 wrote on 2023-02-18, 19:25:

But judging by your response, I'm afraid you don't realize how much
that had of an value to professional users and small offices. 🙁

I do realize that very well.
But at the same time I realize that running DOS apps wasn't viable as long-time solution.

Do you? Did you ever work with Clipper or dBase?

DOS wasn't important maybe, but DOS application support surely support was.
There were multiple DOS compatible OSes around, which all could execute DOS programs.

The DOS compatibility box in OS/2 was there for a reason. If 16-Bit OS/2 had succeeded, it wouldn't have had been removed in the next releases, I think.

IBM always did, still kind of does, care about legacy support - or rather, legacy customers (long time customers).
OS/2 Warp from 1996 is still being supported, in one way or another.

Grzyb wrote on 2023-02-18, 19:40:

Jo22 wrote on 2023-02-18, 19:25:

But judging by your response, I'm afraid you don't realize how much
that had of an value to professional users and small offices. 🙁

We all know that there finally came 32-bit OSes and apps, and I can only regret it didn't happen earlier.

What exactly makes you think that PC-MOS/386 wasn't a real 32-Bit OS (if you do) ?
Please explain, if possible.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-02-18, 19:50:

Do you? Did you ever work with Clipper or dBase?

As a programmer, not.
But I had plenty of experience with installation/configuration/upgrading/etc. of various programs using .DBF files, safe bet mostly of Clipper origin, even well past 2000.

And there was plenty of nonsense about that...
- the never ending battle to load everyhing high, otherwise - with Novell or Lantastic client - there was not enough memory for the Clipper (cr)app
- even if the battle seemed won, and the Clipper (cr)app was running, it was still possible for it to crash later on, as it tried to dynamically allocate some more memory from the ever-crowded 640 KB pool
- FILES=... in CONFIG.SYS...
- ...but it didn't work in Windows ME, there was the PerVMFiles instead
- SET CLIPPER=... in AUTOEXEC.BAT

...and many more, seriously, all that nonsense would be gone if they were eg. Win32 console apps.

What exactly makes you think that PC-MOS/386 wasn't a real 32-Bit OS (if you do) ?
Please explain, if possible.

Please compile the following code for PC-MOS/386, and run...

1#include <stdio.h>
2
3int tablica[100000];
4
5void main(void) {
6    printf("Hello, I'm a program designed for a 32-bit OS, and I can easily process data structures as large as %d bytes!\n", sizeof(tablica));
7}

Hm. I'm not entirely sure if you guys reading this thread have a real perception
about the professional or commercial use of a multi-tasking OS in the 1980s.

So please let me explain. I hope you don't mind. It's nothing personal.
- I don't claim to be a true professional, either. But I knew people who were.
Hence, I do at least know that I know nothing. The story of computing has much more depth than it seems.

The world of the end user is very different to that of the developers/professionals etc.
If they were here and if they'd speak about their business past and the hardware they worked with,
most Vogons users would perhaps cry out "history revisionists!", "liars!" etc. 🙄

Okay, let's got back on topic.

Let's take PC-MOS/386 again for example, that "DOS multi-tasker".

Do you guys realize how much it relates to another classic OS ? 😀
PC-MOS/386 was essentially to DOS, what MP/M was to the CP/M era.

MP/M was a power-user version of CP/M: A multi-user, multi-tasking OS.
The real deal, so to say. There also was CP/Net, also fascinating.

MP/M could run ordinary CP/M applications on up to 25 terminals.
Simultanously. If it had enough memory.

To give an idea:

https://hackaday.io/project/163683-the-thing- … -mpm-experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP/M

8-Bit MP/M also supported at least a few hundred KBs of memory via bank-switching (in 1979);
not much unlike LIM EMS cards for PCs did provide half a decade later on.

Anyway, most end users likely never had heard of MP/M before.
Because they were busy playing Winter Games on their C64 or something.
So it didn't exist, right ?

The few who had to work with CP/M privately likely never used MP/M, either, it seems.
Left alone because it was out of their reach financially and/or because CP/M 2.2 (=DOS) was good enough for them.

Or maybe, because in the later years, a CP/M emulator like NICE22 on PC was all they ever knew about the platform.
When I mentioned MP/M or CP/M v3 a while ago on vcfed, no one was amazed of its potential, either.
That kind of made me sad. I ran it in Zemu and was blown away by MP/M. But that's another story.

--

Okay, maybe that's all still a bit to theoretical.

Let's take a more practical example, a real-world example.

What was very popular in the 1980s?
Garfield ? Leisure Suit Larry ? Stirrup Pants ? Shoulder Pads ? Boxy cars ? Mullets ? VHS ?

Okay, let's take Mullets! Err, no, rather VHS. 😅

VHS. Video tapes.

Back in the day, video rental stores were a big thing. I hope we can agree so far.
People borrowed VHS, brought them back, asked for films of a specific genre..

If you had a video rental store in the 1980s, how did you manage all the data ?
Which film was out, which was coming back, when the <foo> film would come out.. ?

How did you do this ? By hand, using notes ?
10.000 cassettes and a few hundred customers ? (a wild guess, not my field, pardon)

With a database application.

And a huge database.

If you planned to use a C64 and an 1541 drive for that purpose, then good luck.

This is an application calling for a real computer, with a hard disk drive,
with lots of QIC streamer cassettes in storage for making backups from time to time.

If the database was read-only or if some sort of SHARE.EXE was running,
you could even run the whole VHS database on a cheap serial terminal in your entrance
and simulatously have the 80386 host PC in the back room doing a backup of it while it runs.

In fact, you could run the database program in several rooms, simultanously.
Or in one room, for the two or three employees of yours who service the customers simultanously.

That's why the virtual sessions of MP/M and PC-MOS/386 were so fascinating, by the way! 😁
Back in the day, a single powerful PC could replace a hand full of individual PCs.

You could even use a DOS application with a single-PC license on multiple terminals, without breaking the EULA.
Because, it was, in fact, running on a single PC. Just multiple times. 😉

Moral of the story: One proper 80386 system with enough RAM was worth more than a couple of PCs,
while simulanously being cheaper (in price) than a couple of PCs (say, XTs).

In the example of our VHS rental store, this could have even gone so far that
your secondary outlets merely had a terminal installed.

An acoustic coupler or modem was all it needed to call your PC in the main store.
The employee in the small outlet could see the DOS application on his cheap terminal,
as if it was running on a PC locally.

If the small outlet wasn't far away, a null-modem cable could be used, even.
RS-232 can do about 25m without help. That's enough for a cheap wiring in a large building, at least.
With some amplifiers or converters (RS-422, RS485, etc) it would go even further.

Systems like MP/M or MOS/386 weren't being used in mega corporations, big enterprises (not only).
They were being used down the alley, in your favorite store. You may only have never noticed.

--

RAM.

1MB, I think, really wasn't much memory in retro spect. Maybe for home use, yes.
Even if a 32-Bit OS was around, the need for memory would't have had become any lesser.

Rather the contray, as 16-Bit Windows executables teached us in the past.

Ideally, applications don't use much bits - that's what the OS is supposed to use.

16-Bit applications, run on a 32-Bit host provide best performance/memory usage, perhaps.
- Things like the device drivers, the filesystem driver, the scheduler etc: They all do benefit from 32-Bit, and/or the 80386 instructions.

The application, unless it is doing much math on its own, merely calls functions of the OS.
- The low-level part is then done by the OS.

But even if you're doing much number crunching, it's a task for the FPU, anyway.
Commercial software like AutoCAD and PCB programs supported it for a reason.
(If you can't afford it -that old horse again-, run it on an x87 emulator on your 386 - some of them use 32-Bit code.)

So if we're trying to make best use of a 32-Bits processor,
then we would need to truncate/limit the number of bits in the applications code.

Always using 32-Bit values for each little thing isn't very efficent.
Otherwise, the CPU's external cache must cache unneccesary and large 32-Bit code.

This would make an "all-32-Bit OS" running slower than a plain 16-Bit or a 16-Bit/32-Bit hybrid OS on a 386.

That's why an OS like PC-MOS/386 was written the way it was.

There were a lot of commercial succesful applications for DOS around.
Some of them, like Turbo Pascal, were creating efficient code, even!

But applications grew and grew, more and more data had to be processed.
Even with a 32-Bit software, this trend wasn't stoppable.

Programs needed 500KB each, at the time. With the tendency to grow.
Even with a highly efficient OS, - like PC-MOS/386 kind of was - , the need for RAM was still persisted.

So even if they had been re-compiled freshly for OS/2 or Minix or something,
they would still have been a few hundred KBs in size, maybe even bigger due to 32-Bits.

The need for multitasking those quickly broke the 1MB barrier, no matter what.
Virtual memory at least borrowed some time.

--

80286 vs 80386

That's also why IBM wasn't completely wrong by choosing the 80286.
The 80286 processor was the most advanced 16-Bit processor at the time.
In other words, the "top of the line" x86 processor.

It also was the last one to use the same 16-Bit instruction set of the 8086 used in the IBM PC 5150.
Porting source code from Real-Mode DOS to 16-Bit Protected-Mode was feasible, both were using segmentation.

16-Bit OS/2 was like a "Super DOS", API and ABI wise. The next logical step of an evolution.
Not unlike the IBM AT, which replaced the XT.

So existing products on the market could be adapted without a complete re-write.
Maybe even half-automatically, by using a converter tool.
Turbo Pascal, dBase, Clipper, Lotus 1-2-3, WordStar, AutoCad, P-Cad, etc.

The 80386 surely was remarkable, but it wasn't part of the 16-Bit family.
It was another category. It was x86, surely, but part of another market segment.

Once you start to think in categories like Personal Computing, micro computers, 16-Bit etc.
Then the decisions of IBM do make sense, in a weird kind of way.

The relationship of IBM vs end users was like a relationship between a king and its citizens, maybe.
Once you're in a high position, like a politician, you can hardly relate to the people "down there" anymore.

And that's the big difference to Microsoft I think. They worked with the OEM market, which served end-users.
Like masterminds who worked together with their dealers to serve their.. "customers". IMHO. 😉

The 80386 was highly needed by Microsoft, unlike IBM.
Merely the 80386 could emulate multiple 8086 CPUs simultanously;
to run badly written/crashy DOS and Windows applications side-by-side. 😉
(If they were clean, Concurrent-DOS 286 and the 286 would have had sufficed.)

With 16-Bit OS/2, that never would have been necessary to begin with. No need for V86.
Windows 3.0 application running via WLO DLLs were already natively running on a 286 (or 386).
They could multi-task without any need for V86. Microsoft made a first step here, also, by requiring Windows 3.0 applications to be "clean" (MARK utility).
Same goes for Family API programs (OS/2 programs with a built-in OS/2 runtime; for use on DOS).
They could multi-task, if being run on OS/2.

If all existing native-DOS programs had been replaced by Family API programs,
they could still run on outdated hardware of its time: The OS/2 runtime would make them run on old DOS PCs.
Same goes for 16-Bit Windows applications with that WLO header.

With a bit of exchanging "backup copies", the whole IT world-wide could have had updated ("migrated") over night.
Similarily to how PC-/MS-DOS 3.x made it around the globe. It almost replaced DOS 2.x over night.

The whole concept of Windows NT's NTVDM/WoW and 32-Bit OS/2's VDM/Win-OS/2 wasn't needed at the time.
If everything had continued as planned, both 16-Bit Windows and DOS were going to unify with OS/2 (WLO, Family API) by the end of the 80s.
Late 1980s programs like PDS 7.1 already supported compiling such hybrid EXEs out-of-box.

If 16-Bit OS/2 had succeded as expected, as planned (hoped), the resulting programs could still run fine on an 80386.
- In fact, some Microsoft releases of 16-Bit OS/2 had a 32-Bit HPFS driver to take advantage of the 80386.

The support for the 80386 never was in danger. Later releases of OS/2 could run on both CPUs, maybe.
Windows 2.x also was available for PC/XT, AT and AT 386, after all.
Really, no one was de-valuing the 80386. Rather the contrary, OS/2 as an 80286 OS saw it as a high-end CPU.

That's akin to how Windows 2.x thought highly of the 256 colour modes of VGA, I think.
256c was hi-def to it. It used it to dither in tru-colour, as best at it could.

If history had been slightly different, all current 32-Bit or 64-Bit releases of OS/2
could still run those weird "Microsoft Windows" applications from the distant past just fine.
We would look back at them, maybe, while scratching our heads in wonderment.

That's why I started this thread originally, I guess.
Willow/WLO was an interesting fusion of both 16-Bit worlds.

PS: Attached are pictures of a demo copy of PC-MOS/386 from 1987.
Unfortunately, I can't link here to the download of the "PC-MOS 386 demo".
The Wyse terminal is the kind of serial hardware that was used back then.

Also worth testing isthis solid-state database.
Please run in on an XT class PC first, and then on an AT. 😀
It will give you an idea how demanding a DOS database application can be.
Depending on the XT's specs, it may need minutes to fish out a single entry (BC548, 8086 etc).

If you can't run it, please watch a video of it, at least:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMZK64LaUn0

For me, I didn't see the 286 becoming common place until right around 1989 (being a home user), when the the 486 kicked the 386 off it's mainframe on a chip hill. For many in the late 80s, turbo XTs were the affordable option. So XT class machines until the 486 happened, then the 286 really started to be pushed out the door really cheaply.

In terms of alternate history, yeah I wonder why the 386 wasn't targeted earlier for its full features earlier, other than IBM really wanted to keep their promises on the 286. Nothing wrong with that, I like the 286 too. But it's pretty clear everything done specifically for the 286, including every true multi-tasking DOS on the 286 (or 8086) all died when the 386 was mainstream. That caused the longer life span of MS-DOS.

I think the opportunity for the 32-bit DOS would have been between 1986-1989. The reason was Windows 3.1 with Win32 basically ended up as the adopted 32-bit environment. You just had to run Windows. But you had to do it before Windows 3.0 too, because that proved to be very popular anyway that the trajectory was set, and Microsoft no longer was locked to IBM. In 86-89, Microsoft was still locked to IBM, so it had to be a competitor (maybe Digital Research?) to put out a full 32-bit DOS, and probably even promise a graphical shell early on, kind of like OS/2 was gonna do. You also needed a computer vendor to support it. Maybe Compaq? How much would a 386 Compaq would have cost? And 16-bit MS-DOS compatibility wouldn't have been too hard, as the 386 has the great vm capability, and Digital Research did show they could do MS-DOS compatibility. But I guess looking at those pieces, no one had the foresight to think this way. After all, it seemed the consumer market had way more sway that any professional multi-tasking business environment. And that meant delivering IBM compatible with MS-DOS. Even the 386SX really was treated as another 16-bit chip when it came to just loading MS-DOS onto it at this period of time.

I forgot to mention.. There's an issue I totally have had overlooked.

Early 80386 chips were market "16BIT S/W ONLY".
They had issues executing 32-Bit software kind of.

At least on their rated speed, underclocking may or may not helped.

Intact samples got the "double sigma" marking instead.
Anyway, that story is old coffee to you, likely.

The 386 upgrade boards (Intel Inboard 386 etc) used such 16-Bit 386 chips, it seems.
So they were used in real live, actually. Interesting.
Re: Rockin' XT Clone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Inboard_386

Jo22 wrote on 2023-02-19, 14:29:

I forgot to mention.. There's an issue I totally have had overlooked. […]
Show full quote

I forgot to mention.. There's an issue I totally have had overlooked.

Early 80386 chips were market "16BIT S/W ONLY".
They had issues executing 32-Bit software kind of.

At least on their rated speed, underclocking may or may not helped.

Indeed, there were some silicon issues. Since there was some value in selling them anyway, they just tested and marked them based on their capability. Always was a regular practice it seems.

Another thing I just thought about is how the Linux devs got the specs to the AMD x86-64, and implemented support before the chip was ever released. If there was a demand for a full 32-bit OS, someone could have done the same, and it could have been a game changer. Indeed AMD really did knock Intel off its high horse just by being forward thinking and having software available, and being compatible to x86. Reading this:
https://books.google.com/books?id=h3x5MTRcPls … epage&q&f=false
shows that when Compaq approached Microsoft about getting a 32-bit OS, Gates told them to just wait for Xenix for that, an OS they were already divesting from. It seems like they only cared about making the next OS based on IBM's strategy. And compaq did not wait for a 32-bit OS for their new computer to have on release day, and who knows how well Xenix actually sold on PCs when it was ready. These moves really hampered a 32-bit OS. You can also see in the computer world article people saying they didn't see a point in the new processor and that they really didn't need its capabilities for multi-user. Who knows if those people realized there was no PC compatible OS, the silicon problems, or if this was just IBM sowing discontent through operatives.

the3dfxdude wrote on 2023-02-19, 16:00:

Indeed, there were some silicon issues. Since there was some value in selling them anyway, they just tested and marked them base […]
Show full quote

Jo22 wrote on 2023-02-19, 14:29:

I forgot to mention.. There's an issue I totally have had overlooked. […]
Show full quote

I forgot to mention.. There's an issue I totally have had overlooked.

Early 80386 chips were market "16BIT S/W ONLY".
They had issues executing 32-Bit software kind of.

At least on their rated speed, underclocking may or may not helped.

Indeed, there were some silicon issues. Since there was some value in selling them anyway, they just tested and marked them based on their capability. Always was a regular practice it seems.

Another thing I just thought about is how the Linux devs got the specs to the AMD x86-64, and implemented support before the chip was ever released.
If there was a demand for a full 32-bit OS, someone could have done the same, and it could have been a game changer.
Indeed AMD really did knock Intel off its high horse just by being forward thinking and having software available, and being compatible to x86.

Reading this:
https://books.google.com/books?id=h3x5MTRcPls … epage&q&f=false
shows that when Compaq approached Microsoft about getting a 32-bit OS, Gates told them to just wait for Xenix for that, an OS they were already divesting from.

It seems like they only cared about making the next OS based on IBM's strategy.
And compaq did not wait for a 32-bit OS for their new computer to have on release day, and who knows how well Xenix actually sold on PCs when it was ready.
These moves really hampered a 32-bit OS. You can also see in the computer world article people saying they didn't see a point in the new processor and that they really didn't need its capabilities for multi-user.
Who knows if those people realized there was no PC compatible OS, the silicon problems, or if this was just IBM sowing discontent through operatives.

Thank you very much for the link! It's fascinating to talking to you guys about such things! 😲
Yeah, the times back then were much different than they're now. There was an official side and an inofficial side.

Officially, computer use and the whole work mentality was professional/boring/strict/bureaucratic etc - in short, everyone was wearing suits.
Simultanously, after working day had ended, the very same dead-serious individuals did wear hawaiian shirts, sneakers and did use their computers for crazy stuff at home.
Like playing Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards, while smoking/drinking. Or programming those weird sample applications. 😉
No really, that socalled work-life-sleep balance was different back then as it is now.

If you talked to developers in private, they were completely different sometimes and had their own ideas.
Maybe they'd smiled at you saying "yeah, we already thought about optimizing that using fewer code lines,
but this fellow here needs the extra money to support his family, so we shelved it."
Unfortunately, it's these behind-the-scene stories that usually won't make it into the history books.

In private, an OS/2 developer would perhaps tell you that certain things could be done entirely differently.
Or he/she/they would tell you that a certain feature was scrapped because of this and this.
As usual in life, the official story isn't entirely complete. There are so many details lost in time.

For example, how about that rare add-on MMU mentioned by PC-MOS/386..
Did the OS/2 or PS/2 developers knew about its existance at the time ?
And was there ever a discussion to stick to the 286 processor, but equip PS/2 PCs with such an extra MMU ?
Or was there ever a consideration to add hardware support for IBM's Professional Graphics Controller in Presentation Manager ?
I seriously don't know. But at some point IBM released those "Blue Lightning" chips, Cyrix 486DLC-like upgrade processors, after all.
So using unusual solutions were not unthinkable, apparently.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_386SLC

Speaking of Xenix.. My father still has a copy of it, somewhere in the attic. Or was it Minix ? I must check.
Also interesting of that time was an Unix like OS named "Coherent".
If that Commodore 900 made it into real production, then the Amiga maybe would never had happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_900
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbVjNInzrw8

Quick update. I'm currently experimenting a bit with the memory requirements of OS/2 1.x.
I'm also working on a video, maybe I'll provide a video link later on.

From what I can tell, OS/2 v1.1 behaves like this:

Halt: 640KB+0KB (1MB, but no Extended)
With errors (no DOS box): 640KB+384KB (1MB total)
Nominal, extremely slow: 640KB+1024KB (a bit less even) (2MB total)
Humble: 640KB+2048KB (DOS memory+2MB)
Normal: everything above
Fine: 640KB+3456KB (4MB total)

It seems that the DOS box in size of conventional memory (640KB) is a special case and better left untouched.
Essentially, OS/2 tries to run above 640KB - hence the need for Extended Memory.
It also has a disk cache that wants to see memory.

Each 256KB or so of extra memory make a performance improvent, I think.
What takes minutes to load, now suddenly loads within under a minute.

With a shabby 1MB total, the experience must have been horrible to testers in 1987-1989.
No wonder they wrote such nasty reviews. With 640KB+2048KB, the situation slowly begins to change.
On a low-end AT, I mean. A 10 or 12 MHz 286 PC could compensate for the disk activity (HDD).

Specs: IBM AT Model 5170 emulation, Quadtel BIOS, 8 MHz, ET4000 VGA, WD1003 HDD interface

Pictures attached.

Edit: Here's the video. Beware, it's still warm. 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGHfPhGqWHk

I am new to PCem, so I am unsure how capable it would be when it comes to fully emulating the capabilities of OS/2. I wonder how it does on real hardware? By the time presentation manager came about, wouldn't a high end PS/2 have been more appropriate? Given the memory, and likely speed concerns, I think an IBM AT would be considered outdated. (sure you could clock mod it and deck it out with EMS, but in those days, why?) No wonder Windows 3.0 ended up being more popular, as it was lighter and provided pretty much the same kind of GUI.

I am not that familiar with OS/2. When my dad suggested it to me as a more capable OS, it was out of reach for me at the time. Besides, my own computer was still a turbo XT when Windows 3.1 came out, so... anyway, by the time I had a 486/Pentium, I went for Win95. My interest later switch to Linux and open source programs, by the time OS/2 Warp came out, as the cost is a no brainer. Many years later, I saw Warp in a donation store, I think it was full in box with floppies. I wish I had picked that up, but I wasn't interested in history at the time.

I think the only hope for OS/2 that early on was as a multi-tasking DOS in its command-line shell environment. Windows compatibility seems like it was added as a last ditch effort to attract people. How fast would that be? And the ram requirements just for the DOS side? But besides, for supporting Window 3.0 apps, is it going to be slower than running Windows 3.0 itself?

the3dfxdude wrote on 2023-02-25, 17:45:

I am new to PCem, so I am unsure how capable it would be when it comes to fully emulating the capabilities of OS/2.
I wonder how it does on real hardware?

Hi! I think it would be quite close on real hardware.
The makers of 86Box/PCEm try their best to make everything accurate/cycle-exact.

That's why I had chosen PCem. My OS/2 v1.1 installation is a few years old, also.
That'why why I'm sticking with the old PCem 10.1 for OS/2 1.1, when possible.
It also has a white bar in the right upper corner, indicating HDD access.

the3dfxdude wrote on 2023-02-25, 17:45:

By the time presentation manager came about, wouldn't a high end PS/2 have been more appropriate?
Given the memory, and likely speed concerns, I think an IBM AT would be considered outdated.
(sure you could clock mod it and deck it out with EMS, but in those days, why?)

Yes, that's right. I had chosen the IBM AT as the absolute minimum here,
to get an idea how 16-Bit OS/2 felt on the average DOS PC system of the time.
I selected the 8 MHz model because of ISA speed (8 MHz), just to be sure.
- That's also why I selected OS/2 v1.1 and not the latest v1.3 - I wanted to go back as far as possible.

The slow MFM hard disks of the era aren't emulated, even, however.
PCem 10.1 emulates IDE/WD1003, not the drive mechanics and the limited bandwith.
On the other hand.. Some MFM/RLL HDD controllers used DMA, which makes up for it a bit.

the3dfxdude wrote on 2023-02-25, 17:45:

No wonder Windows 3.0 ended up being more popular, as it was lighter and provided pretty much the same kind of GUI.

Yes, it really was lighter. At least as long as it was running without much applications.
Once commercial applications were running, it got slow, too.

But Windows did PC users allow to try things out first, at least. No need to upgrade for a first test.
Microsoft provided runtime versions of Windows 1 to 3 not without purpose.

Funny that you mention it, though. Windows 3.0 can be run in the DOS box of OS/2 1.x!
That's even in the Windows 3.0 ReadMe file.

If OS/2 uses HPFS filesystem, Windows 3.0 may even run faster here than on DOS.
However, memory (RAM) is a problem again. The DOS box in 16-Bit OS/2 is Real-Mode only.
I'm not sure if anything else than the Real-Mode kernal runs here (WIN /R).

So memory is limited to 640KB again for Windows/Windows applications.
Unless EMS can work inside the OS/2 DOS box. Maybe by installing a driver, an EMS board etc. Not sure. 🤷

I may test this in the future (havent yet). OS/2 can run DOS programs, maybe an EMS driver can be used, too.
IBM offered XMA to EMS programs in the past, afaik. (*XMA is the name that IBM used for XMS)

the3dfxdude wrote on 2023-02-25, 17:45:

I am not that familiar with OS/2. When my dad suggested it to me as a more capable OS, it was out of reach for me at the time. B […]
Show full quote

I am not that familiar with OS/2. When my dad suggested it to me as a more capable OS, it was out of reach for me at the time.
Besides, my own computer was still a turbo XT when Windows 3.1 came out, so... anyway, by the time I had a 486/Pentium, I went for Win95.
My interest later switch to Linux and open source programs, by the time OS/2 Warp came out, as the cost is a no brainer.
Many years later, I saw Warp in a donation store, I think it was full in box with floppies. I wish I had picked that up, but I wasn't interested in history at the time.

I started with OS/2 Warp 3 and found it interesting back then.
However, this was when Win95 was about everywhere already.

I don't think you missed out on a lot here, it's like using Windows 3.1, pretty much.
You can watch YT videos to complete your memory, I think. 😀 👍

32-Bit OS/2 was very fascinating as an alternative to DOS/Windows 3.1x mainly, I think.
HPFS, the long file names, the seamlessly running Windows 3.1 on the OS/2 desktop, never have to worry about DOS memory..

Oh, and emulators.. What I can tell from my search for Windows 3.1 based emulators, OS/2 was quite an early bird here! 😁
Thanks to its solid multitasking capabilities and quick/stutterfree graphics, OS/2 was an early platform for emulators of all kinds, before Win95.

On a poweruser's 486 PC - with classic ISA/VLB hardware (non ISA-PnP), OS/2 v2.x must have been a lot of fun! 😁
Everything was smooth (including DOS games) and responsive. BBS owners surely can sing a song about this.

However, when Windows 95 appeared things changed. OS/2 lost its cool, so to say.
- OS/2 Warp 4 was a bit like Windows 95 in terms of features and look&feel. But with lower hardware requirements.

Warp 4 also had all the network features of "OS/2 Warp 3 Connect" (=the "Windows for Workgroups" of the OS/2 world).
Notable new features were 32-Bit GRADD, DIVE API (some DirectDraw) and Voice Recognition.

It also fixed the message queue issue in which the desktop froze under certain circumstane.
On the downside, Win-OS/2 seemed a bit out of place in Warp 4.

Personally, I think that OS/2 2.11, OS/2 for Windows and OS/2 Warp 3 were the most popular releases.
Everything looks nicely integrated, reasonable. Win-OS/2 looks like a part of the OS/2.
Or maybe I just like the 2D look of old versions.. 😅

the3dfxdude wrote on 2023-02-25, 17:45:

I think the only hope for OS/2 that early on was as a multi-tasking DOS in its command-line shell environment.
Windows compatibility seems like it was added as a last ditch effort to attract people. How fast would that be?
And the ram requirements just for the DOS side? But besides, for supporting Window 3.0 apps, is it going to be slower than running Windows 3.0 itself?

That's tricky to say, because with enough amount of RAM,
OS/2 runs as quick as a MS-DOS 6.22 on a 486 with SmartDrive and QEMM loaded - or maybe, even better than that.

I tested this myself with the old 16-Bit versions myself. Even Microsoft flight simulator 4 ran smoothly in the OS/2 v1.1 DOS box.
Once there were 2MB of Extended Memory in addition to those basic 640KB.

Windows 2.03 -inside OS/2 DOS box- ran totally quick in that 8 MHz IBM AT emulation.
Same would go for Windows 3.0 in the OS/2 v1.2 or v1.3 DOS Box (they are visually siblings of Windows 3.0).

OS/2 v2.0, now 32-Bit, goes even further and integrated Windows 3.0 right from the start.
If you watch closely, you will see that the Win-OS/2 version of early OS/2 2.0 is still Real-Mode - a bit like as if Windows 3.0 was run in a DOS Compatibility box.

Later versions of 2.x upgraded Win-OS/2 subsystem to Windows 3.1 level and added support for Standard Mode and Pseudo Enhanced Mode.
They also inclued Adobe Type Manager, an expensive must-have add-on for Windows 3.0 users of the time.

IBM went so far to support Win32s and WinG and other extensions in Win-OS/2.

PS: What's also interesting.. I read that the 16-Bit Protected Mode code of OS/2 1.x was essentially hand made.
Many attempts to replace it by 32-Bit Protected-Mode code made by compilers resulted in worse performance.
So the 16-Bit code was simply left in place in 32-Bit OS/2. Since it was Protected-Mode code, it didn't cause much trouble, anyway.

Quick update. Found something interesting (OS/2 vs NT).
It's about the Windows NT demo of October 1991.

"Successfully getting through the NT setup isn’t as trivial as it ought to be, so here are a few hints:

The SCSI CD-ROM should use ID 2 so that the default device selected by boot floppy can be used without any intervention.

The hard disk may be either SCSI or IDE. Smaller is better (about 500MB IDE, 1GB SCSI).

The VM must have a serial port enabled, otherwise NT will refuse to boot.

The VM must have at least 12MB RAM assigned, and preferably 16 or more, or NT will crash or hang in various interesting ways.
Yes, NT was bloatware, requiring much more RAM than its closest competitor, OS/2.

Most importantly, NT will crash if the hard disk isn’t formatted—this is probably a bug in the installer.
NT insists on creating a swap file, even when the system has plenty of RAM. If there’s no C: drive with a FAT partition,
NT will print an error message and then get into a bugcheck loop and finally crash."

Source: https://www.os2museum.com/wp/installing-oct-91-nt-from-cd/

Edit: I've uploaded the aformentioned video about the OS/2 RAM performance..

Jo22 wrote on 2023-02-26, 04:51:

The VM must have at least 12MB RAM assigned, and preferably 16 or more, or NT will crash or hang in various interesting ways. Y […]
Show full quote

The VM must have at least 12MB RAM assigned, and preferably 16 or more, or NT will crash or hang in various interesting ways.
Yes, NT was bloatware, requiring much more RAM than its closest competitor, OS/2.

Most importantly, NT will crash if the hard disk isn’t formatted—this is probably a bug in the installer.
NT insists on creating a swap file, even when the system has plenty of RAM. If there’s no C: drive with a FAT partition,
NT will print an error message and then get into a bugcheck loop and finally crash."[/i]

That's a good laugh, because I do remember people saying back then that NT was not ready, and that it was a memory hog. I think NT 4.0 was when the first version people started paying attention. And it was the first version I tried. It did feel a bit slow to me 😀 I guess computers caught up enough to run it memory and all. It's all about those pentiums.

Which kind of makes me wonder, can anyone really make a full 32-bit OS that runs reasonably on the early 386 systems of the day? One that is not bloated and slow? It could be that OS/2 was the best shot at this actually, only to fail because IBM failed badly in the market. Linux arrived kind of late and took some time to develop to a point that made it useful too.

Jo22 wrote:

PS: What's also interesting.. I read that the 16-Bit Protected Mode code of OS/2 1.x was essentially hand made.
Many attempts to replace it by 32-Bit Protected-Mode code made by compilers resulted in worse performance.
So the 16-Bit code was simply left in place in 32-Bit OS/2. Since it was Protected-Mode code, it didn't cause much trouble, anyway.

Makes sense actually... given they started with a sucky 286, all that effort went into making OS/2 actually work. It ended up leaner. But they seemed to underestimate that the market was not ready for big ideas of high end computing. This gives even further reason why there continued to be life in the 16-bit coding and things like Windows was good enough. Too bad IBM didn't want to compromise. Microsoft figured out they were wrong about the market.

the3dfxdude wrote on 2023-02-27, 02:56:

That's a good laugh, because I do remember people saying back then that NT was not ready, and that it was a memory hog. I think […]
Show full quote

Jo22 wrote on 2023-02-26, 04:51:

The VM must have at least 12MB RAM assigned, and preferably 16 or more, or NT will crash or hang in various interesting ways. Y […]
Show full quote

The VM must have at least 12MB RAM assigned, and preferably 16 or more, or NT will crash or hang in various interesting ways.
Yes, NT was bloatware, requiring much more RAM than its closest competitor, OS/2.

Most importantly, NT will crash if the hard disk isn’t formatted—this is probably a bug in the installer.
NT insists on creating a swap file, even when the system has plenty of RAM. If there’s no C: drive with a FAT partition,
NT will print an error message and then get into a bugcheck loop and finally crash."[/i]

That's a good laugh, because I do remember people saying back then that NT was not ready, and that it was a memory hog.
I think NT 4.0 was when the first version people started paying attention. And it was the first version I tried. It did feel a bit slow to me 😀
I guess computers caught up enough to run it memory and all. It's all about those pentiums.

Which kind of makes me wonder, can anyone really make a full 32-bit OS that runs reasonably on the early 386 systems of the day? One that is not bloated and slow?
It could be that OS/2 was the best shot at this actually, only to fail because IBM failed badly in the market.
Linux arrived kind of late and took some time to develop to a point that made it useful too.

Yeah, Linux really took a while to evolve. I had a hard time getting it to work on my improvised hardware. 😅
Everything non-industry standard didn't properly work. And the XFree86 R11 caused me trouble, afaik.

OS/2 was a smiliar beast, perhaps. But it was at least as compatible as a Windows 3.1 with its few built-in drivers.
So classic PCs had no trouble running on OS/2 2.x at the time, if the hardware was plain DOS or BIOS compatible.
- Linux didn't like the BIOS at the time. It never used it as a fallback, always wanted to do things its own way.. Like a teenager. 😁

NT.. NT 4.0 and 3.1 were my first versions. In retrospect, I think I've merely used them because my dad had them and because of curiosity, to be honest.
It was simply cool to get to know the "other Windows"! 😁 Then, soon Windows 98 was around and looked so much more functional.

the3dfxdude wrote on 2023-02-27, 02:56:

Makes sense actually... given they started with a sucky 286, all that effort went into making OS/2 actually work. It ended up le […]
Show full quote

Jo22 wrote:

PS: What's also interesting.. I read that the 16-Bit Protected Mode code of OS/2 1.x was essentially hand made.
Many attempts to replace it by 32-Bit Protected-Mode code made by compilers resulted in worse performance.
So the 16-Bit code was simply left in place in 32-Bit OS/2. Since it was Protected-Mode code, it didn't cause much trouble, anyway.

Makes sense actually... given they started with a sucky 286, all that effort went into making OS/2 actually work. It ended up leaner.
But they seemed to underestimate that the market was not ready for big ideas of high end computing.
This gives even further reason why there continued to be life in the 16-bit coding and things like Windows was good enough.
Too bad IBM didn't want to compromise. Microsoft figured out they were wrong about the market.

Yeah, I wished I knew what was going on in their heads at the time. 😕
I mean, let's have a look at MS Flight Simulator.. None of the DOS versions was 32-Bit! Why? 😳
Considering how small the main executable was, an 80386 or x87 or Waitek enhanced version would have been possible.
Like it was in the CAD business. Version 4 from '89/'90 did fit on a single diskette, still! Without the scenery and model designer, I mean.
Otherwise, the hardware support of FS 3/4 was great (flight sticks, ET4000 SVGA, Hercules InColor et cetera pp). 😁 👍

Edit: I'm a bit confused right now.
It seems that I "talked" about this CPU thing a long time ago, but I have no memories about it. Spooky.
Microsoft Flight Simulator 4 processor type differences?

Speaking about being leaner/performance.. There was one early IBM PS/2 that had an 80386, the IBM PS/2 Model 80.
Ironically, it didn't have a standard RAM expansion, however. So in the end, the Model 60 and 70 were *perhaps* a bit easier to max out.

Here's the information I've found:

"The Model 80 was among the first series of PS/2s (30/50/60/80) released,
and since it was the only machine of that series with a 386 machine,
it was effectively IBMs first i386-based PC (the desktop Model 70 came a few months later).
Over the years, there were a lot of different variants of the Model 80, ranging up to 486 processors,
and third-party vendors offered main board replacements. [..]"

"[..] The Model 80's memory modules are truly unique: no other machine in the PS/2 line uses them!
The board has two memory slots, and IBM originally offered 1MB and 2MB modules;
The 4MB modules introduced later with the 25MHz variant are also usable,
but the 16MHz board will use only half of them... "

Source: http://john.ccac.rwth-aachen.de:8000/alf/ps2_80041/