Quick update. I found out there was an 386 "monitor" software called VM/386 that ran multiple sessions of DOS.
A review can be read here: https://virtuallyfun.com/2023/06/13/re-visiting-vm-386/

Quick update. Here's a video about Willow (WLO) on real hardware, running on OS/2 1.3. Even has real CRT!
https://youtu.be/oOkrRw5HJ1o?t=292

Hi again. I just want to say that I still have interest in OS/2 and Willow.
It's just because of personal stuff that everything takes so long.
I'll have to tidy up my "man cave", for example, so I can continue doing experiments.
That 286 running OS/2 1.x is basically finished, I just must find some time to reassemble everything.
I need to order some shelves, too, so I can walk in the room again..
I hope I can get things done until christmas. 😅

Jo22 wrote on 2023-04-25, 10:55:

Grzyb wrote on 2023-04-23, 22:39:

NOW, A CHALLENGE! Find me a price list - from back in the era - offering a 286 PC with more than 1 MB of RAM. […]
Show full quote

NOW, A CHALLENGE!
Find me a price list - from back in the era - offering a 286 PC with more than 1 MB of RAM.

Because I seriously doubt if such machines were ever sold stock...
just picked a random magazine, and found the first listing with a 286:
dell286.jpg
(BYTE, March 1991, page 2)

Edit: Speaking of that "Budget no-name 286-12 PCs with Hercules-compatible monochrome graphics would be as low as $600 retail.":
My father indeed had such a configuration, too! In circa 1989/1990, I think.. But with an 80MB HDD and 4MB of RAM (because, full memory expansion?).

Hi again, long time no see! 😃

I *think* I've found a photo of my father's office PC, which was a 286 with a model F keyboard and an MDA monitor.

Re: Using a Commodore 1084S-P2 with a VGA-based IBM compatible

Quick update. DOS Days has those CompuAdd ads, that seem interesting.
https://www.dosdays.co.uk/topics/compuadd.php

What's missing though are memory prices. Memory upgrades are mentioned as "option", at best.
Those prices did apparently change on a daily/weekly basis and hadn't been printed, thus.
So customers had to ask for them via phone or fax or in person, I suppose.

Edit: Exception seems to be price for individual (!) DRAM chips in older issues..
That's not a complete memory expansion in the closer sense, though, maybe.

Hi again, found some old archived mailing list (?) from '91 when OS/2 2.0 wasn't officially released yet.
The participants discussed WLO 0.9 and 1.0 and OS/2's ability to run unmodified Windows applications.
Has quite some technical information, too.

Quick update. The 286 pizzabox PC for OS/2 is almost finished.
The room is still a mess, though, so I can only do a quick demonstration for now.
Pictures attached.

Quick update. Here's a wiki that describes the working of the various WLO runtimes.
https://wiki.restless.systems/wiki/Windows_Li … raries_for_OS/2

Quick update. An InfoWorld article (May 1991) covering WLO can be read here:
https://hardcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.c … windows-30-buzz

Quick update. Another interesting link.
It tells the tragic story about Windows 2, among other things.
https://anotherboringtopic.substack.com/p/the … -part-2-windows

Edit: Related..
https://anotherboringtopic.substack.com/p/the … soft-windows-2x

The Rise of Windows 1.0
https://anotherboringtopic.substack.com/p/the … ft-windows-part

Fall of OS/2
https://anotherboringtopic.substack.com/p/the-fall-of-os2
https://anotherboringtopic.substack.com/p/fal … tended-thoughts

Also notable:

[..]"And IBM further shot itself in the foot with its stubborn refusal to leverage its vast RAM production capacity to help further the installed base of OS/2 and get it to a critical mass.
Given the massively prohibitive cost of the RAM required to run OS/2, IBM could have started bundling OS/2 for free or massively discounted with RAM sticks.
n the words of a product manager for an OS/2 word processor called DeScribe, “OS/2 without memory was a one thousand dollar upgrade.
Bundled with a handsomely discounted 4MB memory stick, it was a million copy seller.”21

Because the price of RAM had quadrupled in the late 80s, with 1 MB sticks going from 100 dollars to 400 dollars, IBM would have profited handsomely from giving OS/2 away with RAM and driven market adoption of OS/2.
Sadly for IBM, nobody at the top ever thought about adopting this strategy.

On May 27th, 1988 Microsoft even released a special version of Windows 2 that took advantage of the powerful new 386 processor to allow for multi-tasking multiple DOS programs, if you had the RAM for it.
It also gave the user many of the features of OS/2, although it was still behind the Mac, Amiga, or even the Atari ST in many areas.
Although still three years away from the 3.0 release that would rocket it to the moon, Windows 2 gave the user a GUI that ran well in a single megabyte of memory and only required 512 kilobytes as minimum specs." [..]

Source: https://anotherboringtopic.substack.com/p/the … l-of-the-ibm-pc

Quick update. This note by Nina K. is also a very fine read! ^^
It was written just a month ago and covers the story of Windows 2.

Hi there! After 10 pages it's hard to continue to top something, but I'll try to continue.
For example, let's take the confusion about the different versions of Windows 2..
To my current understanding, it *roughly* was like that.

- Windows/386 (v2.01) was an OEM version and shipped with/was made for Compaq Deskpro 386 (1986 model)

- Windows 2.03 was sold as retail product (for all IBM compatibles)
- Windows/386 (v2.03) was sold as retail product (for all AT 386 PCs)

All three are from 1987, still and are made by original Windows 2 team.

After Windows 2.10 was released, Windows 2.0 was discontinued.
Instead, Windows 2.1x was sold in /286 and /386 editions from 1988 onwards.

- Windows/286 (v2.10, v2.11)
- Windows/386 (v2.10, v2.11)

The /286 edition used 64KB of the HMA of the IBM PC/AT, if available.
The /386 edition contained a VM hypervisor and could simulate LIM 4 EMS (imagine as EMM386/task manager/Win2 VM/DOS VMs).

All versions ran on all PCs, but had different capabilities.
Running WIN86.COM in the /386 editions started Windows 2.x itself only.
EMS memory provided by an existing EMM could be used that way.

This is very interesting in combination to the Microsoft MACH 10 and MACH 20 accelerator cards.
Users could buy Windows/386 straight away and then upgrade their PC, step-by-step.

The MACH 10 had an fast 8086 CPU, a bus mouse port and an external switch to enable/disable it.
It was designed for MS Windows 1.x, so that users didn't have to suffer so much.
- IMHO a plain 4,77 MHz XT running Windows isn't fun, not without a V20 or a Turbo button at least.

The MACH 20 had a quick 80286, a bus mouse port, an 8-Bit daughter board header and an 16-Bit connector at the end.
That 16-Bit connector could be used to attach up to 3,5 MB of RAM (LIM 4 EMS), which made the card full-size.
Since Windows 2.x had supported EMS (LIM 4 and EEMS), it makes sense to think that it was designed with it in mind.

The 8-Bit header was used by at least one third-party product, an HD floppy controller with a BIOS chip (1,2MB and 1,44MB support).

However, maybe OS/2 support was also planned on a second thought? Who knows.
Some one should think that a second IRQ/DMA controller, an RTC and AT BIOS is needed for AT compatibility.

Edit: I forgot to mention that Windows 2 editions for Japanese PCs, such as NEC PC-9801 had also been made.
Maybe there are also some more OEM versions, too.

More information:
https://www.siliconindia.com/news/technology/ … 5937-cid-2.html

https://www.neowin.net/news/a-quick-look-back … s-of-the-1980s/

MICROSOFT MACH 10 - 8086 upgrade for 8088 - missing parts

Quick update. This RAM board here is interesting: Re: ISA XMS/EMS Memory Extension / Expansion cards: Now Running without Driver / Documentation :-)

"The board includes several EMS drivers and a look-up table concept that permits EMS programs to run in the DOS compatibility box of OS/2"

That's a reference to OS/2 1.x, obviously.
With EMS being available, both Windows 2.x and 3.0 could be used in a productive way on 16-Bit OS/2.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-02-13, 20:30:

With EMS being available, both Windows 2.x and 3.0 could be used in a productive way on 16-Bit OS/2.

Pretty sure that was the idea all along. Those of us within the interest are aware of the infamous Mission: Impossible parody video promoting Windows/386 as the solution for multitasking professionals until OS/2 was ready for prime. Among the bits of computing history I find fascinating are how applications could utilize expanded memory before direct support via a memory manager in a real mode OS like DOS or Windows up to 2.03. I also like Windows 3.0's real mode being backwards compatible with applications written for older Windows versions.

BaronSFel001 wrote on 2025-02-18, 16:07:

Among the bits of computing history I find fascinating are how applications could utilize expanded memory before direct support via a memory manager in a real mode OS like DOS or Windows up to 2.03.

I was a bit horrified when I was reading the manual for Borland C++ 2 (I think) and it was explaining how you might tell it how much EMS to use and avoid it trying to use the same memory as your RAM disk (or something like that), and that XMS support was disabled by default. I wasn't aware of how primitive things were back then - I suppose I skipped over this by going straight from a machine with only 640K to a 386 (and by having my dad do just about all that complex memory management stuff at first!).

(apologies if I already mentioned that in this thread previously)

doshea wrote on 2025-02-19, 05:08:

BaronSFel001 wrote on 2025-02-18, 16:07:

Among the bits of computing history I find fascinating are how applications could utilize expanded memory before direct support via a memory manager in a real mode OS like DOS or Windows up to 2.03.

I was a bit horrified when I was reading the manual for Borland C++ 2 (I think) and it was explaining how you might tell it how much EMS to use and avoid it trying to use the same memory as your RAM disk (or something like that), and that XMS support was disabled by default. I wasn't aware of how primitive things were back then - I suppose I skipped over this by going straight from a machine with only 640K to a 386 (and by having my dad do just about all that complex memory management stuff at first!).

(apologies if I already mentioned that in this thread previously)

+1

😃👍

BaronSFel001 wrote on 2025-02-18, 16:07:

I also like Windows 3.0's real mode being backwards compatible with applications written for older Windows versions.

Absolutely. In the 90s, as a Windows 3.1 user, Windows 3.0 seemed so old and obsolete to me but now my perception has changed a bit.

Learning about things such as Watcom WIN386 extender, OS/2 1.3 and the WLO runtime for Windows 3.0 applications made it much more interesting.

Suddenly I see things like virtual memory, 16-Bit Protected-Mode compatibilty, 32-Bit Windows applications etc.

Windows 3.0 with its three different modes meant that Windows 3.0 applications itself were very humble.

In most cases, they've used 8086 or 80286 instructions which were available on almost all PCs (XTs via 8018x or V20/V30).

And because they didn't tinker with memory directly (if well written),
they ran in all sorts of processor mode (real-mode, V86, 16-Bit PM, 32-Bit PM).

They also made no direct use of ring schemes, thus.
So they could run on any ring in a Protected-Mode OS.

Those using 32-Bit Protected-Mode Extenders were the exception, of course.
They needed and 386SX or higher. AutoCAD R11 (Windows test build) used this, SQL Windows, FoxPro etc.

But they needed lots of power, anyway, so it was okay.
386 upgrade cards for 8088-based PC/XTs did exist since late 80s, after all.
Here in 386 Enhanced-Mode, Windows 3.0 even provided virtual memory (swap file).

What's cool about Windows 1.x/2.x is, that it can offer full power on all PCs to Windows applications.

- If you had an original PC, an optional EMS board could make Windows 2.x applications use multiple megabytes. Provided that they were EMS aware.

- On a PC/AT, same as above but many chipsets of late 80s had offered EMS in hardware and Windows 2.x /286 could use 64KB of HMA.

- On an AT/386, same thing as above, but the /386 edition had brought its own DOS multitasker/EMS memory manager.

The very positive thing about EMS was that it was independent of the processor mode. It was a window, a pass-through.
It could also work on any architecture, such as PC-98 or a CP/M-86 computer.
Because EMS-aware applications only needed an EMM (expanded memory manager) to talk to.

Where exactly page frame was, was secondary. On a PC, it usually is in UMA (640KB-1MB).
But it can also be located in conventional memory (1-640KB) or in HMA (1024+64KB minus 16 bytes).

That what makes it so interesting, I think. It doesn't touch system memory.
It thus works very well in restricted environments, such as simulated DOS environments on top of other OSes.

And Windows 3.0 is like an even more advanced runtime that allows programs to run in many environments.:
EMS-aware Windows 2.x applications can continue to work on Windows 3.0, even.

Edit: Windows 3.1 in 16-Bit Protected-Mode mode was also still very co-operative.
It could run with an existing EMS memory manager, tolerated VCPI..
DESQView/X had supported a 16-Bit Windows 3.1 VM, too.

Edit: But enough talking of me. 😅 Here are two interesting articles (I think).

https://www.os2museum.com/wp/the-importance-of-emm386/

Micro Live - RM Nimbus edited version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4KRrZxwX78

The RM Nimbus PC-186 was an 80186-based PC, running Windows 1.x.
It was popular in schools in UK/GB of the 1980s.
There also was an Nimbus compatibility utility for later PC/AT models, so existing 186 software could be continued to be used.

Edit: Sorry about the poor writing, I do lack concentration right now.

Quick update. This also very interesting, I think!

Windows/386 on the first Deskpro 386s? That sounds unlikely. As far as I know, Windows/386 came out around September 1987, while […]
Show full quote

Windows/386 on the first Deskpro 386s? That sounds unlikely.
As far as I know, Windows/386 came out around September 1987, while the Deskpro 386 was introduced in September 1986.

Windows/386 (version 2.01) includes the following string:
“The Intel 80386 CPU in this computer does not reliably execute 32-bit multiply operations.
Windows will USUALLY work correctly on computers with this problem but may occasionally fail.
Contacting your hardware service representative and replacing your 80386 chip is strongly recommended.”
I have trouble finding a reliable information about which stepping or steppings had the multiply problem.
If it was the B1 stepping then it doesn’t tell us much, only that Windows/386 worked (maybe) on the B1 stepping.

There’s also another error string: “Error: Unsupported Intel 80386 CPU version” — and that strongly implies
that there were some 386 steppings that were just too broken or non-functional to even run Windows/386 at all.

Update: Windows/386 2.01 tests for the presence of the XBTS instruction.
If XBTS is found, implying a 386 B0 stepping or earlier, Windows/386 refuses to run with the above error message.
So… I don’t know. It’s clear that Microsoft considered the A-steppings and the B0 stepping too broken to run Windows/386,
but that doesn’t say whether those steppings were fundamentally incapable of running Windows/386 or just too buggy for practical use.

https://www.os2museum.com/wp/theres-more-to-t … #comment-363297

Jo22 wrote on 2025-04-12, 22:09:

https://www.os2museum.com/wp/theres-more-to-t … #comment-363297

Wow, I might at one point have wished I had so much money I could buy the latest hardware the moment it came out, but it looks like that would be a recipe for hitting lots of hardware bugs! How generally available were these buggy steppings of the 386 - were they just in the early releases to developers, or in regular, commercially-available machines?

doshea wrote on 2025-04-14, 11:42:

Jo22 wrote on 2025-04-12, 22:09:

https://www.os2museum.com/wp/theres-more-to-t … #comment-363297

Wow, I might at one point have wished I had so much money I could buy the latest hardware the moment it came out, but it looks like that would be a recipe for hitting lots of hardware bugs! How generally available were these buggy steppings of the 386 - were they just in the early releases to developers, or in regular, commercially-available machines?

Hi, I'm not sure, but I'm curious, too!
I'm afraid I'll have to look for more information in older books. 😅

So far, I've found a bit more information:
https://www.pcjs.org/blog/2015/02/23/
https://www.pcjs.org/documents/manuals/intel/80386/

The Intel Inboard 386 was another early piece of hardware using the 386. It was released in 1987.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Inboard_386

The early Deskpro/386 surely saw some Windows use eventually, still, I think.
But since Windows 2.x didn't use much 32-Bit code except for V86 mode,
it might have run most of the time with a few crashs, occasionally.

Except for, say, Xenix 386 or AutoCAD 386 there wasn't that much 32-Bit software in 1986/1987 yet.

Concurrent DOS 386, PC-MOS/386 and OS/2 1.1 didn't use much 32-Bit code yet, if at all.
It was more about using V86 mode here and accessing more memory (via Protected-Mode).

Windows 3.x in Standard-Mode (WIN /S, 16-Bit Protected-Mode) was similar, but Windows 3.1 did always run krnl386.exe on a 386 or higher.
(It was possible to run dosx.exe directly, as described here).

Edit: Also interesting is the history of Xenix here, MS' early OS.
https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-history-of-xenix