swonk@ccicpg.UUCP (Glen Swonk) (10/25/89)
I am trying to get a copy of OS/2 v1.1 for a 386 clone. My question is, where do I get OS2 and what are the hardware requirements for running OS2? It appears that you must go to the board manufactuer to get a "version" that is used with the board. General questions: Why can't I get a copy of OS2 at Egghead like I can get a copy of MS-DOS? What are the problems associated with using special disk drivers with OS2? How much memory is the minimum necessary to run OS2? What is necessary to run PC-NFS on an OS2 machine? thanks -- Glenn L. Swonk CCI Computers (714)458-7282 9801 Muirlands Boulevard Irvine, CA 92718 uunet!ccicpg!swonk
madd@world.std.com (jim frost) (10/26/89)
In article <44825@ccicpg.UUCP> swonk@ccicpg.UUCP (Glen Swonk) writes: |I am trying to get a copy of OS/2 v1.1 for |a 386 clone. [...] |General questions: I'll answer those which I can: | Why can't I get a copy of OS2 at Egghead | like I can get a copy of MS-DOS? Probably the biggest reason is that Egghead is popularity-driven and OS/2 just isn't very popular. Whether this will change is anybody's guess, although I suspect the poor response time with respect to tracking hardware improvements (ie when will the 386 version be out? before or after the 586 is shipping?) and its general bugginess is likely to hamper OS/2 for awhile to come. OS/2 is actually fairly mature given its short lifetime, but it was a mistake to develop it for the brain-damaged 286 hardware. This mistake may well allow other operating systems -- UNIX in particular -- to capture a large share of the high-end PC market that could have been OS/2's. You might note that Microsoft bought a hefty percentage of SCO recently. | How much memory is the minimum necessary to run OS2? Depends on the application. I believe it's pretty much a blanket statement to say that you want 2mb minimum. If you plan to run large applications or to run several at once, get more. You will not believe how painful it is to deal with OS/2 paging. I thought ten people on a VAX 11/750 was bad. | What is necessary to run PC-NFS on an OS2 machine? You can probably run it in the compatibility box but I wouldn't bet on it, or on the likelihood that it'll run well if it runs at all. I don't believe there is an OS/2 version of PC-NFS, but you can contact Sun Microsystems at 1-800-USA4SUN (it's tough to forget that one) and ask them. jim frost software tool & die madd@std.com
johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) (10/26/89)
In article <44825@ccicpg.UUCP> swonk@ccicpg.UUCP (Glen Swonk) writes: >I am trying to get a copy of OS/2 v1.1 for a 386 clone. ... > Why can't I get a copy of OS2 at Egghead > like I can get a copy of MS-DOS? DOS uses I/O interfaces built into the BIOS ROM on PC compatibles. IBM's OS/2 uses the new ABIOS, others' OS/2 talk directly to the devices. Since different PC designs have somewhat different peripherals, and there isn't a BIOS layer to mask the differences, each vendor's OS/2 has to be tailored to the specific hardware. > What are the problems associated with using > special disk drivers with OS2? You need an OS/2 driver for the disk. If the only disk you have is a nonstandard one, you may run into chicken-and-egg problems as you need to install OS/2 to create a copy of OS/2 with the driver for the special disk so you can boot. > How much memory is the minimum necessary to run OS/2? It depends on what you plan to run. Anywhere from two meg to 10 or more. > What is necessary to run PC-NFS on an OS2 machine? A wait of several years, as far as I can tell. The design of OS/2 apparently makes it unexpectedly difficult to interface to NFS. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl Massachusetts has over 100,000 unlicensed drivers. -The Globe
ander@pawl.rpi.edu (Michael R. Primm) (10/27/89)
I believe that Santa Cruz Operation is a spin-off of Microsoft (I seem
to remember seeing all sorts of Microsoft copywrite messages the last
time I saw SCO XENIX)....I don't believe they bought any more than they
already owned....(could be wrong, though..)
--Mike Primmsilver@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Andy Silverman) (10/27/89)
Over the summer PC Week had an article which said OS/2 2.0 is due out early next year and is written for the 386 only, which among other things, means an end to the 64K segment limit. Maybe with a little luck we'll get the DOS box into a V86 mode session, so we can have more 350K free. As far as minimum memory goes for OS/2, IBM says 4MB are needed for the base system, but having worked in a company with a heavy OS/2 base, PC support in the company was recommending a minimum of 8 to do anything useful. However, that was mostly because everyone was using extended edition with the Comm Manager and other CPU/Memory-intensive applications... +-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Andy Silverman | Internet: silver@eniac.seas.upenn.edu | | "All stressed out and | Compu$erve: 72261,531 | | nobody to choke." | | +-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
madd@world.std.com (jim frost) (10/27/89)
In article <1989Oct26.215045.21846@rpi.edu> ander@pawl.rpi.edu (Michael R. Primm) writes: |I believe that Santa Cruz Operation is a spin-off of Microsoft [...] |I don't believe they bought any more than they |already owned....(could be wrong, though..) SCO was originally a marketing firm, if I remember right. Microsoft wasn't having much luck with their UNIX and they handed it off. I don't know how much of SCO Microsoft used to own, but I do recall reading in a trade rag that Microsoft had purchased something like an additional 14% in the company, and that Gates had stated that the action in no way meant that they were deviating from their OS/2 commitment. I looked for the article but was unable to find it; it was probably in UNIX World or Byte sometime during the summer months. About OS/2 2.0: if it comes out soon and it is reliable, it may be just what the doctor ordered for OS/2. Unfortunately those applications which take advantage of the 32-bit flat address space won't work under previous versions. Oh well, we all knew that the 80286 protected mode architecture was rather brain-damaged anyway; what they ought to do is make MS-DOS use the protected-mode address space and give up on it for OS/2, whose functionality really requires a bit more in terms of hardware. Happy hacking, jim frost software tool & die "The World" Public Access Unix for the '90s madd@std.com +1 617-739-WRLD 24hrs {3,12,24}00bps
feustel@well.UUCP (David Alan Feustel) (10/30/89)
OS/2 Version 1.2 senses the presence of a 386 and saves 32 bit registers
when a 386 is detected.
--
E-mail: feustel@well.sf.ca.us FAX: 1-803-854-18121
{ucbvax,apple,hplabs,pacbell}!well!feustel WORK: 1-803-843-1500x4504mms00786@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (10/31/89)
About OS/2 (Oh, a stew) using Abios etc. Does that mean that the clone I purchased from Zeos will not run OS/2? They don't have their own OS/2, and neither does Mylex as far as I know. (My Zeos came with a Mylex MB). Thanks, Milan mms00786@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
markd@gamer.UUCP (Mark Davidson) (11/05/89)
In article <111700163@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>, mms00786@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > About OS/2 (Oh, a stew) using Abios etc. > > Does that mean that the clone I purchased from Zeos will not run OS/2? > They don't have their own OS/2, and neither does Mylex as far as I know. > (My Zeos came with a Mylex MB). > No, your clone might run OS/2. I myself have a Northgate 16 MHz 80386 with an Adaptec 2372 RLL (!) controller and a Microscience 65MB hard drive. With only 2 MB of RAM, I am able to install and run IBM (True Blue) OS/2 Extended Edition 1.1 without a problem (although with only 2 MB, it runs like a dead dog). Personally, I run SCO Xenix, but I had this copy of OS/2 I had received from Microsoft and I wanted to see if it would run with my RLL controller. Sure enough, it did! Mark E. Davidson, ...!novavax!gamer!markd
tth@unc.cs.unc.edu (Terry Hudgins (NCNB -- sfw)) (11/10/89)
In article <191@gamer.UUCP> markd@gamer.UUCP (Mark Davidson) writes: >In article <111700163@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>, mms00786@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >> >> About OS/2 ...[stuff deleted] > >No, your clone might run OS/2. I myself have a Northgate 16 MHz 80386 with One of our original ATs has an Adaptec 2372, Microscience HH1060 (65MB) replacement disk setup but I use Ontrack's Disk Manager to get it ready for DOS and DOS uses the Ontrack device driver. How did you low level the drive for OS/2? Where did the OS/2 device driver that knows about the Adaptec/Microscience come from? I don't understand! What are the steps?!? >an Adaptec 2372 RLL (!) controller and a Microscience 65MB hard drive. With I experimented with a copy of OS/2 1.1(with PM) back when IBM first shipped it, mostly just looked at the OS itself and the Borland Sidekick that came with it. I ran it on a 20MHz model 70 with 2Meg that was sitting around. This was my "let's see if OS/2 looks useful" test period and I thought that since the machine was fairly fast that the test would be "ok." Well.. the MS/IBM OS screen writes were responsive but the Sidekick speed was like sludge! I could go for coffee while OS/2 tried to construct a screen. This seems stupid in hindsight but would more memory have made the basic screen writing performance better? I've got more simms lying around that I could put in for a test. What's the guess guys and gals? >Mark E. Davidson, ...!novavax!gamer!markd Terry Hudgins UNC-CH tth@unc.cs.unc.edu
hdan@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Dan Higdon) (11/11/89)
OS/2 runs faster the more RAM you give it. I'm running with 3 megs, and it's still slow, so I can imagine your speed with only 2! Throw in another megabyte or two before you give up on os/2.