andy@garnet.berkeley.edu (Andy Lieberman) (06/30/89)
A fried of mine is going to buy some software that only runs on OS/2 Presentation Manager Version 1.1. The software vendor said he will have to buy a real IBM or a Compaq. He doesn't actually need the machine until about September. Is there any chance of being able to get OS/2 1.1 on a generic 386 (e.g., Mylex) by then? Or is he stuck paying the extra $ for a Compaq? Please e-mail responses and I will post a summary. Thanks in advance, Andy Lieberman Library Systems Office
randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) (07/03/89)
In article <328@icdi10.UUCP> fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) writes: ]In article <25904@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> andy@garnet.berkeley.edu (Andy Lieberman) writes: ]->Is there any chance of being able to get OS/2 1.1 on a ]->generic 386 (e.g., Mylex) by then? Or is he stuck ]->paying the extra $ for a Compaq? ]don't know about Presentation Manager 1.1. Isn't that a straight IBM product ]that only knows about IBM hardware? Noop. I run OS/2 1.1 on a generic klone 386 sytem consisting of a 20 mhz AMI mother with AMI bios and a VEGA VGA card with no problems. I have installed 1.1 on a number of non-IBM systems, and the only problems arise with poorly implemented EGA cards and funky keyboard stuff in the bios. Generally, if you can boot the install disk all the way to the install screen, it will run. -- Randy Suess randy@chinet.chi.il.us
chasm@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US (Charles Marslett) (07/04/89)
In article <328@icdi10.UUCP>, fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) writes: > You've just put your finger on the reason for OS/2 anything. > Your friend should also buy some stock in IBM. He has seen the light. > > You gotta keep those pesky competitors out there in the cold. > > PS there should be some additional vendors supporting OS/2 eventually, but I > don't know about Presentation Manager 1.1. Isn't that a straight IBM product > that only knows about IBM hardware? Actually, PM is a microsoft product and already supports several non-IBM peripherals (Epson printers, many 3rd party extended VGAs, Video 7 8514/A and Compaq's non-register compatible 8514/A, as well as several high end disk controllers). In fact, the earliest release did not even run on IBM hardware (it required a Compaq or close Compaq clone). At one time I had it installed on my Everex Step/20, but since I have replaced it with Interactive's 386/ix (even big hard drives fill up when you put several OSs on them ;^). > -- > This is my house. My castle will get started right after I finish with news. > 26 Warren St. uucp: ...{bpa dsinc uunet}!cdin-1!icdi10!fr > Beverly, NJ 08010 domain: fred@cdin-1.uu.net or icdi10!fr@cdin-1.uu.net > 609-386-6846 "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..." - Schiller =========================================================================== Charles Marslett STB Systems, Inc. <== Apply all standard disclaimers Wordmark Systems <== No disclaimers required -- that's just me chasm@killer.dallas.tx.us <== soon to be attctc.dallas.tx.us I think
jimb@athertn.Atherton.COM (Jim Burke) (07/06/89)
In article <8840@chinet.chi.il.us> randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) writes: > :> Noop. I run OS/2 1.1 on a generic klone 386 sytem consisting :> of a 20 mhz AMI mother with AMI bios and a VEGA VGA card with :> no problems. I have installed 1.1 on a number of non-IBM systems, :> and the only problems arise with poorly implemented EGA cards and :> funky keyboard stuff in the bios. :> Generally, if you can boot the install disk all the way to the :> install screen, it will run. Ditto. I have run OS/2 and presentation manager on a variety of clones. As long as IBM has to support AT bus machines, it will be very hard for them to produce software that doesn't run on clones. -- Jim Burke (408) 734-9822 (temp) | I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' jimb@Atherton.COM | no babies, Miss Scarlet! {decwrl,sun,hpda,pyramid}!athertn!jimb |
andy@garnet.berkeley.edu (Andy Lieberman) (07/08/89)
In article <25904@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> I wrote: >A fried of mine is going to buy some software that only runs >on OS/2 Presentation Manager Version 1.1. The software >vendor said he will have to buy a real IBM or a Compaq. > >He doesn't actually need the machine until about September. >Is there any chance of being able to get OS/2 1.1 on a >generic 386 (e.g., Mylex) by then? Or is he stuck >paying the extra $ for a Compaq? > >Please e-mail responses and I will post a summary. > >Thanks in advance, >Andy Lieberman >Library Systems Office I've included all the responses I got because many have interesting tidbits which may be of interest to anyone looking into OS/2, even if they already have a machine to run it on: From: Henry Clark <C0025HC@umrvmb.umr.edu> Tandy supposedly has a version of OS/2 for its computers, but I don't know what version it is or on which of its machines it'll run. Dell also has a version, I think, for their computers, but I think its SE 1.0. If you wait until fall, IBM is going to release OS/2 ver 1.2 with improved file system preformance and other upgrades. If you're going to use OS/2 EE, BE SURE to buy plenty of RAM (you'll need at least 3 Meg and you'll want double that) and be sure to run it on a 386 machine. Although it'll run on a 286, a 386 adds some pep to it. Henry henryc@cs.umr.edu Acknowledge-To: <C0025HC@UMRVMB> ---------- From: ames!scubed!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ncrclm!ekneidel@cad.berkeley.edu There are several other brands of PCs which have PM available. They are all premium machines due to the way that PM was licensed. Two that come to mind are NCR (my personal favorite) and Zenith. Both of these machines are good ones. I don't know if any other brands will have PM available. Eric Kneidel ---------- From: microsoft!leefi@uunet.uu.net "Generic 386" is often a vague term. OS/2 will work on the mythical machines called "100% IBM compatible". Many are like this, many are not. OS/2 is more hardware dependent than DOS. IBM's OS/2 release is very intimate with IBM hardware. An early release of the Microsoft OS/2 included in the OS/2 Software Development Kit when this was available, is much more forgiving with OEM hardware. As an example, the kernel shipped with SDK 1.06 was the IBM OS/2 1.10 standard edition release. It had problems on many clone systems (but ran fine on many others, too). The kernel shipped in SDK 1.1 was the Microsoft OS/2 1.10 release, equivalent in functionality to IBM's 1.10 standard edition release, but more forgiving to some OEM hardware, among other things. This has eliminated 99% of all compatibility problems with the machines of SDK owners. There have been very few (I can recall three) reported problems with this kernel on OEM hardware. And this Microsoft kernel is what OEMs use as a starting point when adapting OS/2 for their hardware. Note however that OS/2 is an OEM licensed product and is not available from Microsoft retail. (The SDK thing was basically a preliminary beta release; it is no longer available.) Contact your OEM for availability of OS/2. So, OEMs distribute OS/2 with their hardware (or as an upgrade to previous hardware customers of theirs); the OEMs ensure that OS/2 works on their hardware platforms. Were I buying a new machine and was interested in running OS/2, I'd get hardware from an OEM which ships OS/2; failing that, I'd test the system with OS/2 myself before buying it. -- Lee Fisher, leefi@microsoft.{wa.us,com,uucp,beaver.washington.edu} {uw-beaver,decvax,decwrl,intelca,sun,tikal,uunet}!microsoft!leefi disclaimer: Plch vlghajbe', vlta'pu'be', pa'jlHpu'be! -------------- From: chasm@killer.dallas.tx.us (Charles Marslett) I have run it on an Everex Step/20 (386 version) and it seemed to work correctly -- at least it behaved exactly like it did on the Compaq 386 box across the room. I have heard of some problems with older designs of 286 boxes (the AT&T 63xx machines prior to the WGS series, for example), but the newer ones all seem to handle the INT 15H calls well enough to keep OS/2 happy. A good EGA or VGA card will make things easier too. (I'll vouch for STB's, but almost everyone is under pressure to make sure their cards work with OS/2, so almost any name brand either does work, or you can get a free BIOS upgrade, I would expect.) =========================================================================== Charles Marslett STB Systems, Inc. <== Apply all standard disclaimers Wordmark Systems <== No disclaimers required -- that's just me chasm@killer.dallas.tx.us <== soon to be attctc.dallas.tx.us I think --------- From: Duncan Murdoch <dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu> Take a look in PCMagazine (or was it Byte?) around March or April of this year. They had a pair of articles in successive issues about how to put together a cheap OS/2 capable machine. It is possible, but there are a lot of little details you have to be careful about; things like which chip is used for the serial port, which kind of video card, etc. Duncan Murdoch ----------- From: cdp!jeff@garnet.berkeley.edu There are lots of machines that run OS/2 -- just take a look at the fine print in the 286/386 ads of your favorite computer magazine. I just spent several months porting some software to OS/2, and the machine I was using was so generic that it didn't even have a nameplate on the front. ---------- From: thompson@galileo.arc.nasa.gov PC Magazine periodically review 386 machines. In recent reviews they list the availability of OS/2 from the hardware vendors of those machines in thier tables of information. I believe that a number of lower-cost vendors, such as AST, Everex, and Wyse, now offer OS/2 (in addition to IBM and Compaq). I'd suggest looking through the last few issues of PC Magazine in the library to find a company which sells inexpensive 386 machines and offers a version of OS/2 for them. In general you cannot take IBM OS/2 and run it on any 386 machine. I am now using OS/2 1.0 on my Compaq 386. It is distinctly friendlier than DOS (on line help for error messages and some operating system functions), and WordPerfect for OS/2 runs more briskly than WordPerfect for MS DOS did. I have had no difficulties with it so far, and DOS software seems to run pretty well in DOS compatability mode (but perhaps a bit more slowly than under DOS), although shelling out to DOS can cause a crash. I hope you find this helpful. Kevin Thompson thompson@galileo.arc.nasa.gov
fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) (08/09/89)
In article <25904@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> andy@garnet.berkeley.edu (Andy Lieberman) writes:
->A fried of mine is going to buy some software that only runs
->on OS/2 Presentation Manager Version 1.1. The software
->vendor said he will have to buy a real IBM or a Compaq.
->
->He doesn't actually need the machine until about September.
->Is there any chance of being able to get OS/2 1.1 on a
->generic 386 (e.g., Mylex) by then? Or is he stuck
->paying the extra $ for a Compaq?
You've just put your finger on the reason for OS/2 anything.
Your friend should also buy some stock in IBM. He has seen the light.
You gotta keep those pesky competitors out there in the cold.
PS there should be some additional vendors supporting OS/2 eventually, but I
don't know about Presentation Manager 1.1. Isn't that a straight IBM product
that only knows about IBM hardware?
--
This is my house. My castle will get started right after I finish with news.
26 Warren St. uucp: ...{bpa dsinc uunet}!cdin-1!icdi10!fr
Beverly, NJ 08010 domain: fred@cdin-1.uu.net or icdi10!fr@cdin-1.uu.net
609-386-6846 "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..." - Schillerwjr@ftp.COM (Bill Rust) (08/28/89)
In article <25904@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> andy@garnet.berkeley.edu (Andy Lieberman) writes:
->A fried of mine is going to buy some software that only runs
->on OS/2 Presentation Manager Version 1.1. The software
->vendor said he will have to buy a real IBM or a Compaq.
->
->He doesn't actually need the machine until about September.
->Is there any chance of being able to get OS/2 1.1 on a
->generic 386 (e.g., Mylex) by then? Or is he stuck
->paying the extra $ for a Compaq?
I am currently running OS/2 1.1 on an Everex Step 20 386 machine. It
seems to work ok. This is the MS/IBM SDK version 1.1 which is supposed
to be the same as the retail version. Until recently, I had it on a
generic 286 machine. On both machines I haven't had any trouble
running OS/2 itself, with the possible exception of one very obscure
bug. The compatibility box is a different question. On the 286
machine, it would randomly hang when I was using the box. I was told
that it had something to do with switching between real and protected
modes. So, I stopped using it entirely on the 286 and have never tried
it on the 386. The best thing for your friend to do is try it before
the money back guarantee runs out on the hard ware.
Bill Rust (wjr@ftp.com)ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Raymond Dunn) (08/30/89)
In article <328@icdi10.UUCP> fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) writes: >In article <25904@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> andy@garnet.berkeley.edu (Andy Lieberman) writes: >->A fried of mine is going to buy some software that only runs >->on OS/2 Presentation Manager Version 1.1. The software >->vendor said he will have to buy a real IBM or a Compaq. >->Is there any chance of being able to get OS/2 1.1 on a >->generic 386 (e.g., Mylex) by then? > >You've just put your finger on the reason for OS/2 anything. >Your friend should also buy some stock in IBM. He has seen the light. > >You gotta keep those pesky competitors out there in the cold. > >PS there should be some additional vendors supporting OS/2 eventually, but I >don't know about Presentation Manager 1.1. Isn't that a straight IBM product >that only knows about IBM hardware? There are no intrinsic reasons why you can't get OS/2 for your favourite AT compatible clone other than the fact that the clone manufacturer hasn't got around to releasing it as a commercial product yet (for all sorts of good and bad reasons). There is no conspiracy. The product *is* available to cloners from MS in a similar way to MSDos. That includes both the 1.0 and 1.1 with presentation manager releases. The only difference in IBM's release is it comes in the "extended edition" which includes SQL and communications facilities. It *is* dangerous however to expect one manufacturer's OS/2 to run on another's machine. "Features" (otherwise known as incompatibilities) of the hardware are often overcome by the BIOS (which is there for just that purpose!). With MSDos, some features occasionally must additionally be overcome in IO.SYS. With OS/2, hardware compatibility is of particular concern, because OS/2 must take over completely from the BIOS in order to fully support multi-threading device drivers. OS/2 can thus not even take advantage of a compatability layer implemented in the BIOS, and should be regarded as the ultimate ill-behaved program (even OS/2's use of the BIOS during booting has shown up BIOS compatibility problems on some machines). To try to dispell *some* of the myths surrounding OS/2 and PS/2, the only thing PS/2 has that is specifically connected to OS/2 is the ABIOS. PS/2 machines have two BIOSes. The CBIOS, or Compatibility BIOS, essentially implements all the fucntionality of an AT class BIOS. The ABIOS, or Advanced BIOS (not to be confused with Phoenix's use of the term for their AT BIOS), implements some of that multi-threading functionality, as well as some new features. The ABIOS is *NOT* intrinsically required for OS/2. PS/2 versions of OS/2 make use of this ABIOS, but AT versions include that functionality as part of the loaded operating system. In contradiction to the impression IBM creates, MSDos and OS/2 can each run equally well on both AT class machines and PS/2's, and will both be supported on up-coming EISA implementations. Disclaimer: The above should be taken as personal opinion of the writer, may not reflect that of Philips Electronics Ltd., and is given for information purposes only. -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!uunet!philmtl!ray Philips Electronics Ltd. | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext: 2347 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455 St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090