keith@imagen.UUCP (Keith Rich) (03/14/89)
Dylan Mcnamee seems to be asking most of the same questions I have been asking around about, but I'd like to add a couple of questions which he skipped. 1) What are the issues which determine whether a clone can run OS/2? There seem to BIOS and EGA/VGA dependencies, but it's difficult to identify the specifics. A recent Byte talks about this, but leaves many unanswered questions. Although I don't envision heavy OS/2 use soon, I'd rather not paint myself in a corner. 2) What are the issues regarding clone components, particularly motherboards? One MB issue seems to be the type of RAM used. There are various limits on the MB itself, and the costs and performance of expansion memory boards is not always clear. 1 Mbit chips seem to be cheaper than SIMMs, but usually incur the need for expansion memory at a lower limit. I'll accept direct E-mail responses, but I'd prefer on-line discussion. Thanks, Keith Rich Imagen
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (03/16/89)
In article <3177@imagen.UUCP> keith@imagen.COM (Keith Rich) writes:
<
<Dylan Mcnamee seems to be asking most of the same questions I have been asking
<around about, but I'd like to add a couple of questions which he skipped.
<
< 1) What are the issues which determine whether a clone can run OS/2?
< There seem to BIOS and EGA/VGA dependencies, but it's difficult to
< identify the specifics. A recent Byte talks about this, but leaves
< many unanswered questions. Although I don't envision heavy OS/2
< use soon, I'd rather not paint myself in a corner.
The prime factor is this: OS/2 *doesn't use* the BIOS ROMs!!
This means that you can only run a version of OS/2 that has been
"written" for your brand of computer. IBM OS/2 and say, Dell OS/2
aren't interchangeable.
In short, OS/2 is hardware dependent. If you plan on using it, buy a
machine from a vendor that *has* OS/2 available for it *now*. Don't buy
from someone who says "we'll have our OS/2 available in a few months"
unless you want to gamble the they are telling the truth.
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Shortdhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (03/17/89)
In article <1309@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >The prime factor is this: OS/2 *doesn't use* the BIOS ROMs!! >This means that you can only run a version of OS/2 that has been >"written" for your brand of computer. IBM OS/2 and say, Dell OS/2 >aren't interchangeable. ...Interestingly enough, it turns out the the use of the ROM-BIOS makes operating systems *more* finicky about what hardware you run them on, not less. A good example is the varous UNIXes. One of the last things people worry about when running these is hardware- compatibility. If OS/2 is finicky about the machine, it's because it was deliberately written to be finicky. UNIX isn't. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) (03/18/89)
In article <1309@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes:
]
]The prime factor is this: OS/2 *doesn't use* the BIOS ROMs!!
]In short, OS/2 is hardware dependent. If you plan on using it, buy a
]machine from a vendor that *has* OS/2 available for it *now*. Don't buy
]Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
Baloney. We run IBM OS/2 1.0 and Presentation Manager on
IBM AT's, Compaq's of all sorts, AST's of all sorts, ITT Xtra's
and I run Presentation Manager on a 4 year old Korean AT klone
prototype. The BIOS rom's play a *big* part. Took 3 different
BIOS's (Phoenix finally worked) to get the klone to work.
Biggest hardware problem with OS/2 1.1 is the EGA/VGA card.
Many do *not* work.
--
Randy Suess
randy@chinet.chi.il.usjbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) (03/20/89)
In article <6173@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > >...Interestingly enough, it turns out the the use of the ROM-BIOS >makes operating systems *more* finicky about what hardware you run them >on, not less. A good example is the varous UNIXes. One of the last >things people worry about when running these is hardware- >compatibility. > >If OS/2 is finicky about the machine, it's because it was deliberately >written to be finicky. UNIX isn't. I beg to differ with you, however I will :-) (this is not a flame) MS-DOS uses the bios on the computer to do I/O with all the devices. Some programs bypass the bios and go directly to the hardware, specifically the video card for speed. (I know all about the special backup programs which use the floppy). This usually doesn't create problems on DOS. However, Xenix (and Unix) on these machines totally ignore the bios, and go directly to the hardware. If the hardware is not compatiable with what the OS is looking for, it won't work. I will mention that video cards have this problem as well as hard disk controllers. There are several EGA and VGA cards which do not work with Xenix. Likewise there are a few hard disk controllers which do work on DOS but don't work on Xenix. JB -- Jonathan Bayer Beware: The light at the end of the Intelligent Software Products, Inc. tunnel may be an oncoming dragon 19 Virginia Ave. ...uunet!ispi!jbayer Rockville Centre, NY 11570 (516) 766-2867 jbayer@ispi.UUCP
johnl@ima.ima.isc.com (John R. Levine) (03/21/89)
In article <7956@chinet.chi.il.us> randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) writes: >In article <1309@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >]The prime factor is this: OS/2 *doesn't use* the BIOS ROMs!! > Baloney. We run IBM OS/2 1.0 and Presentation Manager on > IBM AT's, Compaq's of all sorts, AST's of all sorts, ITT Xtra's > and I run Presentation Manager on a 4 year old Korean AT klone > prototype. The BIOS rom's play a *big* part. ... Only partial baloney. Microsoft's OS/2 doesn't know anything about devices, so it's up to each vendor to add device drivers. IBM defined a protected mode BIOS and made OS/2 talk to that. Other vendors go straight to the hardware. I don't know how IBM OS/2 works on an AT, since the AT's BIOS wasn't written for protected mode, but it certainly does work. History buffs will recall that this is the same situation that originally applied with MS-DOS. There were lots of non-BIOS DOS machines such as the Tandy 2000. When IBM became a dominant vendor, everybody went to BIOS compatibility. Who knows if the same thing will happen for OS/2. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869 { bbn | spdcc | decvax | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.something You're never too old to have a happy childhood.
burton@mitisft.Convergent.COM (Philip Burton) (03/24/89)
In article <3511@ima.ima.isc.com>, johnl@ima.ima.isc.com (John R. Levine) writes: > In article <7956@chinet.chi.il.us> randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) writes: > >In article <1309@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: > >]The prime factor is this: OS/2 *doesn't use* the BIOS ROMs!! > > Baloney. We run IBM OS/2 1.0 and Presentation Manager on > > IBM AT's, Compaq's of all sorts, AST's of all sorts, ITT Xtra's > > and I run Presentation Manager on a 4 year old Korean AT klone > > prototype. The BIOS rom's play a *big* part. ... > > Only partial baloney. Microsoft's OS/2 doesn't know anything about devices, > so it's up to each vendor to add device drivers. IBM defined a protected > mode BIOS and made OS/2 talk to that. Other vendors go straight to the > hardware. I don't know how IBM OS/2 works on an AT, since the AT's BIOS > wasn't written for protected mode, but it certainly does work. > I just glanced at a recent artcle in MIPS magazine, which is a new one to me, and it mentioned that OS/2 benchmark tests for some no-name 386 systems used the Compaq version of OS/2 if the vendor didn't provide one. Anyone care to speculate on how this was technically possible. If we knew the "rules", we could safely buy no-name 386 boards or systems, and still have OS/2 available. Phil Burton Convergent Technologies
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr) (03/25/89)
In article <7956@chinet.chi.il.us> randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) writes: | Baloney. We run IBM OS/2 1.0 and Presentation Manager on | IBM AT's, Compaq's of all sorts, AST's of all sorts, ITT Xtra's | and I run Presentation Manager on a 4 year old Korean AT klone | prototype. The BIOS rom's play a *big* part. Took 3 different | BIOS's (Phoenix finally worked) to get the klone to work. | Biggest hardware problem with OS/2 1.1 is the EGA/VGA card. | Many do *not* work. Randy, most people do not have access to alternate versions of ROMs, particularly legally. And there are really people who can't change a ROM... most people would rather buy something that works the first time. Then there are people like us who do everything the *hard* way. -- bill davidsen (wedu@crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr) (03/25/89)
In article <3511@ima.ima.isc.com> johnl@ima.UUCP (John R. Levine) writes: | History buffs will recall that this is the same situation that originally | applied with MS-DOS. There were lots of non-BIOS DOS machines such as the | Tandy 2000. When IBM became a dominant vendor, everybody went to BIOS | compatibility. Who knows if the same thing will happen for OS/2. I think history buffs will realize that you are completely wrong. The Tandy 2000 *has* BIOS compatibility, but no hardware compatibility. We have run a lot of software on these beasts, and they work fine for anything which doesn't bypass the BIOS. Notably the video is completely different if you go to the hardware. Many vendors thought that limiting the system to 640k was stupid, since MS-DOS will use the whole MB, and the 2000 runs 768k of DOS just fine. -- bill davidsen (wedu@crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) (03/25/89)
In article <13420@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: ]In article <7956@chinet.chi.il.us> randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) writes: ] ]| Baloney. We run IBM OS/2 1.0 and Presentation Manager on ]| IBM AT's, Compaq's of all sorts, AST's of all sorts, ITT Xtra's ]| and I run Presentation Manager on a 4 year old Korean AT klone ]| prototype. The BIOS rom's play a *big* part. Took 3 different ]| BIOS's (Phoenix finally worked) to get the klone to work. ] ] Randy, most people do not have access to alternate versions of ROMs, ]particularly legally. And there are really people who can't change a ]ROM... most people would rather buy something that works the first time. ] I think you mistook me.... The original article said that the ROMS played no part in the operation of OS/2. I was just demonstrating that it did, in that the same hardware would or would not work depending on the ROM. There was another article wondering if Compaq OS/2 only worked on Compaqs. Well, Compaqs will work on any AT klone that IBM's will. As I mentioned before, just about any decent klone will run OS/2 1.0 or 1.1 if it has a decent ROM. The biggest problem is the display card, as OS/2 seems to really munge around with it. If someone wants to know if their OS/2 will run on a particular piece of equipment, and they have access to that equipment, just boot the first install disk. If it gets all the way to where it wants you to do things to the hard disk, the hardware probably works ok. -- Randy Suess randy@chinet.chi.il.us
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr) (03/28/89)
In article <8029@chinet.chi.il.us> randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) writes: | I think you mistook me.... The original article said that | the ROMS played no part in the operation of OS/2. I was just | demonstrating that it did, in that the same hardware would or | would not work depending on the ROM. Well, I impression was that the original poster was looking for a clone which would run "out of the box," so in that sense I thought your response was not really to the point. However, having clarified the situation, I thought that OS/2 was a multi-tasking o/s. Since the BIOS routines seem to stop the CPU while i/o takes place, does OS/2 *really* use them? No wonder it's slower than UNIX, the CPU is waiting most of the time... -- bill davidsen (wedu@crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
egs@u-word.UUCP (04/05/89)
Written 3:17p Apr 3, 1989 by bright@Data-IO.COM
-In article <29177@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@buit4.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes:
-<The biggest problem with UNIX on the PC is there is no single version.
-<Different versions came from different sources and perform (pardon my
-<repetitiveness) differently.
-
-Unix suffers from two killer problems:
-1. Lack of media compatibility.
- Silly unix vendors invariably invent a new file format. I haven't
- seen one yet where you could write a 5.25" disk under one
- vendor's unix and read it on another's.
Well, I don't know about that. Nearly every system I know can
read a standard 1600 bpi 9-track tar/cpio tape. And in the PC/386
world, all systems can write a MS-DOS floppy and read each others tar
and cpio floppies. ( case in point, I received some source from a
vendor on a Xenix tar floppy, and read it on my Microport system, with
no problem what so ever )
As to putting a file system on a 5.25" floppy, what's the point.
It's not reliable enough or large enough to support a unix file system (
and I know about Brandons home directory being on the 5.25 on the old
ncoast )
-2. Lack of binary compatibility.
- Can't compile on one unix and run on another, even if the
- hardware is the same. Source code compatibility simply isn't
- good enough.
Well, for the PC/386 machines, you have binary compatablity
from nearly all the vendors today. My Microport system is currently
running the text prep tools from the Interactive 386/ix distribution (
which is not currently installed on any hardware ) with no problems at
all. Bell Tech, Microport, Interactive, AT&T, Everex, and soon SCO
will share the same ABI for the 386. AT&T and Interactive can
currently run Xenix binaries on their release of System Vr3.2
The same thing is happening for the 88000 from Motorola. The
manufacturers of 88000 machines have gotten together and defined an ABI
for the CPU. It is also happening on other processors, such as the
AMD29000, and the Sun SPARC.
-The irritating thing is that these problems are easilly solvable, but
-unix vendors suffer badly from nih.
And they are being solved, or are solved already. See above.
-An MS-DOS application developer can write and test a piece of code, and
-can run it on 25 million DOS machines. Unix application developers have
-to buy a dozen different machines, recompile and test on each, and stock
-inventory on a dozen different permutations. This isn't practical for the
-small developer, which is where most applications come from.
And with careful coding ( not that common in the PC world ) any
vendor can write an application that can be ported between System V
machines in less than a day, and to more diverse systems ( such as BSD
based systems ) in less than a week.
By the way, JBA Inc. is a "small developer." Just a point of
reference.
------
Eric Schnoebelen, JBA Incorporated, Lewisville, Tx.
egs@u-word.dallas.tx.us ...!killer!u-word!egs
"...we have normality"..."Anything you still can't cope with is
therefore your own problem..." -- Trisha McMillian, HHGG