robert4@garfield.UUCP (Robert Pitt) (01/06/88)
-
I am about to buy an 80286 machine but have come across a number of
conflicting claims about the prowess of machines based on that chip. I had
gathered that an 80386 processor was required to run OS/2, and a number of
salespeople I have asked are of the same understanding. Yet Tandy -in
several brochures- advertises its 3000HL and its "enhanced" 3000 (both 80286
machines) as "OS/2 ready". Does this mean that there are two kinds of 80286
machines (with different architecture/options??), one which will run OS/2 and
one which will not? How can one tell, short of trying to run OS/2? Can an
80286 non-compatible be upgraded to run OS/2?
(My apologies for asking what I'm sure is a facile question for hardware
gurus, but my knowledge of computer architecture ends at stuffing slots,
nudging ROM sockets and soldering the occasional resistor on my 8088.)
Rob
=========================================================================
rpitt@mun.bitnet or R. D. Pitt
robert4@garfield.uucp Dept. of English
robert4@garfield.mun.cdn Memorial University
rpitt@kean.mun.cdn St. John's, Newfoundland
70721,320 on CIS Canada A1B 2B4
========================================================================== rkh@mtune.ATT.COM (Robert Halloran) (01/07/88)
From article <4347@garfield.UUCP>, by robert4@garfield.UUCP (Robert Pitt): > I am about to buy an 80286 machine but have come across a number of > conflicting claims about the prowess of machines based on that chip. I had > gathered that an 80386 processor was required to run OS/2, and a number of > salespeople I have asked are of the same understanding. Yet Tandy -in > several brochures- advertises its 3000HL and its "enhanced" 3000 (both 80286 > machines) as "OS/2 ready". Does this mean that there are two kinds of 80286 > machines (with different architecture/options??), one which will run OS/2 and > one which will not? How can one tell, short of trying to run OS/2? Can an > 80286 non-compatible be upgraded to run OS/2? IBM, in its infinite wisdom :-), decided that since the PS/2 50 & 60 were going to be the mainstays of their new line, and given the base of AT's in the field, that OS/2 should be written for the '286. There is NO 386- specific version of OS/2 available or publicly planned, to my knowledge. Bob Halloran ========================================================================= Classic UUCP: {ATT-ACC, rutgers}!mtune!rkh DDD: (201)251-7514 Domain-style: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM evenings ET USPS: 19 Culver Ct, Old Bridge NJ 08857 Disclaimer: These opinions are solely MINE; any correlation with AT&T policies or positions is coincidental and unintentional. Quote: "There were incidents & accidents, there were hints & allegations" -- Paul Simon =========================================================================
karthur@codas.att.com (Kurt_R_Arthur) (01/07/88)
In article <4347@garfield.UUCP> robert4@garfield.UUCP (Robert Pitt) writes: > > I am about to buy an 80286 machine but have come across a number of > conflicting claims about the prowess of machines based on that chip. I had > gathered that an 80386 processor was required to run OS/2, and a number of > salespeople I have asked are of the same understanding. Yet Tandy -in > several brochures- advertises its 3000HL and its "enhanced" 3000 (both 80286 > machines) as "OS/2 ready". Does this mean that there are two kinds of 80286 > machines (with different architecture/options??), one which will run OS/2 and > one which will not? How can one tell, short of trying to run OS/2? Can an > 80286 non-compatible be upgraded to run OS/2? The information I have, gleaned from several different sources is: 1. OS/2 is an 80286 operating system. It does not support 80386 in native mode. This means the 80386 will just emulate the 80286 under OS/2 (and be faster), but the op- erating system will not be able to take advantage of the 80386's advancements. A version of OS/2 that supports the 80386 is not due until 1990 or so. 2. All 80286 _CHIPS_ are able to run OS/2. It is up to each manufacturer, however to perform the modifications nec- essary to make an OS/2 flavor run on their machine. At least in theory, this means Compaq OS/2 may not work on IBM hardware, etc. MS-DOS uses this theory too, but as we know, though, in practice, each DOS is almost identical 3. There are three kinds of 80286 machines, one far more common than the other two: The first kind is the old familiar AT and its clones. It supports 16 bit data paths, and a few other advanced wrinkles. This kind of machine will run OS/2 (provided of course someone customizes a version of the operating system for it). The second kind, which is relatively unknown, is the XT compatible that uses an 80286. Off- hand, the only 2 machines I know of that use an 80286 in an XT compatible are an ITT Xtra and one of the new Tandy 1000's (TX, maybe?). These machines are the standard XT with an 80286 in place of the 8088, 8086 or V20. This species of PC will never run OS/2 without the addition of a 80286 or 80386 accelerator board that supports OS/2 (like a Microsoft Mach-20). The third kind is the infamous IBM XT-286. This machine is really an AT-clone in an XT box. An XT-286 will run IBM's OS/2. A lot of the industry confusion about OS/2 is caused by 2 different reasons, one admirable, the other understandable: 1. When the original AT was released, IBM promised those purchasers they would receive an operating system tailored for the machine. This lack of 'orphaning' for the users who bought early is laudable and evidence of one more reason IBM is the best-selling computer company: they don't abandon people. IBM has taken a LOT of heat from the press for not skipping the 80286 and just writing OS/2 for the 80386, but a promise made is a promise kept (another example of the non-orphaning is the DOS compa- tibility box: I heard the coding of the box took more time than all of the rest of the operating system combined, and delayed release of OS/2 by 1.5 years). 2. IBM tied the announcement of OS/2 to the announcement of the PS/2 series of computers. This 'linking' of concepts with similar names, announcements, etc. serves to confuse the market, which parlays directly into IBM sales. IBM wanted to create the illusion that OS/2 is tied to the PS/2 (thereby racking up sales that might go to clones). Sorry if this message is too long, but I did want to set the record straight. I'm sure I'll take flames for actually complimenting IBM above (grin)! Kurt Arthur Software Services of Florida, Inc.
hundt@sandolphon.bellcore.com (Tom Hundt) (01/07/88)
>gathered that an 80386 processor was required to run OS/2, and a number of >salespeople I have asked are of the same understanding. Yet Tandy -in NO! A 286 is sufficient! (Windows-386 on the other hand...) >several brochures- advertises its 3000HL and its "enhanced" 3000 (both 80286 >machines) as "OS/2 ready". Does this mean that there are two kinds of 80286 >machines (with different architecture/options??), one which will run OS/2 and That's exactly what IBM *wants* you to think -- namely, that to run OS/2 you need PS/2 or at least the microchannel bus -- which is *false*. Now, what I'm waiting for is another round of BIOS compatibility problems when the "real" OS/2 comes around... I hope it doesn't happen! [regular .signature unavailable due to crashed disk] hundt@bellcore.bellcore.com ihnp4!bellcore!hundt
johnl@ima.ISC.COM (John R. Levine) (01/07/88)
In article <4347@garfield.UUCP> robert4@garfield.UUCP (Robert Pitt) writes: > I am about to buy an 80286 machine but have come across a number of >conflicting claims about the prowess of machines based on that chip. I had >gathered that an 80386 processor was required to run OS/2, and a number of >salespeople I have asked are of the same understanding. ... OS/2 runs on 286 machines. You can run it on a 386, but it'll treat the 386 as a fast 286 and will not take advantage of any of the 386's new features such as virtual 86 mode. (I was at the April announcement in Miami and IBM and their MS friends were quite clear about that. Maybe some day there will be OS/3, but don't hold your breath.) Like MS-DOS, OS/2 needs to be customized to the hardware of the machine on which it is running. IBM sells a version of OS/2 customized for ATs, XT-286s, and PS/2s. Other vendors such as Compaq and Tandy sell versions customized for their machines. Like PC-DOS, IBM OS/2 may well run on an IBM machine if it is similar enough to one of the supported IBM machines. If this sounds like a morass, that's because it is. -- John R. Levine, IECC, PO Box 349, Cambridge MA 02238-0349, +1 617 492 3869 { ihnp4 | decvax | cbosgd | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.something Gary Hart for President -- Let's win one for the zipper.
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (01/07/88)
In article <4675@bellcore.bellcore.com> hundt@bellcore.bellcore.com writes: >That's exactly what IBM *wants* you to think -- namely, that to run OS/2 >you need PS/2 or at least the microchannel bus -- which is *false*. Please. The original product announcements from IBM clearly stated that OS/2 would run on ANY of their '286 products, specifically including the AT. It is clear that the possibility exists to make a multitasking operating system execute with higher efficiency on the microchannel, but that is a different issue. You can take anti-IBM paranoia much too far, and far too many people do. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
Usenet_area_"Cs.I.Pc"@watmath.waterloo.edu (01/07/88)
From Usenet: seismo!uunet!wa3wbu!john From: john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: OS/2 and the 80286 Summary: O/S 2 to be machine-specific Keywords: OS/2 286 compatibility Message-ID: <451@wa3wbu.UUCP> Date: 7 Jan 88 22:35:32 GMT References: <4347@garfield.UUCP> Organization: WA3WBU, Marysville,PA Lines: 27 In article <4347@garfield.UUCP>, robert4@garfield.UUCP (Robert Pitt) writes: > > one which will not? How can one tell, short of trying to run OS/2? Can an > 80286 non-compatible be upgraded to run OS/2? From what I just read in this weeks "Info World" if you choose to beleive it is: Version 1.0 of IBM's OS2 will only run on true-blue IBM. (I find this hard to beleive) They also said that Microsoft will not be selling OS2 retail but will be contracting to release machine- specific version for various vendors. They mentioned that users will not have the luxury of carrying a generic version from machine-to-machine and have it work and also cationed users to be sure they are buying a version of OS2 that will run on their machines. I am just relaying more or less what was in Info-World. I have noticed a lot of conflicting stories lately. I like the one, it was reported that with version 1.0, after you run 4-5 concurrent directories, theres not a lot you can do with it from a user-standpoint. :-) John -- John Gayman, WA3WBU | UUCP: uunet!wa3wbu!john 1869 Valley Rd. | ARPA: wa3wbu!john@uunet.UU.NET Marysville, PA 17053 | Packet: WA3WBU @ AK3P --- via UGate v1.6 * Origin: watmath (221/163)
john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) (01/08/88)
In article <4347@garfield.UUCP>, robert4@garfield.UUCP (Robert Pitt) writes: > > one which will not? How can one tell, short of trying to run OS/2? Can an > 80286 non-compatible be upgraded to run OS/2? From what I just read in this weeks "Info World" if you choose to beleive it is: Version 1.0 of IBM's OS2 will only run on true-blue IBM. (I find this hard to beleive) They also said that Microsoft will not be selling OS2 retail but will be contracting to release machine- specific version for various vendors. They mentioned that users will not have the luxury of carrying a generic version from machine-to-machine and have it work and also cationed users to be sure they are buying a version of OS2 that will run on their machines. I am just relaying more or less what was in Info-World. I have noticed a lot of conflicting stories lately. I like the one, it was reported that with version 1.0, after you run 4-5 concurrent directories, theres not a lot you can do with it from a user-standpoint. :-) John -- John Gayman, WA3WBU | UUCP: uunet!wa3wbu!john 1869 Valley Rd. | ARPA: wa3wbu!john@uunet.UU.NET Marysville, PA 17053 | Packet: WA3WBU @ AK3P