bose@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Bhaskar Bose) (03/01/90)
I have an AST Premium 386. I would like to start using OS2. Do I have to buy OS2 from AST or will the off the shelf Microsoft OS2 work on my machine?
dash@legs.UUCP (Darrell Shively) (03/03/90)
in article <37555@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, bose@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Bhaskar Bose) says: > > I have an AST Premium 386. I would like to start using OS2. Do I have > to buy OS2 from AST or will the off the shelf Microsoft OS2 work on my > machine? In fact, Microsoft will not be offering OS/2 for retail sale. It is available only to OEM's for adaptation to their particular hardware platforms. Thus, your best bet would be to purchase OS/2 for your machine from its' manufacturer. Failing that, the IBM version of OS/2 should run on any reasonably compatible computer (like an AST). By the way; since your machine is a 386 based system, do NOT use IBM OS/2 1.1 (either EE or SE). The IBM versions of OS/2 1.1 for the AT does not support the 386. After all, IBM does not make a 386 equipped AT machine. Starting with version 1.2 however, both IBM and Microsoft has been/will be using the enhanced kernel that supports all 80x86 CPU's. Best of course would be to wait for the AST version of 1.2, which should be out as soon as Microsofts' code stabilizes :-). But if you need OS/2 now, I believe AST will be offering a low cost upgrade from 1.1 to 1.2; so buying 1.1 now should be a safe bet. Hope this helps. Email me if you have any other questions. "Any opinions expressed are my own, and in no way represent my employer."
dash@legs.UUCP (Darrell Shively) (03/03/90)
(Oops! Lost the signature, there! :-) -- Darrell M. Shively II (dash) uucp: ...!uunet!ccicpg!legs!dash AST Research Inc. Dept 660 MS OnLine: MS05455 P.O. Box 19658 Voice: (714) 727-8637 Irvine, CA 92713-9658 Fax: (714) 727-9358
tim@banyan.UUCP (Tim Henrion@Eng@Banyan) (03/05/90)
In message <2536@legs.UUCP>, dash@legs.UUCP (Darrell Shively) writes: > By the way; since your machine is a 386 based system, do NOT use > IBM OS/2 1.1 (either EE or SE). The IBM versions of OS/2 1.1 for the AT > does not support the 386. After all, IBM does not make a 386 equipped AT > machine. Starting with version 1.2 however, both IBM and Microsoft has > been/will be using the enhanced kernel that supports all 80x86 CPU's. > This sounds like baloney to me. I have been running IBM 1.1 SE on a Compaq 386s for quite a while now with _NO_ problems. We have OS/2 from a couple of different vendors and use it on various 386 machines (both straight 386 and 386sx) and have had _NO_ problems, especially no 'Brand X won't run on a 386' problems. In fact, the only problems we have seen at all are mouse drivers incompatibilities. Tim Henrion tim@banyan.com --or-- ...!bu.edu!banyan!tim
kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (03/07/90)
In article <745@banyan.UUCP> tim@banyan.UUCP (Tim Henrion@Eng@Banyan) writes: >In message <2536@legs.UUCP>, dash@legs.UUCP (Darrell Shively) writes: >> By the way; since your machine is a 386 based system, do NOT use >> IBM OS/2 1.1 (either EE or SE). The IBM versions of OS/2 1.1 for the AT >> does not support the 386. After all, IBM does not make a 386 equipped AT >> machine. Starting with version 1.2 however, both IBM and Microsoft has >> been/will be using the enhanced kernel that supports all 80x86 CPU's. > This sounds like baloney to me. I have been running IBM 1.1 SE > on a Compaq 386s for quite a while now with _NO_ problems. We > have OS/2 from a couple of different vendors and use it on > various 386 machines (both straight 386 and 386sx) and have > had _NO_ problems, especially no 'Brand X won't run on a 386' > problems. In fact, the only problems we have seen at all are > mouse drivers incompatibilities. I'll second that, I run IBM 1.1 SE on a generic Taiwan 386SX; I use a Logitech HiRez bus mouse, using the Microsoft Bus mouse xxx/199 selection in the setup. kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propeller Labs Kaleb Keithley spelling and grammar flames > /dev/null
verket@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Paul Verket) (03/07/90)
From article <745@banyan.UUCP>, by tim@banyan.UUCP (Tim Henrion@Eng@Banyan): > In message <2536@legs.UUCP>, dash@legs.UUCP (Darrell Shively) writes: >> ... The IBM versions of OS/2 1.1 for the AT >> does not support the 386. After all, IBM does not make a 386 equipped AT >> machine. >> > This sounds like baloney to me... No, you've just been lucky! Older 386 compatables (like mine) may not report the machine type correctly. I had to hack the install script on IBM's 1.1 install disk to work with my machine. Paul Verket verket@venice.sedd.trw.com
feustel@well.sf.ca.us (David Alan Feustel) (03/08/90)
OS/2 v 1.1 runs great on 386 machines. I'm looking foreward to the
version of OS/2 that runs on the 8086. Where can I get it?
--
Phone: (home) 219-482-9631
E-mail: feustel@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax,apple,hplabs,pacbell}!well!feustel
USMAIL: Dave Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805craig@locus.com (Craig Bennett) (03/09/90)
In article <16564@well.sf.ca.us> feustel@well.sf.ca.us (David Alan Feustel) writes: > >OS/2 v 1.1 runs great on 386 machines. I'm looking foreward to the >version of OS/2 that runs on the 8086. Where can I get it? >-- I don't think you're going to see a 8086 version of OS/2 since the 8086 does not have a protected mode which allows multitasking , etc.. Actually I guess you could say that the 8086 version of OS/2 is called DOS. :-) craig -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % Disclaimer: My opinions are mine and mine alone Craig Bennett % % (who else would want them?) Mail > craig@baccarat.UUCP % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (03/09/90)
In article <16564@well.sf.ca.us> feustel@well.sf.ca.us (David Alan Feustel) writes: > >OS/2 v 1.1 runs great on 386 machines. I'm looking foreward to the >version of OS/2 that runs on the 8086. Where can I get it? In fantasy land, on the shelf right next to the monochrome Hercules driver for Presentation Manager. kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propeller Labs Kaleb Keithley spelling and grammar flames > /dev/null
jack@csccat.UUCP (Jack Hudler) (03/09/90)
In article <16564@well.sf.ca.us> feustel@well.sf.ca.us (David Alan Feustel) writes: > >OS/2 v 1.1 runs great on 386 machines. I'm looking foreward to the >version of OS/2 that runs on the 8086. Where can I get it? Never Happen. It's impossible. Besides 8086 is dead. :-) -- Jack Computer Support Corportion Dallas,Texas Hudler UUCP: {texsun,texbell}!csccat!jack
dash@legs.UUCP (Darrell Shively) (03/14/90)
Boy, did I open a can of worms. To summarize, I originally said: in article <2536@legs.UUCP>, dash@legs.UUCP (Darrell Shively) says: > [...] > By the way; since your machine is a 386 based system, do NOT use > IBM OS/2 1.1 (either EE or SE). The IBM versions of OS/2 1.1 for the AT > does not support the 386. After all, IBM does not make a 386 equipped AT > machine. Starting with version 1.2 however, both IBM and Microsoft has > been/will be using the enhanced kernel that supports all 80x86 CPU's. [...] To which Tim replied: > This sounds like baloney to me. I have been running IBM 1.1 SE > on a Compaq 386s for quite a while now with _NO_ problems. We > have OS/2 from a couple of different vendors and use it on > various 386 machines (both straight 386 and 386sx) and have > had _NO_ problems, especially no 'Brand X won't run on a 386' > problems. In fact, the only problems we have seen at all are > mouse drivers incompatibilities. > > Tim Henrion > tim@banyan.com --or-- ...!bu.edu!banyan!tim And Kaleb: > I'll second that, I run IBM 1.1 SE on a generic Taiwan 386SX; I use a Logitech > HiRez bus mouse, using the Microsoft Bus mouse xxx/199 selection in the setup. > > kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propeller Labs > Kaleb Keithley But Paul was somewhat supportive, in that: > No, you've just been lucky! Older 386 compatibles (like mine) may not > report the machine type correctly. I had to hack the install script on IBM's > 1.1 install disk to work with my machine. > > Paul Verket > verket@venice.sedd.trw.com However, Tim and Kaleb are quite correct, and I am guilty of gross over- simplification. While what I said was not really *inaccurate*, is was definitely *incomplete*. Here are the details of why running IBM OS/2 1.1 SE and EE can be (but are often not) problematic on a 386 machine. 1) IBM OS/2 1.1 for the AT is designed for a '286. The PS/2 version (3.5" disks) utilizes the 386 architecture. But on an AT clone, this means: A) It will use the "shift into reverse while on the freeway" technique for mode switching (e.g. triple fault). B) The IBM 1.1 kernel uses the undocumented 286 LOADALL instruction, which is not present in the 386. 2) As Paul points out, there can be a problem with machine type identi- fication, which can cause a problem during installation. But this should not continue to be a problem once one gets OS/2 on their machine. Problem 1A isn't a killer. It will only cause a performance degradation while running in the DOS compatibility box. I'm not sure how great a deg- radation, but it is probably significant (~20% ?) since OS/2 is constantly switching in and out of real mode while in the 3x box in order to do back- ground processing of protected mode tasks. Problem 1B sounds like a killer, and is on some older machine with older BIOS's. But the solution is to use a good BIOS that implements software emulation of the LOADALL instruction for the 386. Nowadays, I should imagine that just about any 386 one can buy (ranging from Tim's Compaqs to Kaleb's Taiwan clone) should be just fine. So even with an older machine, upgrading the BIOS will probably make it palatable to IBM OS/2 1.1. Problem 2 can also be solved with a BIOS upgrade. Or you can modify the install script as Paul did. CONCLUSION: So really, IBM OS/2 1.1 will PROBABLY run on any reasonable 386 AT clone. But this is not guaranteed. And if the clone's manufacturer has gone to the trouble of porting OS/2 to their machine, it will without a doubt run faster in the compatibility box. They will also support it on your hardware, which I doubt IBM will do. As an aside, to reiterate a previous point, IBM OS/2 1.2 does not have any of these idiosyncrasies. The IBM and Microsoft OS/2 1.2 kernels are functionally identical (at least according to Microsoft) and both support the 386 enhancements. Sorry for the misunderstanding; I should have thought about what I was saying a bit more. As a friend of mine says, "I was running off at the keyboard". "Any opinions expressed are my own, and in no way represent my employer." -- Darrell M. Shively II (dash) uucp: ...!uunet!ccicpg!legs!dash AST Research Inc. Dept 660 MS OnLine: MS05455 P.O. Box 19658 Voice: (714) 727-8637 Irvine, CA 92713-9658 Fax: (714) 727-9358
mlegge@datlog.co.uk ( Martyn Legge) (03/16/90)
dash@legs.UUCP (Darrell Shively) writes: > By the way; since your machine is a 386 based system, do NOT use >IBM OS/2 1.1 (either EE or SE). The IBM versions of OS/2 1.1 for the AT >does not support the 386. After all, IBM does not make a 386 equipped AT >machine. What is this nonsense? I use OS/2 EE 1.1 from IBM on my 25Mhz Compaq 386 and it works fine. There's no difference in the kernel only the device drivers between the MCA and AT bus machines. Martyn Legge