ant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch) (06/05/91)
Hi netters, I have just seen a pretty remarkable statement concerning OS/2. The statement was that IBM's OS/2 supports PS/2s only and not normal bus configurations. Is this a fact ??? Surely not even IBM could be that stupid ??? The claim extended to say that Microsofts versions of OS/2 did support normal buses. This worries me with reguards to os/2 version 2. I have heard that IBM has extended the supported devices in v2, does this include normal buses ? Does Microsoft intend to produce a normal version of v2 ??? Surely they would have to if they wanted to continue products like MS LAN Manager ? ant V ant "I killed Laura Palmer" \o/ ant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au -O- Anthony Murdoch Prentice Centre /0\ Phone (07) 36 54078 University of Qld
ballard@ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun5.161726.29291@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au> ant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch) writes: >I have just seen a pretty remarkable statement concerning OS/2. The >statement was that IBM's OS/2 supports PS/2s only and not normal bus >configurations. This is one of the most often told lies about OS/2. It runs just fine on non-PS/2 machines, as long as they are reasonably good clones. A Microchannel bus is not required. (If only because IBM promised it would run on AT's!) IBM only offer support services for it on their own machines, but unless you have a problem that is very hardware specific, they don't need to know what your hardware is. >This worries me with reguards to os/2 version 2. I have heard that IBM >has extended the supported devices in v2, does this include normal buses ? IBM have specifically committed to having it run, AND offering support, for non-IBM hardware. 2.0 will be certified by IBM for many compatibles, including Compaq and Tandy. For no-name brands, you may take a bit of a chance, but you do with any other application on such hardware. If the clone is faithful implementation, it will work just fine. Don't believe most of what you read in the press about OS/2. Most of the reporters have never even seen it, let alone bothered to understand the issues. -- Alan Ballard | Internet: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca University Computing Services | Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG University of British Columbia | Phone: 604-822-3074 Vancouver B.C. Canada V6T 1Z2 | Fax: 604-822-5116
JAY@wvnvm.wvnet.edu (James Justice) (06/08/91)
I am running OS/2 1.3 on a Packard Bell 386SX with an AT bus. At work, I run on a micro channel. The AT bus causes no problems at all.
bking@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Barry King) (06/08/91)
ant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch) writes: > Hi netters, > > I have just seen a pretty remarkable statement concerning OS/2. The > statement was that IBM's OS/2 supports PS/2s only and not normal bus > configurations. Is this a fact ??? Surely not even IBM could be that > stupid ??? The claim extended to say that Microsofts versions of OS/2 > did support normal buses. > > This worries me with reguards to os/2 version 2. I have heard that IBM > has extended the supported devices in v2, does this include normal buses ? > Does Microsoft intend to produce a normal version of v2 ??? Surely they > would have to if they wanted to continue products like MS LAN Manager ? > The information you received is utter bunk...more than that, actually... It's exactly that type of misinformation that has harmed OS/2's prliferation. OS/2 runs fine on _true_ compatibles. It has to. It runs on and was built for IBM's classic AT machine... You do have to watch out for non-standard hard disk controllers, non-standard BIOS implementations etc. just like anything else. OS/2 will take advantage of the advanced features present in PS/2 MCA machines but other than that is as compatible with 'standard' AT hardware as DOS is. The media is primarily to blame for irresponsible reporting and propagating this BS and Microsoft and IBM are to blame for not containing it. Anyway. Buy OS/2. Barry King bking@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca Edmonton Remote Systems: Serving Northern Alberta since 1982