[comp.os.os2.misc] OS/2 2.0 on a clone

jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) (05/17/91)

I was wondering just how "standard" will a clone have to be to run OS/2 2.0.
I was wondering if IBM or someone is going to certify motherboards from
such well known places as Micronics, Mylex, AMI, etc. to run OS/2 or will
we just have to gamble and see if it works.  I am not too sure how willing
I would/will be to see if 2.0 runs on my Micronics 486/33 motherboard
without at least some way to return it or will it have a xx day return
policy.

Also what is the minimum config for 2.0 going to be (processor, memory,
disk space, etc).  Will it be able to run on friends' '286 clones or
will it have to be a '386.  What about a 386sx?

I know that any responses will probably not be "official", but speculation
is quite alright at this point.


john gay.
-- 
john gay.
jgay@digi.lonestar.org

My Vote for Best Band Name:

bking@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Barry King) (05/17/91)

jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) writes:

> I was wondering just how "standard" will a clone have to be to run OS/2 2.0.
> I was wondering if IBM or someone is going to certify motherboards from
> such well known places as Micronics, Mylex, AMI, etc. to run OS/2 or will
> we just have to gamble and see if it works.  I am not too sure how willing
> I would/will be to see if 2.0 runs on my Micronics 486/33 motherboard
> without at least some way to return it or will it have a xx day return
> policy.
> 
> Also what is the minimum config for 2.0 going to be (processor, memory,
> disk space, etc).  Will it be able to run on friends' '286 clones or
> will it have to be a '386.  What about a 386sx?
> 
> I know that any responses will probably not be "official", but speculation
> is quite alright at this point.
> 
> 
Bearing your last comment in mind...
 
OS/2 v2.0 is 386 specific - it won't run on a friend's 286...an ememy's 
for that matter :-)
 
My understanding is that OS/2 will be less particular about the almost 
compatable hardware setup.  Bear in mind that OS/2 1.x is not at fault 
when Brand-X systems refuse to run the puppy.  After all, OS/2 in its 16 
bit form was conceived so that it could run on IBM's 286 line including 
the PC/AT.  If OS/2 1.x doesn't run on a clone, it's the clone's fault.
 
Anyway, I know that OS/2 v2.0 is smaller in many respects than previous 
versions.  It runs great in 6 Mb and would imagine it would run fine in 4 
Mb as well.  OS/2 1.3 can be made to run fine in 2 Mb, better than 
Windows 3 in 386 Enhanced mode in fact.
 
Happy speculating.

Barry King              bking@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
Edmonton Remote Systems:  Serving Northern Alberta since 1982