Classic Systems Emulated: OS/2 Version 2.0 On PCEM
The Arrival Of 32-Bit Power For The Masses
The past couple of
these PC articles have been very Windows-centric. This isn't a surprise
as Windows 3.0 was a major release that made a very massive impact on
the marketplace. Windows 3.1 sold 3 million copies in 6 weeks. 1992 was a
very different time. Back then, it was possible to request a PC without
an operating system. If one did want an OS, they could choose between
OS/2, DOS, or the DOS+Windows combination. I've had not forgotten OS/2
in these articles.
The 286 versions of OS/2 had already been covered in my articles about the IBM PS/2 family of computers. The messy IBM-Microsoft "divorce" had been covered in detail as well. To quickly recap: Microsoft didn't like the direction that IBM wanted to take OS/2. Microsoft envisioned OS/2 as being the "next-generation" OS, while IBM simply saw the OS as a tool to sell more hardware. OS/2 did terrible in the marketplace. The Redmond Giant kept Windows alive as a backup plan and released 3.0 to great fanfare. IBM didn't like it. Microsoft became much more committed in Windows and lost interest in OS/2.
When the terms of the "divorce settlement" were hammered out, IBM would become the lead developer of OS/2 from Version 2.0 and on. Microsoft would forfeit it's claim to OS/2 Version 2.0 and beyond. With that mentioned, IBM would still have to pay Microsoft royalties for copies of OS/2 v2.0 sold, as a lot of Microsoft's code was still incorporated into the 32-bit OS. Under the agreement. IBM got access to the source code for both Windows 3.0 and 3.1 up until September 1993. IBM was able to incorporate the Windows subsystem into OS/2. IBM did still have to pay Microsoft royalties for each copy of Windows sold. However, IBM paid the lowest rates in the industry (according to Wired magazine, IBM was only paying about $9 for a copy of Windows 3.1). IBM had no claim to Windows NT, which was originally known as OS/2 Version 3.0 (which would eventually become the name assigned to IBM's OS/2 Warp). Also known as NT-OS/2, this project was written from scratch by Microsoft without IBM input. When Dave Cutler and his army of programmers from DEC began working on NT-OS/2, they threw out the code that had been written and started from scratch. This was done to re-write the OS to make it as portable as possible between different hardware and CPU architectures.
The 286 versions of OS/2 had already been covered in my articles about the IBM PS/2 family of computers. The messy IBM-Microsoft "divorce" had been covered in detail as well. To quickly recap: Microsoft didn't like the direction that IBM wanted to take OS/2. Microsoft envisioned OS/2 as being the "next-generation" OS, while IBM simply saw the OS as a tool to sell more hardware. OS/2 did terrible in the marketplace. The Redmond Giant kept Windows alive as a backup plan and released 3.0 to great fanfare. IBM didn't like it. Microsoft became much more committed in Windows and lost interest in OS/2.
When the terms of the "divorce settlement" were hammered out, IBM would become the lead developer of OS/2 from Version 2.0 and on. Microsoft would forfeit it's claim to OS/2 Version 2.0 and beyond. With that mentioned, IBM would still have to pay Microsoft royalties for copies of OS/2 v2.0 sold, as a lot of Microsoft's code was still incorporated into the 32-bit OS. Under the agreement. IBM got access to the source code for both Windows 3.0 and 3.1 up until September 1993. IBM was able to incorporate the Windows subsystem into OS/2. IBM did still have to pay Microsoft royalties for each copy of Windows sold. However, IBM paid the lowest rates in the industry (according to Wired magazine, IBM was only paying about $9 for a copy of Windows 3.1). IBM had no claim to Windows NT, which was originally known as OS/2 Version 3.0 (which would eventually become the name assigned to IBM's OS/2 Warp). Also known as NT-OS/2, this project was written from scratch by Microsoft without IBM input. When Dave Cutler and his army of programmers from DEC began working on NT-OS/2, they threw out the code that had been written and started from scratch. This was done to re-write the OS to make it as portable as possible between different hardware and CPU architectures.
OS/2 Spring 1991 Beta OS/2 Spring 1991 Beta DOS Programs multitasking
OS/2 Spring 1991 Beta. DOS Programs multitasking. Ford Simulator, a DOS program using CGA graphics mode, is running in a window
IBM and Microsoft
were working on OS/2 right up to the "divorce" in February 1991. The
last beta version of OS/2 version 2.0 that was created in partnership
was version 6.123 which was released in February 1991. This is about 11
months before the final version of OS/2 2.0 went gold. This build looks a
lot like OS/2 v1.2 and 1.3 on the surface. However, the official
releases, tied to the 286 processor, could only support a single,
full-screen DOS session. Build 6.123 though supported the v8086 mode of
the 386 processor. Multiple DOS sessions were capable of running at the
same time in a window. While this beta worked with most OS/2 v1.x
applications, some did crash, and one could definitely tell that this
wasn't ready for prime-time. IBM needed to get a lot of work done. I say
IBM because again because after the settlement, they were solely in
charge of its development now. Microsoft was fully invested in Windows
NT. IBM stated that the new OS would be ready to ship before the year
ended. Steve Ballmer of Microsoft declared that he would eat a floppy if
IBM accomplished this. Even though IBM missed the target, they still
sorta kept there promise by releasing a beta version of it. The
development of OS/2 v2.0 progressed to the point that IBM could do a
"LA" (Limited Availability) beta release before the end of the year to
certain customers and to annoy Ballmer. Needless to say, Ballmer never
ate that floppy (a plunger would be needed to unclog that toilet!).
OS/2 October 1991 Beta OS/2 October 1991 Beta
When OS/2 v2.0 was
released, it caused a lot of interest in the marketplace, and for good
reason. It was a consumer-oriented 32-bit OS. It was meant to be
friendly like Windows, and not user hostile like UNIX. Unlike Windows
3.0 and the soon to be released 3.1, which were graphical shells running
on top of DOS; OS/2 was a true operating system. It was capable of
running several DOS sessions at the same time, and in a window too. The
new version of OS/2 took advantage of the 386 in full. OS/2 v2.0 could
run Windows 3.0 in a full-screen DOS session or on the OS/2 desktop
itself (with the appropriate video drivers though). While OS/2 supported
16-bit drivers and 16-bit OS/2 applications, the new OS was 32-bit and
conformed to the flat memory model of the 386 processor. This means that
theoretically, OS/2 v2.0 could use up to 3-4GB of RAM.
While OS/2 v2.0 generate interest, it didn't have the same amount of fanfare and hype that Windows 3.1 did. By 1992 hardware standards, OS/2 was very demanding. When it came to memory consumption, OS/2 was the Windows Vista of its day. I've had a IBM Eduquest Model 50CS with 4MB's of RAM and a 50MHz 486. I've installed OS/2 2.0 on that setup and the OS ran very sluggish. It ran much better when I've bumped up the memory to 8MB's. In fact, after the memory upgrade, Microsoft's Flight Simulator 4 ran well within the DOS session in a window. The performance issues were repeated when PCEM was configured similarly. In 1992, 8MB's of RAM cost a lot of money. Yet, 8MB's of the minimum recommended to running OS/2 comfortably. However, in retrospect, OS/2 was much more forgiving about memory consumption than Windows NT was. For NT 3.1, 16MB's was the lowest minimum required, and more than 24MB's was needed to run that OS comfortably.
While OS/2 v2.0 generate interest, it didn't have the same amount of fanfare and hype that Windows 3.1 did. By 1992 hardware standards, OS/2 was very demanding. When it came to memory consumption, OS/2 was the Windows Vista of its day. I've had a IBM Eduquest Model 50CS with 4MB's of RAM and a 50MHz 486. I've installed OS/2 2.0 on that setup and the OS ran very sluggish. It ran much better when I've bumped up the memory to 8MB's. In fact, after the memory upgrade, Microsoft's Flight Simulator 4 ran well within the DOS session in a window. The performance issues were repeated when PCEM was configured similarly. In 1992, 8MB's of RAM cost a lot of money. Yet, 8MB's of the minimum recommended to running OS/2 comfortably. However, in retrospect, OS/2 was much more forgiving about memory consumption than Windows NT was. For NT 3.1, 16MB's was the lowest minimum required, and more than 24MB's was needed to run that OS comfortably.
One of the reasons why OS/2 2.0 was more
demanding was that this release was actually multiple environments
combined in one. Of course, there was OS/2 2.0 32-bit which could run
32-bit graphical and text-based OS/2 programs. OS/2 2.0 was also
backward compatible with 16-bit graphical and text-based OS/2 programs
as well. Not only that, the new version of OS/2 also supported DOS
applications as well (it was generally incompatible with 32-bit DOS
programs that used there own DOS memory extenders, which was becoming a
thing around this time). OS/2 also supported Windows applications
through its Windows subsystem via Win-OS/2. The version of Win-OS/2 that
shipped with 2.0 only supported Windows 3.0 in standard mode. With the
appropriate video drivers, Windows programs could directly run on the
OS/2 desktop as well.
Win-OS/2, as the Windows subsystem was called, was built from the
source code that IBM had access to from Microsoft. Because Windows 3.1
was already out, the subsystem needed to be updated, which it was with
OS/2 2.1. Win-OS/2 on OS/2 2.1 supported Windows 3.1 and its
applications.
In order for a
graphical DOS application to run full-screen, that program had run in a
previous generation screen mode. Since I can make the safe assumption
that the vast majority of 2.0 installations used VGA, that meant that if
graphical DOS applications wanted to run in a window, they would need
to run in CGA mode. The VGA drivers couldn't supported graphical DOS
applications if they ran in VGA or EGA modes.
The standout feature of the new OS was the Workplace Shell. As someone who used the OS/2 Desktop Manager and the Windows Program Manager (what's up with this "manager" naming convention?), the Workplace Shell is superior to them both. Folders and Files are represented as objects that can have there own special attributes. Everything about the WPS could be customized. Even each window could have its own wallpaper. For people who want to have complete control over the look and feel of there desktop, there is no contest. The WPS presents complete control to the user.
The standout feature of the new OS was the Workplace Shell. As someone who used the OS/2 Desktop Manager and the Windows Program Manager (what's up with this "manager" naming convention?), the Workplace Shell is superior to them both. Folders and Files are represented as objects that can have there own special attributes. Everything about the WPS could be customized. Even each window could have its own wallpaper. For people who want to have complete control over the look and feel of there desktop, there is no contest. The WPS presents complete control to the user.
The Describe Word Processor For OS/2
Lotus 123 for OS/2
Applications became
more common on OS/2. Lotus released a graphical, 32-bit version of 123
for the platform. Freelance Graphics and Ami Pro was updated for OS/2 as
well. Freelance Graphics was basically Lotus's answer to PowerPoint.
This was good as PowerPoint was never ported to OS/2, even though the
program could run under Win-OS/2 once OS/2 was updated to version 2.1.
Ami-Pro was the professional word processor for OS/2, while the Describe
word-processor was critically acclaimed as well. The OS/2 versions of
Microsoft Word and Excel that the Redmond giant released before the
divorce still ran without issue on the newer version of OS/2.
IBM got crapped on a lot during the OS/2 v1.x years because there OS didn't ship with small, niffy applets like Windows 3.0 did. IBM addressed this issue by incorporating various little programs in OS/2 2.0. One was a variation of the Neko program where a little animated cat ran on the OS2 desktop chasing the mouse cursor. On the whole, OS/2 2.0 was very solid release. However, there was a problem. OS/2 was advertised as a "Better DOS than DOS" and a "Better Windows than Windows". As someone who used OS/2, this is true. At the same time, many software developers felt that they didn't need to release a specific OS/2 port of there programs because they could run target Windows and OS/2 simultaneously. It was the same story with DOS programs. Why should they code an OS/2 specific version of a program when the DOS version can run fine under OS/2 as well. The subsystems were so well engineered that their high level of compatibility and stability became counter-productive to the native software scene (ouch!).
IBM got crapped on a lot during the OS/2 v1.x years because there OS didn't ship with small, niffy applets like Windows 3.0 did. IBM addressed this issue by incorporating various little programs in OS/2 2.0. One was a variation of the Neko program where a little animated cat ran on the OS2 desktop chasing the mouse cursor. On the whole, OS/2 2.0 was very solid release. However, there was a problem. OS/2 was advertised as a "Better DOS than DOS" and a "Better Windows than Windows". As someone who used OS/2, this is true. At the same time, many software developers felt that they didn't need to release a specific OS/2 port of there programs because they could run target Windows and OS/2 simultaneously. It was the same story with DOS programs. Why should they code an OS/2 specific version of a program when the DOS version can run fine under OS/2 as well. The subsystems were so well engineered that their high level of compatibility and stability became counter-productive to the native software scene (ouch!).
PCEM
It's not as tricky
to set up a OS/2 configuration if you know what you're doing. With
legacy operating systems, you need to give the OS what it expects. This
is where one ask "What were the specs of high-end PC's in 1992?".
Proceeding with the install means you playing the row of the "Disc
Jockey". Have Fun!
Any-who, the install is very straightforward. I've proceeded an 160MB hard-disk drive along with 8MB's of RAM. In PCEM V15, Lotus 123 gives incorrect values when using the 386 Intel processor/motherboard. However, these calculation oddities don't occur when I use the Cyrix equivalent CPU's. As a result, I've opted to use a 40MHz Cyrix 486DX processor on the emulated 386 motherboard. It's fast and responsive for this OS. Using a 486 motherboard with supported processors produce the same incorrect values, regardless of CPU. The SVGA adapter used is the Tseng ET4k. I've opted for this one because one can still find drivers for this adapter for OS/2 2.0. However, the drivers used are actually the 16-bit drivers that were supported OS/2 v1.1 and up. These drivers also worked with the OS/2 Spring 1991 beta release. As anyone who installed OS/2 video drivers can tell you, it's not straightforward installing video drivers on OS/2 2.0. For emulated configurations, I've used WinImage. Since the hard-disk image was formatted using FAT, the Editdisk utility should work as well. Place the DLL files in there appropriate directory (C:\OS2\DLL), close WinImage or Editdisk, and fire up PCEM. OS/2 should be running in 800 by 600, 16 colors (or 1024 by 768 or 640 by 480 16 colors depending on the drivers used). There are 256 colors OS/2 drivers for the Tseng ET4k. However, I've gotten weird screen artifacts. I don't recommend them at all.
The OS/2 applications ran well. One can see what PC power users were playing around with in 1992!
Any-who, the install is very straightforward. I've proceeded an 160MB hard-disk drive along with 8MB's of RAM. In PCEM V15, Lotus 123 gives incorrect values when using the 386 Intel processor/motherboard. However, these calculation oddities don't occur when I use the Cyrix equivalent CPU's. As a result, I've opted to use a 40MHz Cyrix 486DX processor on the emulated 386 motherboard. It's fast and responsive for this OS. Using a 486 motherboard with supported processors produce the same incorrect values, regardless of CPU. The SVGA adapter used is the Tseng ET4k. I've opted for this one because one can still find drivers for this adapter for OS/2 2.0. However, the drivers used are actually the 16-bit drivers that were supported OS/2 v1.1 and up. These drivers also worked with the OS/2 Spring 1991 beta release. As anyone who installed OS/2 video drivers can tell you, it's not straightforward installing video drivers on OS/2 2.0. For emulated configurations, I've used WinImage. Since the hard-disk image was formatted using FAT, the Editdisk utility should work as well. Place the DLL files in there appropriate directory (C:\OS2\DLL), close WinImage or Editdisk, and fire up PCEM. OS/2 should be running in 800 by 600, 16 colors (or 1024 by 768 or 640 by 480 16 colors depending on the drivers used). There are 256 colors OS/2 drivers for the Tseng ET4k. However, I've gotten weird screen artifacts. I don't recommend them at all.
The OS/2 applications ran well. One can see what PC power users were playing around with in 1992!
Articles Of Interest
PCEM - https://pcem-emulator.co.uk/
Windows 3.0
Wikipedia : Windows 3.0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.0
Wikipedia: Microsoft Windows version history: Windows 3.0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_version_history#Windows_3.0
Gunkies.org : Windows 3.0 - http://gunkies.org/wiki/Windows_3.0
Fandom : Windows 3.0 - https://microsoft.fandom.com/wiki/Windows_3.0
Toastytech : Microsoft Windows 3.0 - http://toastytech.com/guis/win30.html
KBJU.EDU : ARCHIVED: In Windows 3.x, why can't my protected-mode DOS application run - https://kb.iu.edu/d/abqh
Intel
Wikipedia : Intel 286 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80286
Wikipedia : Intel 386 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_802386
Wikipedia : Intel 486 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80486
Wikipedia : P5 (microarchitecture) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P5_(microarchitecture)
OS/2
Wikipedia : OS/2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2
OS/2 Meusem : OS/2 2.0, Spring ’91 Edition - http://www.os2museum.com/wp/os-2-2-0-spring-91-edition/
OS/2 Meusuem: OS/2 2.0, Xmas ’91 Edition http://www.os2museum.com/wp/os2-2-0-xmas-91-edition/
OS/2 Meusem : OS/2 2.0 - http://www.os2museum.com/wp/os2-history/os2-2-0/
Toastytech : IBM OS/2 2.0 Workplace Shell - http://toastytech.com/guis/os220.html
Windows 3.0
Wikipedia : Windows 3.0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.0
Wikipedia: Microsoft Windows version history: Windows 3.0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_version_history#Windows_3.0
Gunkies.org : Windows 3.0 - http://gunkies.org/wiki/Windows_3.0
Fandom : Windows 3.0 - https://microsoft.fandom.com/wiki/Windows_3.0
Toastytech : Microsoft Windows 3.0 - http://toastytech.com/guis/win30.html
KBJU.EDU : ARCHIVED: In Windows 3.x, why can't my protected-mode DOS application run - https://kb.iu.edu/d/abqh
Intel
Wikipedia : Intel 286 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80286
Wikipedia : Intel 386 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_802386
Wikipedia : Intel 486 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80486
Wikipedia : P5 (microarchitecture) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P5_(microarchitecture)
OS/2
Wikipedia : OS/2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2
OS/2 Meusem : OS/2 2.0, Spring ’91 Edition - http://www.os2museum.com/wp/os-2-2-0-spring-91-edition/
OS/2 Meusuem: OS/2 2.0, Xmas ’91 Edition http://www.os2museum.com/wp/os2-2-0-xmas-91-edition/
OS/2 Meusem : OS/2 2.0 - http://www.os2museum.com/wp/os2-history/os2-2-0/
Toastytech : IBM OS/2 2.0 Workplace Shell - http://toastytech.com/guis/os220.html
Comments
Post a Comment