6 ms·

True 32-bit protected mode preemptive multi-tasking was the primary advantage over comtemporary windows at the time. People were using Desqview in MS-DOS to ac

True 32-bit protected mode preemptive multi-tasking was the primary advantage over comtemporary windows at the time. People were using Desqview in MS-DOS to achieve this level of multi-tasking in lieu of OS/2. OS/2 did it better. Windows 3.1 was cooperative multi-tasking, not even protected mode if memory serves. Windows NT would be where MS tech caught up with IBM, OS/2 was out in the wild for quite some time already. But the general public didn't embrace OS/2, Windows 95 effectively killed it.

kjs3 9y ago
OS/2 was 16-bit until 2.0 (and technically still had 16-bit chunks under the hook after that). Windows NT was where MS 'forked' OS/2 after the 2.0 days; IBM and MS were partners in developing OS/2.
- kyberias 9y ago
  Windows NT started from scratch. It was never an OS/2 fork.
  - danboarder 9y ago
    Not from scratch. It started as "OS/2 NT" in partnership with IBM. Microsoft renamed OS/2 NT to Windows NT. See here: http://www.itprotoday.com/management-mobility/windows-nt-and-vms-rest-story http://www.itprotoday.com/management-mobility/windows-nt-and...
    - Zardoz84 9y ago
      Also, HPFS was like NTFS v0.9
    - kyberias 9y ago
      Yes from scratch. Names matter little. From your source: "Microsoft's internal project name for the new OS was OS/2 NT, because Microsoft's intention was for the new OS to succeed OS/2 yet retain the OS/2 API as its primary interface." Note how Russinovich talks about a "new OS". The NT (kernel) never had any OS/2 code in it, it was a totally different project. The first target processor architecture for NT wasn't even x86, it was MIPS. OS/2 in NT was merely a subsystem layer next to DOS and Posix, somewhat like today there is the Linux subsystem layer in Windows 10. A good source is this: https://www.amazon.com/Show-Stopper-Breakneck-Generation-Microsoft/dp/0029356717 https://www.amazon.com/Show-Stopper-Breakneck-Generation-Mic...
      - newnewpdro 9y ago
        > The first target processor architecture for NT wasn't even x86, it was MIPS. I thought it's pretty well established now that the NT in the name was named after the target architecture: Intel i860 "N10", not MIPS.
        kyberias 9y ago
        You're right. My point was, however, that it wasn't an x86.
      - kjs3 9y ago
        Agreed, I don't mean 'fork' in the sense they took the code and went their own way, I mean 'fork' in the sense they took all the IP and lessons learned and reimplemented an OS/2 they had sole control over. "retain the OS/2 API as its primary interface" Linux isn't Unix. KJ
  - kjs3 9y ago
    It was in no way started from scratch. Microsoft took all they learned from OS/2 including the API and had basically the same team (including David Cutler, who was originally in charge of "OS/2 v3") and reimplement an operating system they didn't have to share with IBM. To pretend NT is somehow not directly related to OS/2 is the worst sort of historical revisionism; it's in fact a lie.
- newnewpdro 9y ago
  And those things make OS/2 stand out how exactly? I'm under the impression OS/2 wasn't an attractive OS until 3.0 came along.
  - kjs3 9y ago
    I didn't say that they made OS/2 stand out and I obviously wasn't addressing that. But since you asked, OS/2 1.x and 2.x were reasonably stable, multitasking, networked server operating systems with an advanced (for the time) filesystem and other interesting features. With early versions delivering that on an i286. And there were a couple of (possible) killer apps: Notes, DB2 (on something smaller than an AS/400), etc. You can debate whether it was superior to Novell, Banyan, Xenix or a bunch of other contemporary competitors. It was also a usable though less clearly advanced desktop operating system at the time.
- scruffyherder 9y ago
  The real joke is that the '32bit' version was written in parallel, and suppressed by IBM. You can read more, and actually run them here: https://www.pcjs.org/blog/2016/02/08/ https://www.pcjs.org/blog/2016/02/08/ It's a little touchy to get the 1987 version running ( https://www.pcjs.org/disks/pcx86/os2/misc/football/87058/ https://www.pcjs.org/disks/pcx86/os2/misc/football/87058/ ), but there it is, OS/2 1.0 hacked up with 32bit extensions to support multiple v86 machines. Windows/386 was a thing in 1987, along with Xenix on the 386. OS/2 could have been there too but IBM was too busy trying to cover base with the 5170, the brain dead 286 machine that dragged down the entire industry. Between delaying the 32bit version for years, they also wouldn't let Microsoft just port over Windows to run ontop of OS/2. And of course SAA had to be 180 degrees opposite of Windows out of spite. It's really no surprise that once Windows 3.0 started to sell, NT OS/2 3.0 suddenly became Windows NT 3.1
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Windows NT would be where MS tech caught up with IBM OS/2 was originally a Microsoft/IBM joint product, work on NT at Microsoft began during that time as “NT OS/2”; the cooperation broke down in large part over the different directions MS and IBM wanted to take with OS/2.
- yuhong 9y ago
  That OS/2 2.0 debacle was so bad BTW it is my favorite topic (especially the MS part). I mentioned before out that DR would not be easily be able to clone OS/2 as they did with DR-DOS.
  - Zardoz84 9y ago
    DR-DOS not was a clone of MS-DOS. The truth is that was CP/M-86 that was added stuff to be MS-DOS compatible. I used DR-DOS 5 when I was a children and I remember that it worked better that MS-DOS 6. Sadly, Microsoft used these dirty trick that Windows 3.1 would autofail if detect any OS that isn't MS-DOS.
    - yuhong 9y ago
      Early versions of DR-DOS was (kind of), but eventually I think they redesigned the kernel to use true DOS data structures etc.
      - Zardoz84 9y ago
        DR-DOS 5 keep having the old CP/M sauce like BDOS kernel renamed as "IBMDOS.COM". Other thing, would if they removed old CP/M stuff that was not necessary any more to run MS-DOS programs, but the source code keeps being a evolution of the old CP/M.
    - einr 9y ago
      Sadly, Microsoft used these dirty trick that Windows 3.1 would autofail if detect any OS that isn't MS-DOS. That code, while present in the codebase, was deactivated in the release version of Windows 3.1, so it actually ran just fine on DR-DOS.

kjs3 9y ago

OS/2 was 16-bit until 2.0 (and technically still had 16-bit chunks under the hook after that). Windows NT was where MS 'forked' OS/2 after the 2.0 days; IBM and MS were partners in developing OS/2.

kyberias 9y ago
Windows NT started from scratch. It was never an OS/2 fork.
- danboarder 9y ago
  Not from scratch. It started as "OS/2 NT" in partnership with IBM. Microsoft renamed OS/2 NT to Windows NT. See here: http://www.itprotoday.com/management-mobility/windows-nt-and-vms-rest-story http://www.itprotoday.com/management-mobility/windows-nt-and...
  - Zardoz84 9y ago
    Also, HPFS was like NTFS v0.9
  - kyberias 9y ago
    Yes from scratch. Names matter little. From your source: "Microsoft's internal project name for the new OS was OS/2 NT, because Microsoft's intention was for the new OS to succeed OS/2 yet retain the OS/2 API as its primary interface." Note how Russinovich talks about a "new OS". The NT (kernel) never had any OS/2 code in it, it was a totally different project. The first target processor architecture for NT wasn't even x86, it was MIPS. OS/2 in NT was merely a subsystem layer next to DOS and Posix, somewhat like today there is the Linux subsystem layer in Windows 10. A good source is this: https://www.amazon.com/Show-Stopper-Breakneck-Generation-Microsoft/dp/0029356717 https://www.amazon.com/Show-Stopper-Breakneck-Generation-Mic...
    - newnewpdro 9y ago
      > The first target processor architecture for NT wasn't even x86, it was MIPS. I thought it's pretty well established now that the NT in the name was named after the target architecture: Intel i860 "N10", not MIPS.
      - kyberias 9y ago
        You're right. My point was, however, that it wasn't an x86.
    - kjs3 9y ago
      Agreed, I don't mean 'fork' in the sense they took the code and went their own way, I mean 'fork' in the sense they took all the IP and lessons learned and reimplemented an OS/2 they had sole control over. "retain the OS/2 API as its primary interface" Linux isn't Unix. KJ
- kjs3 9y ago
  It was in no way started from scratch. Microsoft took all they learned from OS/2 including the API and had basically the same team (including David Cutler, who was originally in charge of "OS/2 v3") and reimplement an operating system they didn't have to share with IBM. To pretend NT is somehow not directly related to OS/2 is the worst sort of historical revisionism; it's in fact a lie.
newnewpdro 9y ago
And those things make OS/2 stand out how exactly? I'm under the impression OS/2 wasn't an attractive OS until 3.0 came along.
- kjs3 9y ago
  I didn't say that they made OS/2 stand out and I obviously wasn't addressing that. But since you asked, OS/2 1.x and 2.x were reasonably stable, multitasking, networked server operating systems with an advanced (for the time) filesystem and other interesting features. With early versions delivering that on an i286. And there were a couple of (possible) killer apps: Notes, DB2 (on something smaller than an AS/400), etc. You can debate whether it was superior to Novell, Banyan, Xenix or a bunch of other contemporary competitors. It was also a usable though less clearly advanced desktop operating system at the time.
scruffyherder 9y ago
The real joke is that the '32bit' version was written in parallel, and suppressed by IBM. You can read more, and actually run them here: https://www.pcjs.org/blog/2016/02/08/ https://www.pcjs.org/blog/2016/02/08/ It's a little touchy to get the 1987 version running ( https://www.pcjs.org/disks/pcx86/os2/misc/football/87058/ https://www.pcjs.org/disks/pcx86/os2/misc/football/87058/ ), but there it is, OS/2 1.0 hacked up with 32bit extensions to support multiple v86 machines. Windows/386 was a thing in 1987, along with Xenix on the 386. OS/2 could have been there too but IBM was too busy trying to cover base with the 5170, the brain dead 286 machine that dragged down the entire industry. Between delaying the 32bit version for years, they also wouldn't let Microsoft just port over Windows to run ontop of OS/2. And of course SAA had to be 180 degrees opposite of Windows out of spite. It's really no surprise that once Windows 3.0 started to sell, NT OS/2 3.0 suddenly became Windows NT 3.1

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Windows NT would be where MS tech caught up with IBM OS/2 was originally a Microsoft/IBM joint product, work on NT at Microsoft began during that time as “NT OS/2”; the cooperation broke down in large part over the different directions MS and IBM wanted to take with OS/2.

yuhong 9y ago
That OS/2 2.0 debacle was so bad BTW it is my favorite topic (especially the MS part). I mentioned before out that DR would not be easily be able to clone OS/2 as they did with DR-DOS.
- Zardoz84 9y ago
  DR-DOS not was a clone of MS-DOS. The truth is that was CP/M-86 that was added stuff to be MS-DOS compatible. I used DR-DOS 5 when I was a children and I remember that it worked better that MS-DOS 6. Sadly, Microsoft used these dirty trick that Windows 3.1 would autofail if detect any OS that isn't MS-DOS.
  - yuhong 9y ago
    Early versions of DR-DOS was (kind of), but eventually I think they redesigned the kernel to use true DOS data structures etc.
    - Zardoz84 9y ago
      DR-DOS 5 keep having the old CP/M sauce like BDOS kernel renamed as "IBMDOS.COM". Other thing, would if they removed old CP/M stuff that was not necessary any more to run MS-DOS programs, but the source code keeps being a evolution of the old CP/M.
  - einr 9y ago
    Sadly, Microsoft used these dirty trick that Windows 3.1 would autofail if detect any OS that isn't MS-DOS. That code, while present in the codebase, was deactivated in the release version of Windows 3.1, so it actually ran just fine on DR-DOS.