3 ms·

Not only did I live through this era of operating systems, I’m also a voracious reader of the history of tech companies and have read dozens of books on Microso

Not only did I live through this era of operating systems, I’m also a voracious reader of the history of tech companies and have read dozens of books on Microsoft and IBM history, and yet never once have I heard many of the claims in this article. I’d take it with a grain of salt if it were me.

jchw 7y ago
I found the claim that OS/2’s difficulty to run in a VM lead to Virtualbox pretty fascinating. I can’t find any direct sources for this claim at a cursory glance but it does seem that Virtualbox supported OS/2 quite early on. Interestingly, it seems that Virtualbox began life in 2007, which makes it confusing if true; why were people so interested in virtualizing OS/2 in 2007?
- Zenst 7y ago
  >why were people so interested in virtualizing OS/2 in 2007? I'd suspect that driver support negating for new hardware when it came to replacing aging hardware in area's in which it was still used as an OS, played a big part. So banks, that bridge to the mainframe and other niche area's in which they had a system that ran on that OS and never replaced.
- LeoPanthera 7y ago
  I thought it was Parallels that was created in order to be able to run OS/2 in a VM - not VirtualBox.
- Tsiklon 7y ago
  I recall seeing ATMs running OS/2 until quite recently. I could imagine that the hardware running that software was getting quite long in the tooth, and that a virtualised platform would be a potential stop gap measure in extending the service life of that investment. Now I see a good number of embedded windows ATMs (that tell tale click sound is always a dead give away). I assume that the majority of the OS/2 ATM Fleet is long since gone.
- jsjohnst 7y ago
  > why were people so interested in virtualizing OS/2 in 2007? A lot of PLCs used OS/2 software to debug / reconfigure them, so that’s one possibility other than the ones mentioned, but I still need evidence that: A) OS/2 depended on Ring 1 B) VirtualBox supported it better than alternatives C) OS/2 had anything else to do with VirtualBox’s creation.
Zenst 7y ago
Indeed, no mention of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAN_Manager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAN_Manager let alone how NT initially also supported the Alpha (Dec) processor as well as x86. As for OS/2 rings, not seeing ring 1 used here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_ring#Implementations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_ring#Implementation... I also lived thru all this and kinda interesting seeing how word of mouth chains have panned out over time. Makes you wonder about how history will remember and has remembered some things.
- craz8 7y ago
  NT supported x86, MIPS and Alpha in the mid 90s from the single source code

jchw 7y ago

I found the claim that OS/2’s difficulty to run in a VM lead to Virtualbox pretty fascinating. I can’t find any direct sources for this claim at a cursory glance but it does seem that Virtualbox supported OS/2 quite early on. Interestingly, it seems that Virtualbox began life in 2007, which makes it confusing if true; why were people so interested in virtualizing OS/2 in 2007?

Zenst 7y ago
>why were people so interested in virtualizing OS/2 in 2007? I'd suspect that driver support negating for new hardware when it came to replacing aging hardware in area's in which it was still used as an OS, played a big part. So banks, that bridge to the mainframe and other niche area's in which they had a system that ran on that OS and never replaced.
LeoPanthera 7y ago
I thought it was Parallels that was created in order to be able to run OS/2 in a VM - not VirtualBox.
Tsiklon 7y ago
I recall seeing ATMs running OS/2 until quite recently. I could imagine that the hardware running that software was getting quite long in the tooth, and that a virtualised platform would be a potential stop gap measure in extending the service life of that investment. Now I see a good number of embedded windows ATMs (that tell tale click sound is always a dead give away). I assume that the majority of the OS/2 ATM Fleet is long since gone.
jsjohnst 7y ago
> why were people so interested in virtualizing OS/2 in 2007? A lot of PLCs used OS/2 software to debug / reconfigure them, so that’s one possibility other than the ones mentioned, but I still need evidence that: A) OS/2 depended on Ring 1 B) VirtualBox supported it better than alternatives C) OS/2 had anything else to do with VirtualBox’s creation.

Zenst 7y ago

Indeed, no mention of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAN_Manager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAN_Manager let alone how NT initially also supported the Alpha (Dec) processor as well as x86. As for OS/2 rings, not seeing ring 1 used here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_ring#Implementations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_ring#Implementation... I also lived thru all this and kinda interesting seeing how word of mouth chains have panned out over time. Makes you wonder about how history will remember and has remembered some things.

craz8 7y ago
NT supported x86, MIPS and Alpha in the mid 90s from the single source code