4 ms·

The PS/2 was PC compatible. The term means "can run IBM PC software". The PS/2 could. It was compatible. Same OSes, same apps. Remember this was the 1980s. Th

The PS/2 was PC compatible. The term means "can run IBM PC software". The PS/2 could. It was compatible. Same OSes, same apps. Remember this was the 1980s. There were almost no protect-mode 32-bit OSes around, and the few that there were then had PS/2 versions. DOS and DOS apps ran fine on PS/2s, unmodified.

pjmlp 4y ago
No it wasn't, it had the MCA architecture for the motherboards, which was out of reach to the clone makers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Channel_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Channel_architecture > It was thought that by creating a new standard, IBM would regain control of standards via the required licensing. As patents can take three years or more to be granted, however, only those relating to ISA could be licensed when Micro Channel was announced. Patents on important Micro Channel features, such as Plug and Play automatic configuration, were not granted to IBM until after PCI had replaced Micro Channel in the marketplace. The overall reception was tepid and the impact of Micro Channel in the worldwide PC market was minor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PS/2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PS/2 > The PS/2 line was created by IBM partly in an attempt to recapture control of the PC market by introducing the advanced yet proprietary Micro Channel architecture (MCA) on higher-end models. These models were in the strange position of being incompatible with the IBM-compatible hardware standards previously established by IBM and adopted in the PC industry. However, IBM's initial PS/2 computers were popular with target market corporate buyers, and by September 1988 IBM reported that it had sold 3 million PS/2 machines. This was only 18 months after the new range had been introduced.
- lproven 4y ago
  I was there. I installed hundreds of the things. I still own 2 of them. The term "PC compatible" is about software, not hardware. It's not about slots. For instance, laptops were and are still PC compatibles and 99% of laptops have no expansion slots. The PS/2 range ran bog-standard unmodified PC DOS and MS-DOS, and unmodified DR Concurrent DOS. It ran plain unmodified standard Windows 2, 3 and 3.1. I put it on them. I deployed them in production. I have personally done this; this is not research or hearsay. I did it myself. In my basement right now is a PS/2 Model 80 with 16MB of RAM that runs Windows NT Server 3.51. PS/2s were PCs. Furthermore MCA was not "out of reach to clone makers". I personally installed at least one Apricot VXFT server with SCO UNIX, and MCA slots. http://insight.actapricot.org/insight/products/servers/vxft/vxftmain.htm http://insight.actapricot.org/insight/products/servers/vxft/... There were other models too: https://ardent-tool.com/Apricot/ https://ardent-tool.com/Apricot/ Tandy, ACT Apricot, Fujitsu, Siemens-Nixdorf, Olivetti, AST, and others all sold MCA machines. It cost money for a licence, sure, but it was not IBM-only. The list of members was not insignificant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Channel_Developers_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Channel_Developers_Assoc... MCA lost out to VL-Bus, EISA, and ultimately to PCI, but it did OK for a while. There wasn't really anything wrong with MCA. Its issues were two fold and relatively minor: [1] EISA, VLB and PCI could co-exist with ISA. MCA couldn't. [2] Manufacturers had to pay to licence it. If IBM's OS/2 plan had worked, and OS/2 had been a 386 OS and thus been compelling to DOS users, then in 1987, the PC industry would have had a pre-emptive multitasking OS, and by 1988, it would have had a GUI too. Windows 3 would never have happened. There's a chance that 386BSD might not have happened. Linux almost definitely wouldn't -- it was 3 years later. Then IBM's package of a fancy new PCs with shiny new ports and graphics and memory, with a fancy multitasking OS, plus a fancy new 32-bit bus, would have been compelling. But it dropped the ball. It insisted on the 286 being included.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    I stand corrected than.
    - lproven 4y ago
      Thank you for that. :-)

pjmlp 4y ago

No it wasn't, it had the MCA architecture for the motherboards, which was out of reach to the clone makers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Channel_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Channel_architecture > It was thought that by creating a new standard, IBM would regain control of standards via the required licensing. As patents can take three years or more to be granted, however, only those relating to ISA could be licensed when Micro Channel was announced. Patents on important Micro Channel features, such as Plug and Play automatic configuration, were not granted to IBM until after PCI had replaced Micro Channel in the marketplace. The overall reception was tepid and the impact of Micro Channel in the worldwide PC market was minor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PS/2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PS/2 > The PS/2 line was created by IBM partly in an attempt to recapture control of the PC market by introducing the advanced yet proprietary Micro Channel architecture (MCA) on higher-end models. These models were in the strange position of being incompatible with the IBM-compatible hardware standards previously established by IBM and adopted in the PC industry. However, IBM's initial PS/2 computers were popular with target market corporate buyers, and by September 1988 IBM reported that it had sold 3 million PS/2 machines. This was only 18 months after the new range had been introduced.

lproven 4y ago
I was there. I installed hundreds of the things. I still own 2 of them. The term "PC compatible" is about software, not hardware. It's not about slots. For instance, laptops were and are still PC compatibles and 99% of laptops have no expansion slots. The PS/2 range ran bog-standard unmodified PC DOS and MS-DOS, and unmodified DR Concurrent DOS. It ran plain unmodified standard Windows 2, 3 and 3.1. I put it on them. I deployed them in production. I have personally done this; this is not research or hearsay. I did it myself. In my basement right now is a PS/2 Model 80 with 16MB of RAM that runs Windows NT Server 3.51. PS/2s were PCs. Furthermore MCA was not "out of reach to clone makers". I personally installed at least one Apricot VXFT server with SCO UNIX, and MCA slots. http://insight.actapricot.org/insight/products/servers/vxft/vxftmain.htm http://insight.actapricot.org/insight/products/servers/vxft/... There were other models too: https://ardent-tool.com/Apricot/ https://ardent-tool.com/Apricot/ Tandy, ACT Apricot, Fujitsu, Siemens-Nixdorf, Olivetti, AST, and others all sold MCA machines. It cost money for a licence, sure, but it was not IBM-only. The list of members was not insignificant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Channel_Developers_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Channel_Developers_Assoc... MCA lost out to VL-Bus, EISA, and ultimately to PCI, but it did OK for a while. There wasn't really anything wrong with MCA. Its issues were two fold and relatively minor: [1] EISA, VLB and PCI could co-exist with ISA. MCA couldn't. [2] Manufacturers had to pay to licence it. If IBM's OS/2 plan had worked, and OS/2 had been a 386 OS and thus been compelling to DOS users, then in 1987, the PC industry would have had a pre-emptive multitasking OS, and by 1988, it would have had a GUI too. Windows 3 would never have happened. There's a chance that 386BSD might not have happened. Linux almost definitely wouldn't -- it was 3 years later. Then IBM's package of a fancy new PCs with shiny new ports and graphics and memory, with a fancy multitasking OS, plus a fancy new 32-bit bus, would have been compelling. But it dropped the ball. It insisted on the 286 being included.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  I stand corrected than.
  - lproven 4y ago
    Thank you for that. :-)