3 ms·

OS/2 was forced down to 80286 compatibility for version 1.1. That was major design damage, required by IBM because most of the PS/2 line was on this CPU. Both

by chasil 4y ago

OS/2 was forced down to 80286 compatibility for version 1.1. That was major design damage, required by IBM because most of the PS/2 line was on this CPU. Both Linux and NT required an 80386 with a flat memory model. On capable hardware, this was far superior. Both Linux and NT quickly ran on multiple platforms besides x86. I think that OS/2 was ported to Power, but nothing else.

tengwar2 4y ago
No, that was v1.0. v1.1 was incompatible with v1.1 in some respects for that reason. I had some stuff that was literally hard-wired with wire-wrap to do bit-shuffling from an image acquisition system (assembly wasn't fast enough) and I would have had to re-wire it to migrate to 1.1. There were also some details that wouldn't have affected most people, like moving from 8 byte entries to 16 byte entries in the descriptor tables. Sorry if I'm vague on the details - it was a while back.
- chasil 4y ago
  Interesting, the wiki is not clear on this. "OS/2 1.x targets the Intel 80286 processor and DOS fundamentally doesn't. IBM insisted on supporting the 80286 processor, with its 16-bit segmented memory mode, because of commitments made to customers who had purchased many 80286-based PS/2s as a result of IBM's promises surrounding OS/2. Until release 2.0 in April 1992, OS/2 ran in 16-bit protected mode and therefore could not benefit from the Intel 80386's much simpler 32-bit flat memory model and virtual 8086 mode features." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2 The developer of busybox/toybox also had 80286 discussion. https://www.landley.net/history/mirror/os2/OS2Warp.html https://www.landley.net/history/mirror/os2/OS2Warp.html
markhahn 4y ago
I remember 386 support connected with 1.3, but probably still using descriptors. NSFT was still involved at 2.0 time, though DOS+Windows was pretty obviously going to win, so to speak, and NT OS/2 was still hush-hush. NT OS/2 ran on ia32, mips, alpha, and i860 (wow, freaky to remember that!) at the time - the "new technology" was as much the racy idea of portable OS code as RISC and microkernels...
- chasil 4y ago
  Cutler's design was VMS written in (portable) C. (The VMS kernel was written in assembler.) VMS has great strengths, but hard file locks on OS components require downtime for patching. Cutler didn't foresee the avalanche of updates, and the availability collapse of "patch Tuesday." POSIX opportunistic locking was a great gift to his competition.
- lproven 4y ago
  HPFS386 was a faster, 32-bit version of the HPFS driver, included with 1.3 and later in its server editions. http://www.edm2.com/index.php/HPFS386.IFS http://www.edm2.com/index.php/HPFS386.IFS That's the only 386 code in OS/2 1.x that I know of.
__d 4y ago
NT was actually developed on the MIPS Magnum workstations, after being initially targeted at the Intel i860 RISC chips, and only later ported to the i386, PowerPC, and Alpha architectures.
lproven 4y ago
This is incorrect on several counts. - It wasn't from version 1.1; the original OS/2 1.0 was a 286 OS, because IBM insisted it ran on the 286, because IBM sold a lot of 286-based PS/2 computers and had promised that they would run OS/2. I have written about this recently, and you commented on the discussion. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33019019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33019019 That post was based on a comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33007995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33007995 - It wasn't "forced down". It was originally a 286 OS, by design. - "Most of the PS/2 line" -- [[citation needed]]. I am not sure about "most" but certainly 286 PS/2 were popular, because they were cheaper. It wasn't about volumes; it was about an IBM promise to PS/2 buyers.

by chasil 4y ago

tengwar2 4y ago

No, that was v1.0. v1.1 was incompatible with v1.1 in some respects for that reason. I had some stuff that was literally hard-wired with wire-wrap to do bit-shuffling from an image acquisition system (assembly wasn't fast enough) and I would have had to re-wire it to migrate to 1.1. There were also some details that wouldn't have affected most people, like moving from 8 byte entries to 16 byte entries in the descriptor tables. Sorry if I'm vague on the details - it was a while back.

chasil 4y ago
Interesting, the wiki is not clear on this. "OS/2 1.x targets the Intel 80286 processor and DOS fundamentally doesn't. IBM insisted on supporting the 80286 processor, with its 16-bit segmented memory mode, because of commitments made to customers who had purchased many 80286-based PS/2s as a result of IBM's promises surrounding OS/2. Until release 2.0 in April 1992, OS/2 ran in 16-bit protected mode and therefore could not benefit from the Intel 80386's much simpler 32-bit flat memory model and virtual 8086 mode features." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2 The developer of busybox/toybox also had 80286 discussion. https://www.landley.net/history/mirror/os2/OS2Warp.html https://www.landley.net/history/mirror/os2/OS2Warp.html

markhahn 4y ago

I remember 386 support connected with 1.3, but probably still using descriptors. NSFT was still involved at 2.0 time, though DOS+Windows was pretty obviously going to win, so to speak, and NT OS/2 was still hush-hush. NT OS/2 ran on ia32, mips, alpha, and i860 (wow, freaky to remember that!) at the time - the "new technology" was as much the racy idea of portable OS code as RISC and microkernels...

chasil 4y ago
Cutler's design was VMS written in (portable) C. (The VMS kernel was written in assembler.) VMS has great strengths, but hard file locks on OS components require downtime for patching. Cutler didn't foresee the avalanche of updates, and the availability collapse of "patch Tuesday." POSIX opportunistic locking was a great gift to his competition.
lproven 4y ago
HPFS386 was a faster, 32-bit version of the HPFS driver, included with 1.3 and later in its server editions. http://www.edm2.com/index.php/HPFS386.IFS http://www.edm2.com/index.php/HPFS386.IFS That's the only 386 code in OS/2 1.x that I know of.

__d 4y ago

NT was actually developed on the MIPS Magnum workstations, after being initially targeted at the Intel i860 RISC chips, and only later ported to the i386, PowerPC, and Alpha architectures.

lproven 4y ago

This is incorrect on several counts. - It wasn't from version 1.1; the original OS/2 1.0 was a 286 OS, because IBM insisted it ran on the 286, because IBM sold a lot of 286-based PS/2 computers and had promised that they would run OS/2. I have written about this recently, and you commented on the discussion. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33019019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33019019 That post was based on a comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33007995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33007995 - It wasn't "forced down". It was originally a 286 OS, by design. - "Most of the PS/2 line" -- [[citation needed]]. I am not sure about "most" but certainly 286 PS/2 were popular, because they were cheaper. It wasn't about volumes; it was about an IBM promise to PS/2 buyers.