3 ms·

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-sh

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