12 ms·

The 386 was so cool when it came out it was an absolute powerhouse. Having said that there was no operating system for it. All that 32 bit power just got used

The 386 was so cool when it came out it was an absolute powerhouse. Having said that there was no operating system for it. All that 32 bit power just got used for faster DOS and sometimes concurrent DOS. It’s weird to think how long it took for the operating systems to be developed for it.

lizknope 1y ago
Microsoft and IBM were both developing OS/2 together. There were a lot of disagreements between the two companies. IBM wanted to keep supporting the 286. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2#1990:_Breakup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2#1990:_Breakup > OS/2 1.x targets the Intel 80286 processor and DOS fundamentally does not. 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.[30] 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. This was especially painful in providing support for DOS applications. While, in 1988, Windows/386 2.1 could run several cooperatively multitasked DOS applications, including expanded memory (EMS) emulation, OS/2 1.3, released in 1991, was still limited to one 640 kB "DOS box". > Given these issues, Microsoft started to work in parallel on a version of Windows which was more future-oriented and more portable. The hiring of Dave Cutler, former VAX/VMS architect, in 1988 created an immediate competition with the OS/2 team, as Cutler did not think much of the OS/2 technology and wanted to build on his work on the MICA project at Digital rather than creating a "DOS plus". His NT OS/2 was a completely new architecture.[31] DOS extenders had started in the 1980's but they weren't a real OS but I would barely call DOS an OS either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS_extender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS_extender But Unix was ported to the 386 in 1987. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix#Transfer_of_ownership_to_SCO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix#Transfer_of_ownership_to... > In 1987, SCO ported Xenix to the 386 processor, a 32-bit chip, after securing knowledge from Microsoft insiders that Microsoft was no longer developing Xenix.[41] Xenix System V Release 2.3.1 introduced support for i386, SCSI and TCP/IP. SCO's Xenix System V/386 was the first 32-bit operating system available on the market for the x86 CPU architecture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix I had friends running Linux from the very beginning in 1991.

lizknope 1y ago

Microsoft and IBM were both developing OS/2 together. There were a lot of disagreements between the two companies. IBM wanted to keep supporting the 286. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2#1990:_Breakup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2#1990:_Breakup > OS/2 1.x targets the Intel 80286 processor and DOS fundamentally does not. 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.[30] 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. This was especially painful in providing support for DOS applications. While, in 1988, Windows/386 2.1 could run several cooperatively multitasked DOS applications, including expanded memory (EMS) emulation, OS/2 1.3, released in 1991, was still limited to one 640 kB "DOS box". > Given these issues, Microsoft started to work in parallel on a version of Windows which was more future-oriented and more portable. The hiring of Dave Cutler, former VAX/VMS architect, in 1988 created an immediate competition with the OS/2 team, as Cutler did not think much of the OS/2 technology and wanted to build on his work on the MICA project at Digital rather than creating a "DOS plus". His NT OS/2 was a completely new architecture.[31] DOS extenders had started in the 1980's but they weren't a real OS but I would barely call DOS an OS either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS_extender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS_extender But Unix was ported to the 386 in 1987. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix#Transfer_of_ownership_to_SCO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix#Transfer_of_ownership_to... > In 1987, SCO ported Xenix to the 386 processor, a 32-bit chip, after securing knowledge from Microsoft insiders that Microsoft was no longer developing Xenix.[41] Xenix System V Release 2.3.1 introduced support for i386, SCSI and TCP/IP. SCO's Xenix System V/386 was the first 32-bit operating system available on the market for the x86 CPU architecture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix I had friends running Linux from the very beginning in 1991.