Quoting Utopian Galt to All <=-
I am thinking about buying an OS/2 licence since Windows 10 will not
be officially supported.
Do internet old school like a generation ago.
Utopian Galt wrote to All <=-
I am thinking about buying an OS/2 licence since Windows 10 will not be officially supported.
Cougar428 wrote to UTOPIAN GALT <=-
I run OS/2 on an older IBM P90. I tried adding a network card and the
TCP/IP stack to get it on a network so I could try what you mentioned.
What a mistake that was. Screwed up the system pretty bad. Had issues
even getting it to boot after that. Had to do a re-install from Red
Spine disk to get it working again.
I am thinking about buying an OS/2 licence since Windows 10 will not be officially supported.
Do internet old school like a generation ago.
Utopian Galt wrote to Nightfox <=-
Its for DOS support. I could mess around with older software :)
Its for DOS support. I could mess around with older software :)
It truly was a better DOS than DOS. It multitasked DOS windows smoothly, lots of free memory, and you could even create a virtual DOS environment with "real" DOS 6.22.
Guess there's always Linux.OS/2 AND LINUX GANG!!!!
Co-Pilot is the reason why I am stopping my subscription to Microsoft Office. Will use Libre Office.BASED!!!
Utopian Galt wrote to Nightfox <=-
Its for DOS support. I could mess around with older software :)
It truly was a better DOS than DOS. It multitasked DOS windows smoothly, lots of free memory, and you could even create a virtual DOS environment with "real" DOS 6.22.
Back in the 90s, I ran the BBS on DOS, ran OS/2 on my desktop, and used LANTastic networking. They didn't have an OS/2 client, so I created a
DOS VDM with MS-DOS and the drivers, and had a DOS window that could
talk to the BBS.
Quoting Mary4 to Cougar428 <=-
Guess there's always Linux.
OS/2 AND LINUX GANG!!!!
Nightfox wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
It truly was a better DOS than DOS. It multitasked DOS windows smoothly, lots of free memory, and you could even create a virtual DOS environment with "real" DOS 6.22.
As in MS-DOS 6.22? As OS/2 was an IBM product, I thought it would be
more equivalent to IBM's PC-DOS?
The duffus John Smith said to the geek Sam Uzi <=-
it is the ONLY true 32-bit multi-threaded pre-emptive multi-tasking
OS around.
...except for every single OS around that was written for non-Intel
CPUs.
All the neat shit that people claim for the latest hottest Intel
-- the stuff in your quote there -- is stuff that has always
been pretty much standard in the Motorola and Risc worlds.
It truly was a better DOS than
DOS. It multitasked DOS windows
smoothly,
lots of free memory, and you could
With OS/2, you could create virtual DOS machines, akin to a virtual machine nowadays. They would create a virtual machine, booting from a DOS image, and inside that window you'd be running DOS natively, with the ability to have separate config.sys and autoexec.bat files. from a disk image created from a DOS boot disk, and have an environment that was 100% DOS. The "Better DOS than DOS", if you will.
You could boot any DOS that way, if you needed a specific brand or version of DOS. The DOS prompt in OS/2 was pretty good, I gotta say - the only time I preferred it was when I had an application that needed DOS-only drivers.
My board used to have a message base just for tech flame posts. We had lots of OS/2 versus Amiga arguments on the board, sort of like watching two kids fighting it out to see who's the baddest ass in the Physics club.
- Area: nirvana.tech.flame ---------------------------------------------------
Msg#: 95
Date: 20 Jul 94 12:31:00
From: SAM UZI
To: JOHN SMITH
Subj: OS from heaven ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The duffus John Smith said to the geek Sam Uzi <=-
it is the ONLY true 32-bit multi-threaded pre-emptive multi-tasking
OS around.
...except for every single OS around that was written for non-Intel CPUs.
All the neat shit that people claim for the latest hottest Intel
-- the stuff in your quote there -- is stuff that has always
been pretty much standard in the Motorola and Risc worlds.
sure, whatever... but OS/2 is THE BEST Operating System in the world,
can run circles around anything else, and it looks nicer, and will cook
your breakfast for you, and make your coffee, and has 3D-bordered
icons, and is nifty, and looks cool, and is True-Blue, and can run DOS better than DOS, and will take out the garbage, and will get you chicks,
and has got a 438 Hemi duo-blaster twin quad super injection turbo
...
Ah, that's cool. I used OS/2 a bit but didn't play with the DOS VM stuff that in-depth. I did try running my original DOS BBS (using RemoteAccess) i OS/2. I had downloaded Ray Gwynn's serial telnet driver for OS/2 and was abl to telnet to my RemoteAccess BBS. I was only experimenting with that though and still only had that BBS set up for dialup.
Yeah, it was pretty freaking cool at the time. There are even things
about ArcaOS desktop that work pretty well. It ran the sh$t out of DOS, and was 32-Bit!
I installed once ArcaOS on a VM, curious about OS/2 experience which I neve had in the past. But it was slacky and a bit clunky to me. I could not find myself in that environment. I believe if a lot of time was dedicated to the
Compared to what we have today, yes, it is a bit clunky, but in the
90sit was 20 years a head of it's time.
Compared to what we have today, yes, it is a bit clunky, but in the 90sit was 20 years a head of it's time.
You mean working like up to 2010 expectations? Bold assumption considering we had quite matured up OSX and Windows 7 back then :)
In the US, "# of years ahead of its time" is usually a turn-of-phrase and not meant literally.
Dumas Walker wrote to HOLLOWONE <=-
That said, at the time OS/2 came out, it probably did seem futuristic, much like the first black-and-white MACs did. ;)
Presentation Manager on OS/2 2.0 was pretty wild, too - a context-based, object-oriented UI was ahead of the pack at the time.
Sometimes I wonder where we'd be today if OS/2 had become the dominant OS PCs. Or maybe even BeOS, though they initially started with their own PowerPC-based computers, and by the time they ported BeOS to x86, it was probably too late. I thought BeOS had some crazy multi-tasking though, an liked its UI - it was simple and looked like a piece of art.
Nightfox wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Sometimes I wonder where we'd be today if OS/2 had become the dominant
OS for PCs. Or maybe even BeOS, though they initially started with
their own PowerPC-based computers, and by the time they ported BeOS to x86, it was probably too late. I thought BeOS had some crazy multi-tasking though, and I liked its UI - it was simple and looked
like a piece of art.
Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
The problem with OS/2 was that it had a full services arm behind it. I often wondered if it wasn't as easy to use/install because IBM was expecting to have the customer to have a service contract with IBM.
I don't think it was until the internet came out that people really cared about multi-tasking; before that, Windows was really more of a UI for most people to run one GUI app at a time.
Did they? I remember buying a boxed copy of OS/2 at my local Egghead Software and installing it and using it on my PC without a problem. I didn't need to have a service contract with IBM.
I don't think it was until the internet came out that people really ca
about multi-tasking; before that, Windows was really more of a UI for
people to run one GUI app at a time.
I bought OS/2 Warp to run my Wildcat v4 bbs on. It ran great. My problem was when I tried to upgrade to OS/2 v4, my mouse wouldn't work. I called IBM and they wanted to charge me to get it working. I dropped OS/2 and went to Desqview.
Nightfox wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Re: Re: OS/2
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Nightfox on Fri Jun 20 2025 07:28 am
The problem with OS/2 was that it had a full services arm behind it. I often wondered if it wasn't as easy to use/install because IBM was expecting to have the customer to have a service contract with IBM.
Did they? I remember buying a boxed copy of OS/2 at my local Egghead Software and installing it and using it on my PC without a problem. I didn't need to have a service contract with IBM.
I don't think it was until the internet came out that people really cared about multi-tasking; before that, Windows was really more of a UI for most people to run one GUI app at a time.
Still, there could be software running in the background, and without
good multi-tasking, the system could be unstable.
Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
ogg wrote to Nightfox <=-
I bought OS/2 Warp to run my Wildcat v4 bbs on. It ran great. My
problem was when I tried to upgrade to OS/2 v4, my mouse wouldn't work.
I called IBM and they wanted to charge me to get it working. I
dropped OS/2 and went to Desqview.
But, OS/2 had its moment. Loved the multitasking, and running OS/2 BBS
binaries (Maximus, Squish and BinkleyTerm) was amazing. They ran in a
minimized window on my OS/2 desktop and I barely noticed they were
running.
It was the multitasking that attracted me to it. Once I was using dos and Desqview, I never looked back.
I don't see how .... the BBS always bled thru DESQview. Couldn't really do what I needed in another window with it, which led me to OS/2 2.1,
the OS/2 v3 WARP which allowed me to be telnetable back in 1995.
I ran my bbs on OS/2 v3 without an issue. The problem came in with OS/2 v4 That's when I move backed to DOS and DESQ/view.
I ran on Warp V3 Connect for years. When I moved into my 1st apartment,
I saw on egghead.com they have OS/2 Warp v4.0 for $1.88 .... it was an obvious mistype on te webpage, but they sent it. Best deal I ever got. Warp v4 was a different breed. It never did want to install correctly.
It was the multitasking that attracted me to it. Once I was using dos Desqview, I never looked back.
I don't see how .... the BBS always bled thru DESQview. Couldn't really d what I needed in another window with it, which led me to OS/2 2.1, the OS/ WARP which allowed me to be telnetable back in 1995.
back up and running. I've got a full box set of v3 and v4 still on my boo shelf. What to do....
When you say 'bled thru' do you mean the video bled through?
If yes, then that sounds like the virtual terminal settings in advanced
| Sysop: | smooth0401 |
|---|---|
| Location: | New Providence, NJ |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 21:11:23 |
| Calls: | 311 |
| Files: | 595 |
| D/L today: |
5 files (3,471K bytes) |
| Messages: | 50,308 |