LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 03-21-2014, 10:59 PM   #16
smeezekitty
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Washington U.S.
Distribution: M$ Windows / Debian / Ubuntu / DSL / many others
Posts: 2,241

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 194Reputation: 194

Quote:
If you would like both a challenge (mostly in finding a copy) and a huge wake up call at just how badly Microsoft has sabotaged the progress of computing, get and install IBM's OS/2. Version 2.1 is written almost entirely in Assembly with the 386 in mind and is therefore extremely efficient and scaleable. It will run unbelievably snappy on that box, plus it has vastly superior

1) File System - HPFS (essentially NTFS as MS stole it)
2) CPU scheduling
3) Memory management - direct addressing, not EMS
4) Pre-emptive process management
5) TCP/IP stack

It also handles larger file sizes and smaller segments and is fully Posix compatible.

Even better would be Warp 3 for it's addition of greater hardware support and more usable modern applications, along with a Desktop arguably better than Win95 but still capable of screaming on a 486 with 24MB ram. At last look, one can still download Maintenance (Service Packs on steroids) and iirc there were 30 or so of those for Warp 3, and around 20 for 2.1, although the originals are exceptional all by themselves.
Even if in some ways it was better. The software availability just isn't there

Quote:
And of course it didn't have a TCP/IP protocol stack - what for at that time?
Windows 3.0/3.1 doesn't have a TCP stack, but Windows 3.11 DOES
Its performance is manageable albeit somewhat worse than Linux on the same hardware
 
Old 03-22-2014, 05:06 AM   #17
enorbet
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware 14 is Main OpSys on Main PC, 2ndary are OpenSuSe 13 and SolydK
Posts: 736

Rep: Reputation: 345Reputation: 345Reputation: 345Reputation: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugan View Post
The problem was that the average 486 had 4 to 8 MB RAM.
Actually that was not a huge obstacle since it would run on a 386 with 4MB of ram. Also it is not an issue at all for OP who says he has 24MB RAM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by History of OS/2
OS/2 Warp - 1994

OS/2 Warp Version 3 made its debut in October 1994 as OS/2 Warp for Windows. Like OS/2 2.11 for Windows, it did not contain IBM's Win-OS/2 code and relied on Windows 3.1 to run Windows programs. OS/2 Warp 3 with full Win-OS/2 support became available a short time later.

Warp 3 was designed to install and run on a computer with only 4MB of RAM and it did. Performance was tolerable, but adding more RAM improved performance considerably. Additional device drivers made Warp 3 capable of running with the vast majority of personal computers and peripherals on the market. The Workplace Shell was improved significantly in terms of both its functionality and performance. Print performance, PCMCIA support, and multimedia support were all enhanced significantly.

TCP/IP and Internet communications were also added to Warp 3. The Internet Access Kit (IAK) provided a complete package to enable Warp users to log on and surf the net. The Web Explorer allowed users access to the World Wide Web, although it was neither as feature rich nor as flexible as the industry leader, NetScape. Text mode and graphical FTP applications allowed file transfer. Ultimail Lite gave users e-mail, but Ultimail is cumbersome, slow, and very difficult to configure.

Unlike previous versions of OS/2, Warp shipped with a BonusPak CD-ROM which contained several OS/2 applications. IBM Works is a set of integrated applications including a spreadsheet, word processor, database, report generator, and charting program.
 
Old 03-22-2014, 05:33 AM   #18
enorbet
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware 14 is Main OpSys on Main PC, 2ndary are OpenSuSe 13 and SolydK
Posts: 736

Rep: Reputation: 345Reputation: 345Reputation: 345Reputation: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by smeezekitty View Post
Even if in some ways it was better. The software availability just isn't there


Windows 3.0/3.1 doesn't have a TCP stack, but Windows 3.11 DOES
Its performance is manageable albeit somewhat worse than Linux on the same hardware
While 2.1 was quite barebones, Warp 3, especially if one had a CDROM to take advantage of the Bonus Pak, had considerably more software applications built in than Windows 3 and the TCP/IP stack was vastly superior to Win 3.11's primitive mess. One was expected to use NetBios, NetBui, and other crapola protocols instead. Even WinXPs TCP/IP stack was inferior to Warp 3s and by the time Warp 4 hit the gulf was even larger, which should have been quite an embarrassment since it shipped in 1996.

I didn't mention Warp4 before because frankly I can't recall from experience how well it would run on OP's 486 w/ 24MB RAM. It came with substantially more applications built in even than Win95 and Win98, having

1) A complete Office Suite tho not as polished as MS Office, it was essentially free and did have such advanced features as Mobile Office that synced remote systems with any main system.
2) Internet Dialer
3) Lotus Notes
4) Voice Dictation and Navigation
5) NetInfinity with DesktopManagementInterface was a total systems package that made Control Panel look like a toy.
6) WebExplorer Browser and Netscape Navigator
7) The best Java support of any OpSys until 2010

In addition it had what was called The Universal Client, supporting LAN Server, Warp Server, Windows NT Server, Novell Netware, Netware Directory Services, PCLAN Program, IPX-SPX, LANtastic for DOS or OS/2, Warp Connect, Windows NT Workstation, Windows 95, Windows for Workgroups, TCP/IP (including DHCP, DDNS, FTP, TFTP, Telnet, SLIP, PPP, SMTP, and SNMP), SNA, NetBIOS) all of which could work simultaneously !

On the downside, I could never understand IBMs commitment to Object Programming and what passed for a file manager was terribly clunky to most users. I bought Clear and Simple's suite of tools which IIRC cost me $25 US and included an excellent File Manager as well as many other valuable tools like performance analyzers and optimizers.

Also, by 1997 Warp Centric BBS's and especially the University sponsored Hobbes website ( http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/ still alive and well to this day) began to host IBM addons and also a great deal of user generated software much like the Linux community does today. In fact, one larger project, called EMX, basically brought *Nix into OS/2 and I ran an Enlightenment Desktop for years on Warp 4 and WSeB.
 
Old 03-22-2014, 06:25 AM   #19
Doc CPU
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: Mint, Debian, Gentoo, Win 2k/XP
Posts: 1,065

Rep: Reputation: 315Reputation: 315Reputation: 315Reputation: 315
Hi there,

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Wow! That is totally amazing and mysterious. I actually bought it too and I actually admin'd a small business with just shy of 50 workstations running 2.1 and there was not one single unscheduled reboot in over 2 years.
so obviously our experience with OS-half is significantly different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
One of the main reasons Microsoft bailed was because IBM refused to allow exceptions for certain programs to have direct access to hardware. MS-OS2 3.0 NT became MS Windows NT with such access (and a trumped up story about a former DEC employee being responsible for NTFS) and the BSOD was born.
That's not an acceptable conclusion. Let's make it clear that you're talking about a "feature" in Windows NT3.x, because the consumer version of Windows 3.x didn't have this, it wasn't even a true self-contained OS (the mainstream branch of Windows was a full OS only as of version 4, known as Windows 95).
Anyway, the vast majority of Bluescreens I encountered during my Windows experience weren't caused by applications requesting privileged access to memory or hardware, but by drivers - very often Microsoft's own ones. And, hey, I encountered an awful lot of Bluescreens, most of them with NT4.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
So I don't know how you managed to mess that up but I assure you, you did, even if only by having poor hardware.
Possibly. However, it was a perfectly normal standard PC featuring a true Intel 386/25MHz, 4MB RAM, a 120MB IDE hard disk, and a TSENG ET4000 based VGA, all of which OS/2 claimed to support out of the box, with no need for extra drivers. But I dimly remember that I encountered the first crash of OS/2 even during installation, and when I phoned a fellow student (the one who'd made me aware of OS/2 and was using it since 1.3), he told me to just try again, start over again. The second time it installed fine, apparently, but as I said earlier it never came anywhere near stability. If this really had to do with "poor hardware", as you ponder, why would the DOS/Windows combo run so smoothly and almost faultlessly?

As for the sluggish operation, I guess that 4MB RAM, although up to the specs, was actually not enough to run smoothly. Most of the time, the system was busy swapping in and out, so that response to a user action often occurred with a delay of several seconds.

Oh, and by the way: Over the years, I installed and used almost every version from 3.1 to XP on many machines, and over time I had a very clear image that there were versions that ran rock stable, and others that would crash if you only raised your voice. The most stable and reliable versions (in decreasing order) seemed to be 2000/SP4, XP/SP2 and 98; versions I've never seen stable were NT4, XP prior to SP2, 95 and ME (in no particular order), though ME was actually a stripped-down variant of Windows 98 with a slightly pimped GUI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Compatibility layer? Win95 and Win98 installers were designed and built with the specific means to detect HPFS and issue dire but vague warnings that "the install may fail" and then kindly offered to delete "the problem". The only "compatibility" there has been on the MS side is to this day many systems will mistakenly identify NTFS as HPFS because they changed so little, despite the ridiculous cover story.
I wasn't talking about compatibility to the HPFS file system - there isn't any. I was referring the the Windows API that has (or had?) a number of system calls explicitly for compatibility with OS/2. I don't know what this was good for, because I doubt that any Windows version was really able to run native OS/2 applications. The other way round worked, I know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Incidentally, FWIW, if you doubt Win95 and Win98 were inferior in so many ways, [...] Win 95 and Win 98 won't run even on a 32bit CPU with in excess of 1Gig of ram.
Windows 98 does. That requires some tricks, but it does.
There's a bug in smartdrv, the HDD cache management in Windows 98 with the effect that smartdrv claims a huge amount of memory if there's a total of more than 256MB. Then Windows 98 complains about "not enough memory". You can work around this by manually specifying a decent cache size for smartdrv in Windows's system.ini file. I had Windows 98 running well on a 2GB machine until I retired it about two or three years ago.

[X] Doc CPU
 
Old 03-22-2014, 06:45 PM   #20
enorbet
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware 14 is Main OpSys on Main PC, 2ndary are OpenSuSe 13 and SolydK
Posts: 736

Rep: Reputation: 345Reputation: 345Reputation: 345Reputation: 345
Thank you Doc_CPU that was an interesting post. I especially was fascinated by the workaround for the 1GB limit for Win98. Nice one! Also I can't call it a typo since it was really just a brain freeze but I'd like to correct the error regarding Win95 & 98. I wrote 32bit but I really did mean to write 64bit. I am all too aware of the joke about "32 bit extension and graphical interface on a 16bit patch" and ending in "not 1 bit of competition". We did used to joke that it was a "32 bit pretender" but they will not even begin to boot on a 64 bit CPU and OS/2 does happily and even loves it if you have multi-cores and can read and write to multiple SCSI drives simultaneously.

BTW not to put too fine a point on it but technically BSODs can only occur on NT. On Win3 through 98 it was commonly a Page Fault or most common the General Protection Fault. But, you're right that people rarely make that distinction anymore. Even I had forgotten it's name for a bit until I remembered a jpeg floating around Freenode channels of the MS Win95 Keyboard which only had 3 keys - Ctrl, Alt and Delete - "for when you can't wait 5 minutes for a General Protection Fault"

Also you may possibly be correct about my conclusion because I got that from IBM employees working on TeamOS2. Not all were shall we say stable and reasonable chaps. In any case, as expected, even the Official IBM version is quite different from the Official Microsoft Version. However I must say that in truth I found IBM to be more honest about this. Steve Ballmer is quoted in print and on video saying "IBM paid by the kloc" and implied they only cared about quantity not quality. He just neglected to mention they paid by the QUALIFIED, ACCEPTED kloc. This rather burns me up since it denigrates some of the finest coders of the dawn of the personal computer days. IBM may not have great marketing skills but they do know who to hire and generally get them.

I am seriously still trying to comprehend what could have possibly caused you such problems. I was such a noob when I first tried to install OS/2 2.1 that I actually tried to install it on a 386 system with a CGA monitor and an MFM hard drive and even that got part way through installation before halting, but the installer never crashed. As you might imagine I installed various versions of OS/2 on many hundreds of computers and I really did never see one actually crash, as in instant reboot. If hardware or drivers were a problem one would get a message that "Install Can Not Continue" but that is not a crash.

Someone else mentioned a scarcity of applications and I never experienced that either. I did, however, have considerable problems with device drivers... not crashing, just availability. I naively began learning Assembly so I could write my own.

Anyway thanks for the convo... this has been fun.
 
Old 03-22-2014, 06:52 PM   #21
enorbet
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware 14 is Main OpSys on Main PC, 2ndary are OpenSuSe 13 and SolydK
Posts: 736

Rep: Reputation: 345Reputation: 345Reputation: 345Reputation: 345
OH! I ALMOST FORGOT!! Today I traveled to Floyd, Virginia, a deceptively sleepy little town that is home to an amazing Computer Museum. It is run by a man named Dave Larsen, who was a colleague of Jon Titus who, while a student at Virginia Tech, built the very first home computer, pre-dating the Altair by almost 6 months. You can see it here If You're Interested

I saw a working Altair, a Sinclair, a Mark 8 Mini, several Tandys, a bunch of Apples (although he won't display any of the Apple I's he has as they are worth around $300K each. There are only something like 45 of them still in existence.) and many I had never even heard of. All of you posting in this thread would have loved it and I thought of this at the time.

Last edited by enorbet; 03-22-2014 at 06:54 PM.
 
Old 03-22-2014, 08:57 PM   #22
smeezekitty
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Washington U.S.
Distribution: M$ Windows / Debian / Ubuntu / DSL / many others
Posts: 2,241

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 194Reputation: 194
Cool museum. I am on the wrong side of the country though
 
Old 03-23-2014, 08:09 AM   #23
Doc CPU
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: Mint, Debian, Gentoo, Win 2k/XP
Posts: 1,065

Rep: Reputation: 315Reputation: 315Reputation: 315Reputation: 315
Hi there,

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
I especially was fascinated by the workaround for the 1GB limit for Win98. Nice one!
yea, thank you, but that's not my merit. I picked that up in a computer magazine at a time when Windows 98 was still common, but computers with more than 256MB were also coming up. Could be sometime very shortly past 2000.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Also I can't call it a typo since it was really just a brain freeze but I'd like to correct the error regarding Win95 & 98. I wrote 32bit but I really did mean to write 64bit.
You're saying that Win98 won't run on a 64bit CPU? Well, I might try some day, just out of curiosity. I'd be very surprised, 'cause usually it is said that the 64bit CPUs are backward compatible. I've been running 32bit versions of Linux on two of my machines for years, because I simply didn't know the Atom 230 CPU is 64bit capable. After all, Windows 2000 (32bit only) and the 32bit version of XP run fine on a 64bit CPU, so why not Win98 ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
I am all too aware of the joke about "32 bit extension and graphical interface on a 16bit patch" and ending in "not 1 bit of competition". We did used to joke that it was a "32 bit pretender" but they will not even begin to boot on a 64 bit CPU and OS/2 does happily and even loves it if you have multi-cores and can read and write to multiple SCSI drives simultaneously.
In Germany, there's another nice joke about that.
Q: "How come Windows thinks it can do anything?"
A: "That's because of 32 Bit. When I have 32 Bit inside me, I also think I can do anything."
To understand this, one must know that there's a German beer brand called "Bitburger" (after the town Bitburg), which is colloquially called "Bit".
The motto of its commercial is "Bitte ein Bit!" ("A Bit, please!").

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
BTW not to put too fine a point on it but technically BSODs can only occur on NT.
And its successors 2000, XP, Vista, Seven ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
I am seriously still trying to comprehend what could have possibly caused you such problems.
I'm not. It's twenty years ago, it's long gone. No need to stir it up again on my behalf.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
[...] one would get a message that "Install Can Not Continue" but that is not a crash.
Well, at the installation problem the system just stalled and didn't respond any more, so all I could do after a few minutes was press the RESET button. The frequent crashes of the running system were either freezes, or the system would spontaneously reboot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
OH! I ALMOST FORGOT!! Today I traveled to Floyd, Virginia, a deceptively sleepy little town that is home to an amazing Computer Museum. It is run by a man named Dave Larsen, who was a colleague of Jon Titus who, while a student at Virginia Tech, built the very first home computer, pre-dating the Altair by almost 6 months. You can see it here If You're Interested

I saw a working Altair, a Sinclair, a Mark 8 Mini, several Tandys, a bunch of Apples (although he won't display any of the Apple I's he has as they are worth around $300K each. There are only something like 45 of them still in existence.) and many I had never even heard of. All of you posting in this thread would have loved it and I thought of this at the time.
Would you believe me if I told you that my good old Commodore C64 is still working? At least it did when I tried it last year. I stowed it away in plastic wrap and a cardboard box, but sometimes I'm taking it out again for the sake of nostalgia. It's not much of use any more, since the floppy drive's bearings are slightly gummed meanwhile, and even if they weren't, many floppy disks themselves aren't readable any longer. I occasionally play a little game on a C64 emulator, though. :-)

[X] Doc CPU

Last edited by Doc CPU; 03-23-2014 at 08:11 AM.
 
Old 03-23-2014, 11:54 AM   #24
smeezekitty
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Washington U.S.
Distribution: M$ Windows / Debian / Ubuntu / DSL / many others
Posts: 2,241

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 194Reputation: 194
Quote:
BTW not to put too fine a point on it but technically BSODs can only occur on NT.
Depends on how you define BSoD. For example serious faults will cause Windows 3.1 even to display
an error with white text on a blue background. The system may or may not hang
 
Old 03-23-2014, 08:53 PM   #25
enorbet
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware 14 is Main OpSys on Main PC, 2ndary are OpenSuSe 13 and SolydK
Posts: 736

Rep: Reputation: 345Reputation: 345Reputation: 345Reputation: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by smeezekitty View Post
Depends on how you define BSoD. For example serious faults will cause Windows 3.1 even to display
an error with white text on a blue background. The system may or may not hang
Yes. I mentioned that.... most commonly "GPF or General Protection Fault" not really the same as BSOD since occasionally a GPF still allowed recovery of the desktop w/o rebooting. BSOD is death.... a kernel dump and a reboot.
 
Old 03-23-2014, 09:11 PM   #26
enorbet
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware 14 is Main OpSys on Main PC, 2ndary are OpenSuSe 13 and SolydK
Posts: 736

Rep: Reputation: 345Reputation: 345Reputation: 345Reputation: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc CPU View Post
You're saying that Win98 won't run on a 64bit CPU? Well, I might try some day, just out of curiosity. I'd be very surprised, 'cause usually it is said that the 64bit CPUs are backward compatible. I've been running 32bit versions of Linux on two of my machines for years, because I simply didn't know the Atom 230 CPU is 64bit capable. After all, Windows 2000 (32bit only) and the 32bit version of XP run fine on a 64bit CPU, so why not Win98 ...
Because win98 is still a shell on DOS, a 16bit OpSys and one with almost all of the original limitations that Apple Lisa and OS/2 tried to get the computer world to upgrade past. I'm assuming your smartdrv trick worked because it could be called with the LOADHIGH switch, and even that surprises me. No editing of config.sys and autoexec.bat, nor hacking of msdos.sys and io.sys will allow MS-DOS to be booted on a 64bit system. AFAIK the problem is that command.com is 16bit.
 
Old 03-24-2014, 02:07 PM   #27
Doc CPU
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: Mint, Debian, Gentoo, Win 2k/XP
Posts: 1,065

Rep: Reputation: 315Reputation: 315Reputation: 315Reputation: 315
Hi there,

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
win98 is still a shell on DOS, a 16bit OpSys
no, it's not. It's neither a 16bit system, nor just something on top of DOS.

The 9x series of Windows (that's 95, 98 and ME) is a full-fledged 32bit system. It uses 32bit word width, it uses 32bit linear addressing. However, it can also run 16bit Windows and DOS applications. While 16bit Windows modules are executed through a wrapper called winoldap.mod, DOS applications are executed in V86 virtual mode, each DOS box in its own VM.

The widesread misconception that these systems are based on DOS may result from the fact that they use DOS as their bootloader. But it's really just that - once the Windows kernel takes over, Win9x is true 32bit and needs no DOS any more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
I'm assuming your smartdrv trick worked because it could be called with the LOADHIGH switch, and even that surprises me.
Your assumption is wrong. I wasn't talking about the DOS driver smartdrv.exe, but about its 32bit Windows counterpart, though they're both contained in the same executable file.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
No editing of config.sys and autoexec.bat, nor hacking of msdos.sys and io.sys will allow MS-DOS to be booted on a 64bit system. AFAIK the problem is that command.com is 16bit.
Wrong again. Just for curiosity's sake, I popped the Windows 98 setup CD in and booted DOS 7.1 from it - on a computer with an AMD X2/260 CPU, a genuine 64bit system. And it works. Q.e.d. Of course it doesn't support two cores, so it feels a bit like a Porsche that only runs in first gear.
However, I'm not trying to install Windows 98 on that computer now, because I know that one of the first thing setup will do is flatten the existing MBR and replacing it with its own, knocking my GRUB over. But I might do that in a few days on a small, clean HDD.

There are a few things that Windows 98 cannot cope with. One of them is HDDs larger than 160GB, another is an UEFI BIOS.

I also know that Windows 98 has no built-in drivers for SATA; that simply didn't exist in 1998. But it will work anyway, though slow, because it'll run the hard disk in "compatibility mode", which means Windows will use BIOS calls to access the HDD.

[X] Doc CPU
 
Old 03-24-2014, 04:44 PM   #28
enorbet
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware 14 is Main OpSys on Main PC, 2ndary are OpenSuSe 13 and SolydK
Posts: 736

Rep: Reputation: 345Reputation: 345Reputation: 345Reputation: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc CPU View Post
"Re: 32bit shell on 16bit DOS"
no, it's not. It's neither a 16bit system, nor just something on top of DOS.
The 9x series of Windows (that's 95, 98 and ME) is a full-fledged 32bit system. It uses 32bit word width, it uses 32bit linear addressing. However, it can also run 16bit Windows and DOS applications. While 16bit Windows modules are executed through a wrapper called winoldap.mod, DOS applications are executed in V86 virtual mode, each DOS box in its own VM. The widesread misconception that these systems are based on DOS may result from the fact that they use DOS as their bootloader. But it's really just that - once the Windows kernel takes over, Win9x is true 32bit and needs no DOS any more. Your assumption is wrong. I wasn't talking about the DOS driver smartdrv.exe, but about its 32bit Windows counterpart, though they're both contained in the same executable file.
Maybe we are splitting hairs or have different definitions of "full-fledged" but there are more limitations to Win95 thru ME than just the initial bootloader. Anyone can see this by pressing F8 at boot time and selecting "step-by-step confirmation". Additionally, although MSCDEX was no longer required, SCSI hardware, many soundcards, and a few other peripherals still required entries in config.sys, autoexec.bat, or both. I'm not talking just about the primitive state of PNP at the time and mere IRQ/DMA assignment but rather base drivers at DOS 16 bit level... hardly "full".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc CPU View Post
Wrong again. Just for curiosity's sake, I popped the Windows 98 setup CD in and booted DOS 7.1 from it - on a computer with an AMD X2/260 CPU, a genuine 64bit system. And it works. Q.e.d. Of course it doesn't support two cores, so it feels a bit like a Porsche that only runs in first gear.
However, I'm not trying to install Windows 98 on that computer now, because I know that one of the first thing setup will do is flatten the existing MBR and replacing it with its own, knocking my GRUB over. But I might do that in a few days on a small, clean HDD.
I sincerely hope you do as I can't comment on how far the install CDROM will get before it balks and halts, but I have experienced these:

1) I have several SuperMicro 370SDA mobos which has a socket 370 which only supports 32 bit CPUs, however because it is at it's core a server board and was expected to run other systems not constrained by DOS 16bit, the mobo supports 3 GB of DDR RAM. If I remove 2GB, leaving 1GB installed, Win95 and Win98 will install and run. On 2GB it will sometimes boot but usually crash. On 3GB it simply will not boot.

2) I have 3 different 64 bit systems
a) Asus A8NE w/ AMD FX-57 2GB RAM
b) Intel DP45SG w/ Intel Core2 Extreme QX-9650 w/ 8GB RAM
c) Asrock Z77 Extreme w/ i3-3550 w/8GB RAM

On all 3 systems, regardless of amount of ram installed, any attempt to boot MS-DOS, Win95, or Win98 (I can't speak for Win-Me as I never had the displeasure of owning it) gives me a BIOS error message that such systems are incompatible with a 64bit CPU.

That said, LiveCDs, even those which have DOS programs on them will boot to menu. Some DOS programs will attempt to run, most will not even try and if more than 1GB of ram is installed, all will crash if they run at all.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc CPU View Post
There are a few things that Windows 98 cannot cope with. One of them is HDDs larger than 160GB, another is an UEFI BIOS.
[X] Doc CPU
They also won't handle 4GB files, even if one enhances them with NTFS support (incidentally loaded in autoexec.bat) and can only boot from the 1st active partition on the first hard drive. However there was a workaround for hard drives larger than 160GB iirc.

I'm not going to just assume and state "You're wrong" just because your research, experience, definitions and understanding may differ from mine but it is extremely odd that you had such terrible experience with IBM's OS/2 and such exemplary, even rule-breaking positive experience with Windows.

I eagerly await your results installing Win95, 98 or Me on a 64bit system.

PS - I also run 32 bit XP and Linuxes (in addition to OS/2) on the above 64bit machines. They work because they are in every sense of the word 32bit, not just partially.

Last edited by enorbet; 03-24-2014 at 04:52 PM.
 
Old 03-24-2014, 05:04 PM   #29
sundialsvcs
Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 5,455

Rep: Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172
Funny you should mention OS/2. I walked by a Wells Fargo ATM not long ago and ... "what to my wondering eyes did appear" but an OS/2 Program Manager screen?

I've also been asked to weigh-in on a point-of-sale terminal project whose technology ... installed in many hundreds of stores today right now, is apparently ... dBase or maybe FoxPro.

And, since we all seem to be "taking a ride on the Wayback Machine" here, let us all remember to keep very firmly(!) in mind that ... "history repeats itself, even when we remember ("BAH!! These Kids Today!™") that history."

Everything that we do (or have ever done ...) in the world of software is, without exception, in Defiance™ (insert appropriate image-link here ...) against the limitations of the hardware of its time . . .

... Including: "2014 yessir you are n-o-t an exception," today.

Quote:
"Old Age and Treachery will outdistance Youth And Vigor every time."

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 03-24-2014 at 05:18 PM.
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:48 PM   #30
smeezekitty
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Washington U.S.
Distribution: M$ Windows / Debian / Ubuntu / DSL / many others
Posts: 2,241

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 194Reputation: 194
Quote:
On all 3 systems, regardless of amount of ram installed, any attempt to boot MS-DOS, Win95, or Win98 (I can't speak for Win-Me as I never had the displeasure of owning it) gives me a BIOS error message that such systems are incompatible with a 64bit CPU.
I know for sure that my 64 bit capable core 2 duo will boot DOS. I accidentally left a DOS boot disk in a USB floppy drive
while a rebooting and I was greeted with an A:\ prompt

I never tried 95/98 though

As far as I know, the CPU itself should be backwards compatible all the way back to 808x series
The motherboard may be a different story
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:24 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration