Serenity Systems International is pleased to announce the availability of an eComStation 1.2 beta release that installs on AMD Athlon 64-based systems (as a 32bit OS).Previous releases of eComStation (including the current version 1.2) would not install on certain revisions of the AMD Athlon 64 processor. This beta release is intended to test if this problem is solved by the implementation of a workaround in the installer code.
Results so far have shown that it indeed works correctly on previously misbehaving systems.
This download is accessible only to Software Subscription Service customers right now. Access is through the BetaZone, but the customer is required to login through his/her account at the Mensys website.
We have a newsgroup about OSes here called fido7.ru.os.cmp. And OS/2 folks’ positions are still strong then.
OS/2 is pretty dead pretty everywhere, but still has its followers who continue to use it. And like it.
Like BeOS, NeXT, and so on.
Why wouldn’t companies have migrated away by now ?
A large majority of our banks here still use OS/2 for the ATM’s and bank teller systems. This was decided almost 5-10 (not sure) years ago because OS/2 provided the stability and functionality AND could run on their old hardware. (most NB)
So they got an extra 10+ years out of their systems without needing to upgrade everywhere. Plus, the companies that provide support still make money off of the old, dead OS.
For them, migration would have been more expensive.
Why change something that actually works.
ecomstation is installed mostly in banks and ATMs. Windows viruses have already penetrated those networks and have shutdown ATM’s. That never happened with ecomstation.
as I said why shutdown what works.
“OS/2 is pretty dead pretty everywhere, but still has its followers who continue to use it. And like it.”
Errr… Well apart from that slight contradiction, as others have posted above, eCS and OS/2 are still very much in use, particularly in the Finance and Banking sectors. Plus there is a large and active soho userbase (myself included)
As to being “dead”, it really does depend on how you define dead. Would you consider NT4 dead? Me, no, I see it at clients all the time. Win98? As I understand it, MS don’t support these any longer (except for the odd critical security patch). IBM on the other hand still provides kernel patches, drivers etc, although this is soon to stop (I’m not sure about the exact dates).
But eCS has up to date versions of Apache, PHP, MYSQL, Postgres, Firefox, Thunderbird, VisualAge Smalltalk, etc. Java is pretty up to date I think, as is Open Office (albeit running the Windows version using some clever API trickery). Scitech provide SNAP Graphics for cross-chipset graphics card support.
“Dead” is relative. Next to WinXP, Linux, UNIX and MacOS X, yes, eCS and OS/2 are tiny niche players. But they are not dead in the sense that there is still plenty of activity. Serenity would not be investing so heavily if it were.
Just my opinion of course…
Maybe I’ll get a 64 mobo next then… currently runs fine on my 3000+ now though….
it is amazing how our (OS/2, eCS) harware support has grown in the past years. Many folks don’t realise just how much new hardware it supports…
I just cant wait to test it on my new mobo, i’ve got eCS but have’nt tested it yet because of my AMD 64 system. also found a link to an other news site with more info on this at http://bitsofnews.com.
Maybe I’ll get a 64 mobo next then… currently runs fine on my 3000+ now though….
Why? It’s still going to just run in 32-bit mode. I’m not saying “don’t use eCS” not at all. All I’m saying is: don’t just buy an AMD64 computer just for eCS – put an OS on it that will actually take full advantage of it.
Bank will not rewrite the existed programs unless that not working.
I met a Bank’s IT manager said that their phone banking is using “Sendkey” function to interact with legacy program. He emphasized that none will rewite or add new code since it may cause problems. None want to lose their jobs. This is a reason for Y2k crisis.
I think OS/2 ATM will be replaced by Win ATM. The resons:
1. The ATM vendors seen changed to use Win.
2. Lack of IBM support
3. lack of smartcard reader driver. New ATM card will smartcard instead traditional magnetic card.
Sorry for my poor English.
“We have a newsgroup about OSes here called fido7.ru.os.cmp. And OS/2 folks’ positions are still strong then.”
You should check out the comp.os.os2.* newsgroups sometime.
If you subtract the crap being posted by a few individuals who are trying to disrupt the groups, you’ll discover that there’s quite a bit of constructive activity still going on there as well.
“OS/2 is pretty dead pretty everywhere, but still has its followers who continue to use it. And like it.”
OS/2 never really won over the trade press, with the exception of a few individuals, and it’s been flying under the radar now for years. Most people don’t seem to realize its actual level of utility after all this time, though, which is a shame.
In my mind, it’s still what Windows NT should have been.
“Like BeOS, NeXT, and so on.”
Unlike BeOS and NeXT, however, OS/2 and eCS are able to run a ton of DOS and Windows software, and that helps to fill in a lot of holes.
bob2002-
same reason that I work for a company that profits on selling and refurbishing intel multibus and motorola mvme hardware.
BTW while in mexico last summer I saw at least 4 ATMs with a big old fat BSOD NT4 style.
“In my mind, it’s still what Windows NT should have been.”
I agree. The workplace shell, for one, is something great. with its true object orientation (unlike the Windows shell) and unique useful concepts in general, e.g. shadows — windows shortcuts break if their target is moved, with shadows it never happens.
“Unlike BeOS and NeXT, however, OS/2 and eCS are able to run a ton of DOS and Windows software, and that helps to fill in a lot of holes.”
Absolutely. DOS support specifically — OS/2 has far superior DOS emulator than Windows NT. The DOS emulator runs in full memory protected mode and yet at native speeds (Try executing “edit” from a DOS prompt under Windows NT, and typing some characters in it, and you’ll see the considerable lag even on a 3 Ghz PC), and allows even the running of multiple “real” DOS versions — e.g you can run DOS 3.3 and DOS 5.0 in two windows, and the built-in OS/2 DOS in a third. Multitasking between DOS sessions and the rest of the system is smooth, I’ve tried that as early as 1994. DPMI is supported. There is full Windows 3.1 and Win32s support. As for Win32 support there is a free WINE-analog called Odin that does the job nicely for quite a few applications.
All in all, a shame for this to go down the drain, but IBM are all to blame for this downfall, really. They left Microsoft to drag us into the dark ages of operating systems — trust me, OS/2 3.0 released in 1994 was really an experience of enlightenment and freedom in comparison with Windows 95 that came out the following year. Things changed only Windows 2000…
Why? It’s still going to just run in 32-bit mode. I’m not saying “don’t use eCS” not at all. All I’m saying is: don’t just buy an AMD64 computer just for eCS – put an OS on it that will actually take full advantage of it.
You seem to forget that AMD 64-bit chips are faster and more efficient in terms of power consumption than any 32-bit chip at executing 32-bit code. Buying an AMD64 computer just for _any_ OS would be a wise decision.
The workplace shell, for one, is something great.
That would be true if you didn’t frequently have to rebuild it after system crashes. This was the #1 gripe I had with OS/2 back when I used it.
OS/2 has far superior DOS emulator than Windows NT.
You have to remember that NT’s DOS emulation is intended for one purpose: to minimize the barrier for upgrading while simultaneously encouraging users to ditch their old DOS apps for Windows ones.
BTW, If you liked OS/2’s DOS emulation, you would probably like Linux’s too: DOSEMU does all of the things you mentioned and much more. I don’t miss the OS/2 VDMs at all, except for the nice little configuration dialog…
>>The workplace shell, for one, is something great.
>
>That would be true if you didn’t frequently have to rebuild
>it after system crashes. This was the #1 gripe I had with
>OS/2 back when I used it.
OS/2 has come a long ways since the 2.0/2.1 days. I don’t think I’ve ever had WPS corruption with Warp 4, and it was a fairly rare thing even with Warp 3. Of course, I also don’t have as many third-party WPS classes installed now as I did back in the 2.1 days.
>BTW, If you liked OS/2’s DOS emulation, you would probably >like Linux’s too: DOSEMU does all of the things you >mentioned and much more. I don’t miss the OS/2 VDMs at all, >except for the nice little configuration dialog…
DOSEMU isn’t bad at all — I use it with both PC-DOS 6.3 and MS-DOS 7.10 to run various things under Linux — but it’s not really as robust as an OS/2 VDM. There are a lot of GUI programs that run in an OS/2 VDM just fine (New Deal Office, Executor/DOS, and NeoBook Pro for starters) that I can’t get to work under DOSEMU at all. I even managed to get the DOS GUI graphics viewer SEA3 to work under OS/2.
I’d like to play wtih DOSBOX myself, but I can’t even get it to run on my Mandrake 8.2 system. An older distro, true, but it has to be able to install and run on a 64MB PPro.
“You seem to forget that AMD 64-bit chips are faster and more efficient in terms of power consumption than any 32-bit chip at executing 32-bit code.”
Actually this isn’t true. The only reason to move from 4 to 8, 8 to 16, 16 to 32, and 32 to 64 bit is the ability to access more memory easier. In doing so you can have programs hold more data at one time instead of swapping it in and out of memory. Only then the program is accessing this amount of data does an increase in bits make any difference.
Now the difference in CPU speed is a different thing entirely. If equal, running a 32 bit OS and program will actually be a little slower than it was on a 32 bit system. So mostly it is the CPU speed (not necessarily mhz but cycles per second) that makes the difference.
Back in 1992 I had four computers running Windows 3.1 (shudder). I got a beta version of OS/2 2.0 and installed it on a same model machine as the Win 3.1 computers. Come to find out that one OS/2 machine could literally do more than the 4 Win 3.1 machines because it ran much faster on same hardware and I didn’t have to worry about things crashing and bringing Windows down. If a Windows program crashed only that program crashed and everything else stayed running. I even had multiple modems connecting to multiple servers getting info and doing updates remotely. Would never dream of doing that with XP even now. I’ve tried and I lose connections. I did it just to see what would happen.
The biggest problem OS/2 had was IBM’s lame ads.
Anyway, OS/2 was WAY ahead of its time. eComStation is actually more alive now then OS/2 was five years ago. I do use a Mac mostly but use eComStation, LinSpire, and BeOS. I only use Windows at work where I’m a Systems Analyst. At home I like things I don’t have to worry about.
We are pleased to announce the availability of a x86 OS that installs on x86 based systems?
installs on a 64 bit x86 cpu.. please pay attention…
…as a 32bit OS. I did pay attention.
As you can see, eComStation (OS/2) is used in many areas — http://en.ecomstation.ru/solutions
and there is no need to port it to 64-bit platform. So, new version simply helps to developers of completed solutions equip computer with eComStation. This is useful for novice and home users too!
I am confused to see so many negative replies. Please read “eComStation: a bird’s-eye view” — http://www.ecomstation.com/edp/mod.php?mod=ecsfile&get=23 to understand what is the current state of the operating system.
It runs on the CPU Board inside of the system. I think it’s an embedded version though but I am not positive.
Saying “eComStation for Athlon 64 Now Available” is not the same as “eComStation THAT WORKS ON Athlon 64 Now Available”
That’s a really interesting page – I’d not come across that one before. Thanks for the info.
I do wish that Serenity would bang their own drum a bit more regarding who’s using the OS – a Press release type page with citations would be good.
“You seem to forget that AMD 64-bit chips are faster and more efficient in terms of power consumption than any 32-bit chip at executing 32-bit code.”
Actually this isn’t true. The only reason to move from 4 to 8, 8 to 16, 16 to 32, and 32 to 64 bit is the ability to access more memory easier. In doing so you can have programs hold more data at one time instead of swapping it in and out of memory. Only then the program is accessing this amount of data does an increase in bits make any difference.
Actually, it is true. The Athlon64 has more registers available for use in 32-bit mode. It also has an integrated memory controller, a redesigned instruction fetcher/decoder, and a few other tweaks, that makes it about 20% faster (in 32-bit mode) than a similarly clocked AthlonXP.
The Athlon64 is currently the fastest 32-bit and the faster 64-bit x86 CPU.
Pop over to Ars Technica, Anandtech, or Tom’s Hardware and do some reading. You’ll be pleasantly suprised.
There’s more to the Athlon64 than just 64-bit goodness (hence the move to introduce the Sempron, which is a 32-bit only version of the Athlon64).
phoenix – As an OS/2 (eComStation) user I’m VERY happy to hear that it isn’t just running 32 bit on 64bit AMD. That they have made it take advantage of the platform. That wasn’t what it sounded like.
Hopefully this will start giving people a better perception of OS/2 and that it isn’t near death yet.
BTW: I still have a (ink) pen I got at the Seattle presentation of OS/2 2.0 beta. And I still use it for updating my motorcycle log (gas, oil, etc.). Up time – 13 years and counting. When it finally runs out of ink I’m going to frame it.
Eugenia – how about using the eComStation icon instead of OS/2? Maybe it would help give people a new view of this undead OS which is my second favorite behind Mac OS X.
Note: In my list, LinSpire comes in third, then BeOS, with Windows not making the list.
I’ve asked in the past, but for some reason the idea did not seem popular :/
So Eugenia, can I also reiterate the request?
Pretty please?
I wish I could try this out. Looks like the perfect OS for my old celeron 333. Right now its running Debian but I find its just too sluggish to be useful as anything but a headless server.
But 189 for the academic version of eComStation 1.2?
Forget it, without even being able to try it out, that price is out of the question.
Actually, the extra registers are only available when the chip is in 64-bit mode.
In my mind, it’s still what Windows NT should have been.
Why ? OS/2 is technically inferior to NT in just about every way imaginable (perhaps less so now, but certainly “back in the day” when OS/2 might have actually presented an alternative). The only thing I missed from OS/2 when I switched to NT, way back in ’96, was the WPS. I can sort of understand that, but from an architecture and technical perspective NT is far, far better.
http://www.freeos2.tk
Help OSFREE guyz !!!
http://www.osfree.org/
Actually thats not true, you can use the other registers in 32bit mode as well as directly access the FPU registers (no more stack yeah!) But of course you need to do some hacking to enable/use these features. But it is very well possible in 32 bit mode as well.
2003 signatures will not convince IBM.
the underlying OS/2 is not much better or different than NT 4.0, especially not as XP or 2000. Maybe it runs better on older hardware.
When OS/2 was released it was much better than any other desktop operating system available.
But today the only thing what i’m missing is the worplace shell. I would like to see an open source rewrite of the WPS… 🙂
Here in brazil Banco do Brasil one of major banks with anual income of billions use os2 on almost all desktop pcs!!
so it still have a use somewhere on the world!
sorry for my english !!
Well one major reason is that despite it’s compact size, my cube computer is noisy. I’m trying to get my machines mare silent, but smaller sure wasn’t the way to go. Since I’ll be selling it anyway, there’s no reason not to move forward. And yes, linux is also run here (as is BeOS, eCom, XP) so my 64 bit ubuntu CDs will get used.
“Why ? OS/2 is technically inferior to NT in just about every way imaginable.”
The technical specifications mean very little if the product doesn’t do what the user wants.
Windows NT 3.1 (the initial release of NT, for those not familiar with Microsoft’s creative versioning schemes) had three very serious failings in in my eyes that made it an inadequate solution for me when it was released:
* Its desktop was the Windows 3.1 desktop. ‘Nuff said.
* Its support for DOS programs was very poor, and I was a fairly heavy user of DOS software (and still am).
* NT had no scripting language. OS/2 has Rexx integrated with both the shell and the WPS, and I tend to use it a lot for automating simple tasks.
The first NT variant that I considered a serious alternative for my own use was Windows NT 4.0. However, while NT had a workable desktop based on Windows 95’s, that GUI was still a far cry from the WPS (as you mention) even in terms of basic usability, and the second and third points were still not adequately addressed at all.
As a heavy command-line user who spends at least as much time there as I do on the desktop, my requirements are apparently somewhat different from yours.
“The only thing I missed from OS/2 when I switched to NT, way back in ’96, was the WPS. I can sort of understand that, but from an architecture and technical perspective NT is far, far better.”
Yes, and GNU/Hurd is “technically better” than Linux in many ways, but which one provides a better real world solution?
Windows NT has always been larger and heavier than OS/2, its ability to multitask programs has always been less refined, and in general it has always been less flexible in terms of the options available, both in terms of UI and in terms of the types of legacy programs that it supports.
Windows NT also won’t boot from a logical partition unless you also have a certain amount of bootstrap code resident in the C: drive that it can see, you can’t detach the GUI from the base OS if you want to run a lightweight server, and it still comes with no scripting language that I’m aware of to easily automate things on the command line.
Instead of improving the product by making it more modular and more robust, Microsoft seems intent in “improving” their OS by dumbing down the UI, adding “Wizards” everywhere, and hiding advanced settings in registry entries, and the basic resource requirements have grown to the point where I’m not even sure thjt I can boot the base OS on the hardware I use for OS/2 anymore.
Save your “technically superior” arguments for the dog and pony shows. I want a platform I can use that doesn’t force me to get a hardware update every three years…
“the underlying OS/2 is not much better or different than NT 4.0, especially not as XP or 2000.”
The OS/2 kernel is VERY different from that found on Windows flavors. It does an extremely good job of smoothly handling processes with large numbers of concurrent threads, for example, while Windows historically has not.
“Maybe it runs better on older hardware.”
Warp 4 can boot and run on an 8MB box, and it can run in an acceptably fast manner in 16MB. With 32MB or more it does very well. The key to performance is RAM — its CPU and disk requirements are quite light by today’s standards.
“When OS/2 was released it was much better than any other desktop operating system available.”
That depends on how you look at it, and it also depends on which OS/2 you’re talking about.
OS/2 1.x released by MS and IBM wasn’t all that great.
OS/2 2.0 and later released by IBM had a number of innovative features (the WPS, multiple VDMs, etc.) and made a good run of it even though IBM badly muffed its marketing while also being hamstrung by Microsoft’s activities with developers and hardware vendors.
“But today the only thing what i’m missing is the worplace shell. I would like to see an open source rewrite of the WPS… :-)”
Unfortunately, the open source desktop UI development community hasn’t even matched some of its core features yet,
and I suspect a real OO shell that could be extended the way the WPS could be is many many years off yet. 🙁
I’d like to play wtih DOSBOX myself
I wouldn’t bother. It’s an emulator, so it’s really slow. Plus the DOS environment itself is implemented as an emulation (it doesn’t run a real DOS like OS/2 or DOSEMU). It’s designed for playing games, and that’s about all it does in a usable fashion.
Actually, the extra registers are only available when the chip is in 64-bit mode.
You’re wrong. They are only available _directly_ to the programmer/compiler in 64-bit mode, but they are still used in the register-renaming/out-of-order execution engine even in 32-bit mode, which is one reason why 32-bit code runs so fast on the Athlon 64.
the underlying OS/2 is not much better or different than NT 4.0,
Yes, it is. Indeed, you’d be hard pressed to find any ways in which the “underlying” OS/2 is at all similar to NT.
especially not as XP or 2000. Maybe it runs better on older hardware.
It does, but then again it’s not doing anywhere near as much.
When OS/2 was released it was much better than any other desktop operating system available.
Which version of OS/2 are you referring to here ? OS/2 1.0 was command-line only and released way back in 1987.
The technical specifications mean very little if the product doesn’t do what the user wants.
Well that’s certainly true, but the market seems to have embraced NT to a much larger extend than OS/2
.
Windows NT 3.1 (the initial release of NT, for those not familiar with Microsoft’s creative versioning schemes) had three very serious failings in in my eyes that made it an inadequate solution for me when it was released:
I agree with all of that, although IMHO NT’s route of poorer DOS support was better for everyone in the long run.
As a heavy command-line user who spends at least as much time there as I do on the desktop, my requirements are apparently somewhat different from yours.
MOre than likely, although a lot of people assume NT’s command line is exactly the same as DOS’s, when in fact it does a lot more.
Yes, and GNU/Hurd is “technically better” than Linux in many ways, but which one provides a better real world solution?
Well, between OS/2 and NT it would appear NT does, given its prevalence
.
Windows NT has always been larger and heavier than OS/2, its ability to multitask programs has always been less refined, and in general it has always been less flexible in terms of the options available, both in terms of UI and in terms of the types of legacy programs that it supports.
While I’ll agree NT requires more system resources, I’ll argue that’s because it does more. I also disagree with your assessment of the multitasking capabilities of both – after switching to NT4 (beta 2, early 1996) on my 100Mhz Pentium w/40MB RAM, I found the overall experience to be far, far smoother and more stable when multitasking.
Admittedly, I haven’t been back to OS/2 since for any serious use, but I’ve never had any complaints about NT’s multitasking abilities. IMHO, the infamous OS/2 Single Input Queue is, in itself, enough of a reason to be leery of its multitasking.
Windows NT also won’t boot from a logical partition unless you also have a certain amount of bootstrap code resident in the C: drive that it can see, […]
I’m pretty sure that’s also true of OS/2, as it’s a limitation imposed by x86 architecture (you need *some* sort of bootloader outside of a logical partition to kick the whole process off AFAIK).
I’m pretty sure you can get NT into a logical partition and boot it from, eg: LILO or GRUB if you’re prepared to do sufficient screwing around, but it seems here to me your complaint is more about Boot Managers than the OSes.
[…] you can’t detach the GUI from the base OS if you want to run a lightweight server, […]
If your server is so lightweight it can’t handle an idle login screen paged out to disk, it’s probably time to upgrade that 386
.
Seriously, you can get Pentium 2/3 class machines these days practically for free – why bother trying to keep old hardware limping along for real work ?
[…] and it still comes with no scripting language that I’m aware of to easily automate things on the command line.
WSH is pretty comprehensive and flexible to the best of my knowledge, although I’ve never felt the need to start automating things with it to any great extent.
You can do a surprising amount with batch files in NT’s command line as well, it’s much more featureful than DOS.
Instead of improving the product by making it more modular and more robust, Microsoft seems intent in “improving” their OS by dumbing down the UI, adding “Wizards” everywhere, and hiding advanced settings in registry entries, […]
Well, Microsoft are in the business of being in business, so they’re only going to expend resources adding features the majority of their customers want
.
[…] and the basic resource requirements have grown to the point where I’m not even sure thjt I can boot the base OS on the hardware I use for OS/2 anymore.
Well, I’ve no idea what hardware you’re running OS/2 on, or what version of OS/2, but I’ve successfully installed XP on a ca. 1996 200Mhz dual Pentium machine. Certainly, it was very slow, but still somewhat usable for basic tasks like web browsing and email.
More realistically, any Pentium 2 class machine with sufficient RAM (384MB+, which with todays prices is hardly unreasonable) will run XP usably, if you revert to the “Classic” skin.
Save your “technically superior” arguments for the dog and pony shows. I want a platform I can use that doesn’t force me to get a hardware update every three years…
Now you’re just being silly. I’m happily running Windows 2003 (as a workstation) on hardware ~6 years old under fairly heavy loads and not feeling at all restricted by its performance.
I’m sure OS/2 runs on much lesser hardware than NT. But it’s doing a lot less and doesn’t do the things I want to do very well – and it would appear most of the rest of the computing world agrees with me.
It does an extremely good job of smoothly handling processes with large numbers of concurrent threads, for example, while Windows historically has not.
How “historically” are we talking about here and under what circumstances ? NT had a hell of a lot more of its basic design targeted at multithreaded worstation tasks running on multiple CPUs than OS/2’s target of single processor 386 desktops ever did.
Unfortunately, the open source desktop UI development community hasn’t even matched some of its core features yet,
and I suspect a real OO shell that could be extended the way the WPS could be is many many years off yet. 🙁
I’d be inclined to say it never will. Realistically speaking, very few people ever took advantage of (or even knew about) the cool stuff WPS could do.
I love(d) OS/2(eCS) having used it as my primary OS until late 2003…when I switched to Mac OS X. Through the whole period I always had NT/2000/XP machine(s)around as well. OS/2 has many technical merits and I understand why so many still embrace the platform. It simply rocks and there is no denying that. I do have a problem though (now that it is 2005) hearing arguments on why OS/2 is technically superior to NT. Overall, it is simply not the case anymore. This still does not take anything away from OS/2 being an exceptional platform. But as each day passes, advancements in other platforms (NT, Linux, Mac OS X, etc.) continue to send OS/2 into history. Kudos to everyone who still uses OS/2 because it does everything they need it to do. For that reason, and with Serenity Systems efforts, OS/2 should live on for quite some time…I still have my OS/2 machine and fire it up every now and again. As long as it keeps on kicking I have no plans on letting it go.
Okay, I went a little overboard with the “dog and pony show” comment. Sorry. 🙂
Yes, the market chose Windows NT and its successors, mainly due to the huge number of applications which depend on the Win32 API (which OS/2 does not support out of the box), but also due to better support for Windows flavors by the various hardware vendors and also by PC sellers (even IBM was more or less forced to bundle Windows by its own customer base).
It is also true that Windows NT’s command line is better than the vanilla DOS command line in several respects. The default OS/2 command line isn’t all that good by itself except for the fact that Rexx is part of the equation. Thankfully, both 4OS2 and 4DOS are freeware now, the latter with source available as well, so at least an OS/2 user can perform a radical update of the CLI for free. 🙂
That really isn’t a true strength of OS/2, though, as 4OS2 and 4DOS are not bundled with the core OS (might be with eCS 1.2, I don’t honestly remember).
I do question at least one of your assertions, though, and that is that modern Windows variants are somehow doing more than OS/2. I’m not sure what you mean?
OS/2 has a very efficient 32-bit kernel, it has a solid MVDM (Multiple Virtual DOS Machine) architecture which lets it run both DOS and Win16 sessions in complete isolation (though some direct hardware access can be allowed with certain settings), it has a nice IFS (Installable Filesystem) subsystem so filesystems like FAT32, ext2fs, TVFS, and so on can be added, it has a full network stack based on the BSD stack, etc.
Other than UI elements, of which Windows has far too many in my opinion, I’m not sure how NT would differ except insofar as various bundled apps and APIs are concerned? Both are similar in terms of provided functionality, just not in architecture (OS/2 is somewhat more traditional in that its shell and PM subsystem can be completely replaced with something like TSHELL or even XFree86 if one is radical enough <g>).
W.r.t. booting, OS/2 has one weirdness — its installer will not let you install it into a logical drive unless you also install the IBM Boot Manager. However, you can delete it later, as well as all FAT or otherwise OS/2-readable primaries, and OS/2 will still boot. In that regard, it’s similar to Linux and BeOS.
Yes, a boot manager is required to catch the initial bootstrap vector and redirect it to the OS’s boot record in its boot partition, but that isn’t the same as the requirement Windows has
(at least to my knowledge).
If Windows XP or 2k is actually capable of booting on a disk with only ext2fs primaries or something, than I’ll sit corrected. I know OS/2 will because I’ve done it here.
W.r.t. multiprocessor support — remember that benchmark where OS/2 Server on one CPU outperformed a 4-CPU NT server box? The OS/2 kernel has supported multiple processors for decades — not in the client until eComStation, but with the server version. Multi-CPU support is not the reason for NT’s bloat.
You might want to reeducate yourself on OS/2’s internals before commenting much further, since I suspect you’re not aware of how advanced the core of that operating system has actually been. I’m not surprised — OS/2 hasn’t been in the spotlight for many years. However, I would guess that, on similar multiCPU hardware, that OS/2 would be able to run rings around a similarly configured Windows box of any flavor, or Linux for that matter. Threads and dynamic process prioritization are two of OS/2’s core strengths, and the relative smoothness is quite obvious on a low-resource box.
I use Warp 4 FP 14 here on a SCSI PPro/200 with 192MB of RAM, BTW. The RAM is mainly for the benefit of Firefox, which tends to use a lot of RAM when I have something like StarOffice loaded at the same time. Right now, I’m running 62 processes and 192 threads with various things inclyding a Hummingbird Exceed X server running in then background, and I’m only using around 48MB of RAM and no swap.
Instead of “The OS/2 kernel has supported multiple processors for decades”, I obvious meant “for years”. 🙂 The 32-bit kernel has only been around in production form since 1992, and it didn’t go SMP until somewhat later. 1994, I think, was the first SMP release.
Thanks for the comments, although gaming (in the form of Retrocade and MAME, as well as the large collection of DOS games I still have) might be one thing I’d want to run under DOSEMU when I eventually move to Linux for desktop use.
The fact that the main programs I seem to have issues with in DOSEMU are graphical in nature might make DOSBOX something worth looking at, though.
Yes, the market chose Windows NT and its successors, mainly due to the huge number of applications which depend on the Win32 API (which OS/2 does not support out of the box), but also due to better support for Windows flavors by the various hardware vendors and also by PC sellers (even IBM was more or less forced to bundle Windows by its own customer base).
I’d have to say that’s probably a textbook example of “meeting the customers’ needs”
.
It is also true that Windows NT’s command line is better than the vanilla DOS command line in several respects. The default OS/2 command line isn’t all that good by itself except for the fact that Rexx is part of the equation. Thankfully, both 4OS2 and 4DOS are freeware now, the latter with source available as well, so at least an OS/2 user can perform a radical update of the CLI for free. 🙂
I believe there’s also 4NT as well, not to mention things like Cygwin.
Suffice to say with a bit of (free) additional software both can have more than adequate command lines and, seriously, who at any meaingful level of computer competency doesn’t install the 3rd party tools of their choice ?
I do question at least one of your assertions, though, and that is that modern Windows variants are somehow doing more than OS/2. I’m not sure what you mean?
It’s in the architecture. The microkernel-ish model with the HAL, different API “personalities”, etc. Admittedly, a great deal of runs in ring 0 these days, but the modular and layered architecture with its message passing remains and that does negatively impact performance. There’s also a lot more security (via ACLs) going on within just about every part of NT.
The architecture of NT is just much more layered and modular. Certainly from the user’s (direct) perspective it might not be really doing a lot more, but behind the scenes it certainly is.
Both are similar in terms of provided functionality, just not in architecture (OS/2 is somewhat more traditional in that its shell and PM subsystem can be completely replaced with something like TSHELL or even XFree86 if one is radical enough).
You can replace the NT shell as well if you desire. In the retail package the choices are somewhat more limited, but if you seriously need to do it for “real” reasons, there’s the embedded NT variants.
Yes, a boot manager is required to catch the initial bootstrap vector and redirect it to the OS’s boot record in its boot partition, but that isn’t the same as the requirement Windows has
(at least to my knowledge).
If Windows XP or 2k is actually capable of booting on a disk with only ext2fs primaries or something, than I’ll sit corrected. I know OS/2 will because I’ve done it here.
Well I can’t say I’ve ever actually *tried*, but I can’t think of any reason it couldn’t be done. I think all that’s necessary is that the NTLDR bootloader has to be on the drive NT thinks is C: (and I’m not even sure if that’s true). Drive letters in NT are arbitrarily assignable, so I’ve little doubt getting NT self-contained onto a logical partition is possible.
Really, though, this is pretty inconsequential stuff
.
W.r.t. multiprocessor support — remember that benchmark where OS/2 Server on one CPU outperformed a 4-CPU NT server box?
I don’t, so if you had a link to it that would be nice.
Note that there are a whole bunch of perfectly valid reasons why that situation may have arisen completely independent of either OS’s capabilities (eg: single threaded application).
The OS/2 kernel has supported multiple processors for decades [years] — not in the client until eComStation, but with the server version. Multi-CPU support is not the reason for NT’s bloat.
I wouldn’t call NT bloated. It’s no bigger (or slower) than any of the alternatives offering similar levels of functionality.
NT was designed for multiprocessor use from day 1. It’s always supported multiprocessor machines.
Remember, NT was supposed to be OS/2’s replacement
.
You might want to reeducate yourself on OS/2’s internals before commenting much further, since I suspect you’re not aware of how advanced the core of that operating system has actually been.
I’ve had a quick look around on the ‘net and I really can’t see how its changed majorly. There’s still no HAL, it’s still single user, etc. It still seems to be the same basic OS that NT was supposed to be the successor to.
I’m not surprised — OS/2 hasn’t been in the spotlight for many years. However, I would guess that, on similar multiCPU hardware, that OS/2 would be able to run rings around a similarly configured Windows box of any flavor, or Linux for that matter. Threads and dynamic process prioritization are two of OS/2’s core strengths, and the relative smoothness is quite obvious on a low-resource box.
Note that relative performance, etc on a “low resource” box does not necessarily scale up to a “high resource” box. That OS/2 is faster on, say, a dual 100Mhz Pentium does not mean it will be faster on, say, a Quad 2Ghz Opteron.
On a similar note, dare I say you haven’t really used or examined an NT box in anger since NT4 (or maybe Windows 200) ?
I use Warp 4 FP 14 here on a SCSI PPro/200 with 192MB of RAM, BTW. The RAM is mainly for the benefit of Firefox, which tends to use a lot of RAM when I have something like StarOffice loaded at the same time. Right now, I’m running 62 processes and 192 threads with various things inclyding a Hummingbird Exceed X server running in then background, and I’m only using around 48MB of RAM and no swap.
Well (since we’re comparing
, my Win2k3 workstation is a dual 700Mhz P3 with 1GB RAM. CUrrently I’ve got the following running:
Outlook 2003
5xPutty (SSH client)
5x notepad
4xFirefox with ~10 tabs each
3xIE
3xExplorer
4xMSN messenger
2xVMWare machines with 256MB allocated each
2xMMC (Windows management consoles)
4x remote desktop clients
That’s a fairly typical daily load for me. According to Task Manager there’s 64 processes and 626 threads. I’m using 1.29GB of RAM (or which Firefox and VMWare, collectively, account for about 950MB of (Firefox has been running for about 5 days straight now and it leaks memory horribly, as you probably know)). My current uptime is actually only a week or so because we had a power outage, but this machine has never blue screened or crashed.
For another (obviously very different) comparison, we’ve got a Windows 2003 terminal server here with dual 2.8Ghz Xeons and 3GB of RAM. It’s currently got about 35 people logged in, most of whom have a typical workload of IE, Word/Excel, Outlook and a Progress DB client. It’s the weekend so the machine is about as close to completely idle as it ever gets, but it’s using 1.7GB of RAM and 292/2300 processes/threads. I regularly use this machine for a few things so I can keep an eye on how it’s performing and it’s never been laggy or slow, even in the middle of the day with those 35 users banging away. From what I’ve seen, I’d feel quite happy going to 70 or even 100 users on that machine without needing to upgrade it.