|
|
|
|
| Welcome, Guest | Home | Search | Login | Register | |
| Author | Emulating OS/2 on Mac OS with SoftWindows (Read 68321 times) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
68040
512 MB  Posts: 950 68k - thy kingdom come, thy will be done ! 
|
on: December 27, 2023, 22:35
On my way to setting up OS/2 in SoftWindows (that would finish my Retro Big 3: AmigaOS, DosWin & OS/2) I stumbled over this GEM with truly nifty DOS apps: http://annex.retroarchive.org/cdrom/smsw-vol5/UTILS/index.html Specifically check out the Rosenthal tools and the RSA encryption suites. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Last Edit: December 29, 2023, 15:18 by Bolkonskij
|
Johnny7
|
64 MB Posts: 78 System 7 Newcomer!
Reply #1 on: December 28, 2023, 05:53
|
@68040... at first glance... EXCELLENT!
|
wove
|
1024 MB Posts: 1363
Reply #2 on: December 28, 2023, 18:59
|
A bit off topic here, but I was wondering if @68040 has a guide or link to setting up OS/2 on SoftPC. I have had no luck getting OS/2 running on anything besides VirtualBox. My effort to get OS/2 running on QEMU or UTM have been complete failures. It would be a hoot to get OS/2 running on SoftPC running on OS 9 in UTM (or SheepShaver?). Layered emulation, ahhh  (Curious why the Classic MacOS, is not in your big 3?)
Last Edit: December 28, 2023, 19:01 by wove
|
68040
|
512 MB Posts: 950 68k - thy kingdom come, thy will be done !
Reply #3 on: December 28, 2023, 19:22
|
@wove - The catch here is that you should try it with OS/2 v.1.3, not 2.x and definitely nothing as fancy OS/2 Warp. The 1.3 release fixed most of the timing issues that caused the installer to crash on anything but original IBM PS/2 hardware, but it was still fully 80286 compliant. So its the best version to use for really, really old PC emulators. Anything more recent introduces simulated HW that the vintage OS/2 kernel just doesn't know how to handle. Like hard disks bigger than let's say 60MB or SCSI interfaces, CD-ROM drives and and and. And while more recent versions of OS/2 can handle SCSI and the like just fine, those versiosn of the OS had been rewritten from scratch, often with lots(!) of assembler code in them. That made those versions fast as lightning - even by the standards of the day. But (always with them buts) it also caused the operating system to become infamously unstable on anything that didn't work according to spec. So no quick'n dirty "Hongkong Design" hardware add-ons and no emulators that don't replicate each and every little circuit right down to the response time on the motherboard. Truth be told, many of IBM's customers had already given up on OS/2 by the time Warp v3 came around. So all the follow up releases had to make due w/o support from the hardware or software community at large. Once they had lost the PPC wars IBM simply lacked the resources - and the will - to go back and strengthen known weak points in their kernel. Or as one of the lead kernel designers once told me: "We know about those flaws. But if we dare touch them, our few remaining customers will raise hell with us if it causes any hick ups on their systems". And then they finally surrendered in the OpSys wars and the PC market altogether. So v1.3 is a decent enough compromise to experience the old "MicroChannel Feel"  PS: I never used classic MacOS in my younger days. The memory of my dearly departed cousin - who used to drown in Mac hardware - got me into the spirit.
Last Edit: December 28, 2023, 19:32 by 68040
|
Bolkonskij
|
Administrator 1024 MB  Posts: 2023
Reply #4 on: December 29, 2023, 15:19
|
Is it worth emulating OS/2 on Mac OS in terms other than just nostalgia and general interest for it? Are there any unique productivity apps / games / tools ? Split this off from the websites thread since it's well worth it's own I figured
|
68040
|
512 MB Posts: 950 68k - thy kingdom come, thy will be done !
Reply #5 on: December 29, 2023, 19:48
|
@Bolkonskij - Well, it does provide for a "better DOS than DOS and better Windows than Windows" experience, due to its much improved memory management. But if you never cared for Wintel anyway, there is little pre-Warp OS/2 has to offer to a Macian running on 7.5.5 or Lord behold 8.1. OS/2 Warp introduced an object oriented Desktop design (the Workplace Shell) which was derived from NeXT technology and far superior to anything any other other operating system had to offer at that time. But this was also its biggest drawback: Because its OO features were so unique, that even most programs written for OS/2 didn't take full advantage of it. So the WPS fell victim to the curse of the pioneer. In any case, Warp won't run nice on anything lower than a 486.
Last Edit: December 29, 2023, 19:49 by 68040
|
cballero
|
1024 MB Posts: 1178 System 7, today and forever
Reply #6 on: December 29, 2023, 20:39
|
Never ran anything other than stock DOS and Windows, so looking at this thread with some interest at what I may have missed back then, especially if it comes with some productivity solutions, as Bolkonskij said!
|
68040
|
512 MB Posts: 950 68k - thy kingdom come, thy will be done !
Reply #7 on: December 29, 2023, 21:10
|
I'll need some time to dig up some of my old OS/2 apps and then I'll dazzle you with screenshots.
|
snes1423
|
256 MB Posts: 458 A Man born of Mechina
Reply #8 on: December 30, 2023, 01:47
|
i attempted to install OS/2 on a PII laptop back in the day 0 luck with graphics drivers though
|
68040
|
512 MB Posts: 950 68k - thy kingdom come, thy will be done !
Reply #9 on: December 30, 2023, 06:07
|
There is/was a universal video driver for OS/2 Warp, that was "plug'n play", zeroconf and worked with most video cards of the day. It was 3rd party and later got integrated into OS/2 eCommstation.
|
lauland
|
512 MB Posts: 674 Symtes 7 Mewconer!
Reply #10 on: December 31, 2023, 18:58
|
I'd be hesitant to use SoftWindows/SoftPC for this, as I believe Insignia may have Windows-specific hooks and hacks for speed. Would need to research if that is truly the case, but I remember when it came out reading they'd gotten a Windows license from Microsoft so they could modify it as needed. I don't know if I've ever heard of anyone running any other OS than the versions of Windows based on DOS (which includes '9x) on it. It's less (well, actually more) than just an emulator. For example, I don't even think Windows NT will run on SoftWindows... You might not even be able to run stock vanilla versions of 3.x and '9x, as opposed to what ships with it. Instead I'd use VirtualPC, which will even run Linux. Bummer, I know, since there aren't versions of VirtualPC for really old Macs...
|
68040
|
512 MB Posts: 950 68k - thy kingdom come, thy will be done !
Reply #11 on: December 31, 2023, 21:40
|
What few people know: Up until OS/2 2.x IBM's new operating system had been largely developed by Microsoft. So the old OS/2 and Win 3.x kernels have a lot in common. So much in fact that IBM never maneged to get rid of it all, having to pay Microsoft license fees for every version of OS/2 sold. Even at the height of the "Operating System Wars" between the two. 
|
lauland
|
512 MB Posts: 674 Symtes 7 Mewconer!
Reply #12 on: January 01, 2024, 03:16
|
The entire story is as (more?) twisted and incestuous as anything you'd imagine in a telenovela. I won't scratch even the surface, but here's some trivia from back in the day as I watched it all unfold...more than you ever wanted to know... The kernels are extremely different...OS/2 was always memory protected, pre-emptive, and multithreaded, even in 1.x. 16 bit Windows sat on top of DOS and only gradually and partially replaced/bypassed it via (quite hacky but workable) DOS extenders. Windows 9x's kernel replaced more and more, but still when you launch an app or open a file, DOS structures are created and USED! However, other than the kernel, the design (on paper) and API calls are shockingly similar, with the familiar trio of KERNEL, USER, and GDI/GPI libraries...in some cases looking like only "the names have been changed to protect the innocent". eg SetWindowPos() vs WinSetWindowPos(), PeekMessage() and DispatchMessage() vs WinPeekMsg() and WinDispatchMsg() etc etc etc. (BTW the Win* ones are OS/2!!!) IBM wrote the 1.x gui, basing it on work done for their mainframes, which Microsoft dumbed down for Windows...but with differences like OS/2 has coord 0,0 at the bottom and Windows at the top! Everyone still wanted to run DOS apps, and OS/2 1.x's support of DOS was quite abyssmal...letting you only run a single (unprotected able to crash the whole system) app...while Windows let you run mutliple (mostly) protected ones even in a window. Obviously OS/2 2.x rectified this (and how!), but it was too late for a lot of DOS using customers... Windows NT was the original 32 bit version of OS/2, with a new sophisticated kernel using concepts from VMS on the Vax...with the gui/interface being switched to one based on Win 3.x when MS saw the writing on the wall...up until Windows 2000 the OS/2 1.x API is still there as a subsystem! IBM did all the OS/2 2.x work, but the differences between 1.x and 2.x are much less than you might expect, since the 1.x base was already extremely strong. (Much much less when compared to Win 3 vs NT) Sadly OS/2 2.x device drivers are still at least partially 16 bit at their core. The gui still has a single event queue sync lock, so can "hang" where NT wouldn't. And memory is somewhat limited due to segments being "tiled" for compatibility with 16 bit apps... I could go on and on...
Last Edit: January 01, 2024, 03:35 by lauland
|
lauland
|
512 MB Posts: 674 Symtes 7 Mewconer!
Reply #13 on: January 01, 2024, 03:56
|
Many many articles you might find interesting: https://www.os2museum.com/wp/category/os2/ https://virtuallyfun.com/?s=os%2F2&submit=Search Now...prepare for your mind to be blown... Workplace Shell for Windows 3.x, by IBM (but not supported)! http://toastytech.com/guis/wps.html OS/2 1.x gui libraries for Windows NT's OS/2 subsystem (16 bit only)! https://virtuallyfun.com/2021/05/19/presentation-manager-for-windows-nt/ https://winworldpc.com/product/microsoft-os2-presen/for-nt-40 The OS in this article is not the os/2 2.x we ended up getting... https://virtuallyfun.com/2014/05/09/a-sneak-peak-at-microsoft-os2-2-0/
|
68040
|
512 MB Posts: 950 68k - thy kingdom come, thy will be done !
Reply #14 on: January 01, 2024, 22:46
|
@lauland - Those stubborn 16bit drivers were a never ending cause of bewilderment in the OS/2 community, just as the similarities between the two APIs were considered a blessing by us "children of the elephant". Because that made porting applications between the two platforms (-> project Odin) feasible in the first place.
Last Edit: January 01, 2024, 22:49 by 68040
|
|
Pages: [1] 2
|
| |||||||||||||||
|
© 2021 System7Today.com. |
