NHacker Next
- new
- past
- show
- ask
- show
- jobs
- submit
login
▲Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x (self.__VINEXT_RSC_CHUNKS__=self.__VINEXT_RSC_CHUNKS__||[];self.__VINEXT_RSC_CHUNKS__.push("2:I[\"aadde9aaef29\",[],\"default\",1]\n3:I[\"6e873226e03b\",[],\"Children\",1]\n5:I[\"bc2946a341c8\",[],\"LayoutSegmentProvider\",1]\n6:I[\"6e873226e03b\",[],\"Slot\",1]\n7:I[\"3506b3d116f7\",[],\"ErrorBoundary\",1]\n8:I[\"a9bbde40cf2d\",[],\"default\",1]\n9:I[\"3506b3d116f7\",[],\"NotFoundBoundary\",1]\na:\"$Sreact.suspense\"\n:HL[\"/assets/index-BLEkI_5r.css\",\"style\"]\n")="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">blisscast.wordpress.com)
Rendered at 06:44:57 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
Then not getting enough support in trying to drum up better support for gaming at Microsoft, IIRC
Very fun fact
For a multi-yacht owning, industry driving billionaire, he does seem pretty cool.
This is largely untrue. When Windows is running, it's about 95% of a complete operating system. MS-DOS is only used to run DOS software and for file access. Windows takes control of the memory management, process management, video hardware, system timer, keyboard, mouse, printer, serial port, etc (basically every system resource except disk I/O) while it's running.
Despite how bad early Windows looks, it's doing some very impressive technical wizardry under the hood to be able to work in real mode on the 8086 and 286. It's a lot more complex than something like Mac OS 1 or GEM, and it makes sense why it kept getting delayed over and over for years. For example, they got multiple DOS programs to run simultaneously in real mode by intercepting all the DOS API calls and patching them on the fly to avoid breaking Windows. To get multitasking to work at all in 384 KB, they had to be able to dynamically load and unload chunks of programs when necessary to deal with memory pressure, and then walk all the stacks on the system and patch out any calls/returns to the unloaded code to instead call the memory manager and make it reload the code from disk. Making this transparent to software authors required a series of complicated workarounds which Raymond Chen has written about. See here if you're interested: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20110316-00/?p=11... https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20120622-00/?p=73... https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20120629-00/?p=72... https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20140103-00/?p=21...
On one hand you have that the technical answer to the above question is likely "yes". DOS is so simple that any non-trivial application likely qualifies as an operating system. Implementing some kind of virtual memory support is almost a given, and process control is not unheard of.
But on the other hand most people would refer to anything pre-95 as "shell" for the simple reason that it requires DOS to boot ; even when complexity-wise, 95 and later versions of 3.x are practically the same: if you call one an OS, you ought to call the other one a full OS too.
So this question is on the "angels on the head of a pin"-level; but this simply means there's no answer that doesn't require a lot of nuance, and this also applies to the "it can't be a shell, it does too many things" answer.
Likewise, the Mac had some complexities of its own, even though the 68k wasn’t nearly as challenging to program for. Since the Toolbox shipped in ROM, they had to design syscalls (A-traps) in a way that could be patched by later versions of the system software. They soon had to work around software that wasn’t 32-bit clean when they started shipping machines with the 68020.
One of the more sophisticated bits of later Mac OS was the 68k virtual machine that was used to run major chunks of the Toolbox on PowerPC Macs.
This came at a performance cost, of course, but I don't recall the Workgroup Server 6150 I was using at the time feeling significantly slower than my Quadra 605, though to be fair the 605 was at the very bottom end of the 040 Mac line. Then again, with the exception of a larger hard drive and bundled AppleShare software, the WGS 6150 was equivalent to the entry-level Power Mac 6100, as well.
[1] https://vintageapple.org/inside_r/pdf/PPC_System_Software_19...
I’m not really going to put any cognitive effort into fully concentrating on something like this to the point where I see that there is something that looks like it might be an expansion button. If I’m supposed to see it, it should be visibly on the page.
Edit: oh, I see. The whole thing is stained glass.
Past that point complexity kept on increasing. Don't get me wrong - I use modern day linux, modern day ruby ... it's all fine. Modern computers are fast too. But at the same time I feel we lost simplicity along the way. Now this is even more noticable with microslop everywhere.
Then you read some "under the hood" book or source code and start stumbling upon decade of hacks upon hacks to keep this cart rolling while computer revolution was happening in the background.
One example: IBM in its infinite wisdom didnt expect to support more than one type of floppy in 5150 BIOS. IVT (Interrupt Vector Tble) has allocated space for only one DPT entry (Diskette Parameters Table), same goes for DBA (Bios Data Area). Few years later 1.2MB 5.25 drives showed up, year later 720KB 3.5 ones and so one. As a result BIOS was forced to play musical chairs under the hood constantly shuffling contents of that _one DPT entry_ replacing it on the fly while trying to keep track of whats going on. Of course DOS needs to run on older PCs without multi floppy format aware BIOS thus 1986 MS-DOS 3.2 introduced DRIVPARM doing exactly the same shuffling one layer above https://jeffpar.github.io/kbarchive/kb/060/Q60091/
DOS was build one small hack at a time. High Memory, Upper Memory, Expanded memory, Extended memory, A20, exit from Protected mode, more than one kind of floppy, hard drive, more than two hard drives, the list of kludges just keeps going.
Or even "little multitasking" because while Windows had multitasking, we didn't have the HW to do too many things at the same time.
Right now we're on the crazy end of that spectrum. Every tab on your browser is potentially an application, and we multitask like crazy on it.
Do I want to go back to "No multitasking?" Not really. Or at least not all the time. But I definitely want to put barriers. Such as taking a minute to switch windows/applications.
Also the days when you turned on a computer it was ready to rock within two seconds. A few friends were discussing video game load times throughout the years. Overall the elapsed times haven't changed much at all.
GEOS was pretty cool too - amazing what you can fit in 64K if use a big enough hammer :-D
And OS/2 1.1 was very similar to Windows 2.1, so it's arguable if it was actually much better.
OS/2 1.2 was a massive leap though, not only beating Microsoft GUI wise by a whole year, they even implemented tons of advanced features that we didn't see until Windows 95.
What I remember the most is that they ordered us memory expansion cards that gave us an extra 4MB of RAM for a total of 5MB. I didn't see the actual invoice, but I remember them telling me that the expansion card cost about $2,000. I try to remember that when I complain about memory DIMMs measuring in the dozens of GB going up a bit in price.
https://www.reddit.com/r/retrobattlestations/comments/nl43aq...
OS/2 1.x's DOS box was bad, with lots of limitations, which isn't good when most existing PC apps are DOS apps. As for GUI, well, lets call the Presentation Manager 1.x v Windows 2.x a no-score draw.
In Germany, the situation was different: there, at that time OS/2 (in particular OS/2 3.0 Warp) had quite a bit of popularity among common users because Escom and in particular Vobis (the latter was an at that time ultra-successful chain for selling computers in Germany) decided they want to challenge Microsoft's de-facto monopoly on operating systems of that time by also selling PCs that had OS/2 pre-installed (you only got DOS/Windows installed for an upcharge):
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OS/2&oldid=266114...
"Als die deutschen Computerhändler Vobis und Escom ankündigten, auf ihren PCs zukünftig OS/2 vorzuinstallieren und Windows nur noch gegen Aufpreis anzubieten, übte Microsoft massiven Druck auf die beiden Computerhändler aus. So schloss Microsoft Vobis vom Beta-Programm von Windows 95 aus, bot für die Zukunft Windows-Lizenzen nur zu wesentlich schlechteren Bedingungen an und versuchte, Vobis dazu zu zwingen, eine Verschwiegenheitserklärung zu unterzeichnen."
DeepL translation:
"When the German computer retailers Vobis and Escom announced that they would pre-install OS/2 on their PCs in the future and offer Windows only at an additional cost, Microsoft exerted massive pressure on the two retailers. For instance, Microsoft excluded Vobis from the Windows 95 beta program, offered Windows licenses in the future only under significantly worse terms, and attempted to force Vobis to sign a non-disclosure agreement."
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vobis&oldid=26171...
"1995 setzte Vobis wegen Lieferterminverschiebungen der 32-Bit-Plattform Windows 95 darauf, Kunden standardmäßig das bereits erschienene 32-Bit-Betriebssystem OS/2 von IBM auf PCs vorzuinstallieren, wodurch OS/2 auf dem deutschen Markt einen größeren Bekanntheitsgrad als anderswo erreichte. Microsoft soll in der Folge versucht haben, Vobis die Lizenz für Windows 95 zu entziehen, was einen schweren wirtschaftlichen Nachteil für Vobis bedeutet hätte."
DeepL translation:
"In 1995, due to delays in the release of the 32-bit Windows 95 platform, Vobis decided to pre-install IBM’s 32-bit OS/2 operating system—which was already available—on PCs as standard, resulting in OS/2 achieving greater recognition on the German market than elsewhere. Microsoft is said to have subsequently attempted to revoke Vobis’s license for Windows 95, which would have caused Vobis serious financial harm."
Vobis also produced its own computer magazine named "Highscreen" (named after Vobis' brand name for their PCs) that also contained lots of beginner tips for OS/2 to get PC buyers accustomed to OS/2.
Edit: I spoke to EmeraldDM8, who made the UI, and if it's what he thinks it is, it's because the series page is not done yet, and once it's ready, that will include a link to that page.
0. https://www.riscosopen.org/content/downloads/raspberry-pi
No. By resetting the processor which while slow (milliseconds) was sometimes done for this reason. Too slow for context switch but doable occasionally.