#BB 2386SX OS/2
7 messages in this thread
Hello,
is someone out there, who is using IBM OS/2 on an Amiga C= Bridgeboard
2386SX?
I will get OS/2 very soon. Any advice?
Manfred <- flying from FRA via Amiga Autopilot 1.06
Manfred,
I've installed it on the BB. You should know, however, that you will
not be able to use the Janus software under OS/2. AMOUSE.COM will not work nor
will AREAD and AWRITE or JLINK. You will need to install a PC serial mouse or
other PC compatible mouse. Preferably a serial mouse because most of the OS/2
mouse support drivers are for serial mice. You may also find somewhat limited
support for SVGA graphics. Only a few SVGA boards are fully supported.
Otherwise OS/2 will work fine. The Windows support and DOS support are good,
if you are going to install OS/2 2.1, the latest version. If you plan to
switch between MSDOS and OS/2 on the same drive you may not want to install the
HPFS. If you do install the HPFS, be aware that disk compression software such
as SuperStor, Doubledisk, and Stacker won't work. Stacker does have a new
version which works under OS/2, but only on a FAT filesystem drive.
Generally speaking, if there's no real compelling need for OS/2, You
would likely be just as well off with Windows 3.1. Especially when you
consider that there aren't many real OS/2 applications.
Steven,
ok – thank you – I appreciate your advice!
Manfred <- flying from FRA via Amiga Autopilot 1.06
What? That old saw won't cut it anymore! There are plenty of superior
products for OS/2 that are far more powerful than Windows/DOS kludges. If
what you want is mediocre 'software for the masses' then ignore OS/2 and
stick with Windows/DOS 😉
No seriously – I work with OS/2 on a daily basis and find it to be a
powerful OS, although somewhat finicky (or perhaps fragile would be a
better word). I wouldn't really want to run OS/2 on a BB myself as there
are just too many idiosyncrasies with the BB. Additionally OS/2 is shall
we say voracious about system resources, and is slow enough on a 33 mHz
'486 with 16 meg of ram. I can't imagine the tedium of running it on a
'386 BB with only 8 meg(or less). Besides – add a network adapter, a high
resolution graphics card, a serial card for a mouse, a hard disk
controller, a sound card … WHOOPS!!! Out Of Slots??!!! (you get the
idea). At home I am quite happy with AmigaDos, but the more I use OS/2
the more I appreciate it's power (but it ain't for everybody).
bob
~*~ aviating via autopilot
Robert,
Gee, did I touch a raw nerve? 🙂 Actually, it appears that more apps
are appearing and that a number of Windows "classics" are slowly coming out
with OS/2 versions. I sure wish the same companies would come out with
AmigaDos versions!!
The more I play with OS/2 on the BB the more I'm convinced to agree
with you, that it really is too much for a 386sx system at only 25 Mhz and 8
meg. Furthermore, the BB software is really integrated into DOS and since it
doesn't run under OS/2 you lose the mouse, AREAD and AWRITE and virtual drive
capabilities. Furthermore, the BB is only a 16 bit buss device, so you really
don't get the full capabilities of OS/2. It's almost as though it's crippled
from the git go on the BB. But I agree with you that OS/2 is indeed a powerful
operating system with many outstanding features and abilities. But it seems to
me that it is more of a mainframe level of OS and so it really does need the
horsepower of a big DOS box. I would imagine it's really pretty good to use on
a 66 Mhz 486 VESA machine or 32 bit local buss box. On the other hand, it sure
makes you appreciate the innate power of AmigaDos.
Given that one ALREADY HAS a true multitasking OS, OS/2 might be a bit
much. But is IS nicer than windoze, IMHO.
Brian — Cruising on AutoPilot…..
Brian,
In many regards it is definitely better than Windows, except that
Windows is a bit more agile on the BB. On a fast 486 box, however, OS/2 would
be fine. Problem with OS/2 on the BB is that the BB is both slow and only 16
bit buss, so the true power of OS/2 is not really available. The other problem
with OS/2 is the relatively few number of true 32 bit apps, although that
should change quickly as time goes on. OS/2 is definitely easier on resources
than NT appears to be. Of course that is also a problem for the Amiga – not
enough good productivity apps. The Amiga OS is certainly light and agile
compared to OS/2, but OS/2 provides more of the power of a mainframe OS than
does AmigaDos.