Re: Whatever happened to x86-64?

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 17:17:09 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:04:33 -0500, Keith <krw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 06:31:25 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 21:48:32 -0500, Keith <krw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It can only be taken as a "big mistake" in hindsight.

Depends on your perspective - I'm sure I could be classed as biased but it
was a monumental mistake from my POV. The IBM/M$ "future operating system"
was first announced in the same year as 80386 - to me building a new
operating system which ignored the revolutionary aspects of the new CPU was
nuts.

...and abandon customers who bought systems last year and a large
fraction of the systems to be shipped this year and next? That's not how
International *BUSINESS* Machines operated. Do note that Warp3 shipped
with full 386 capability long before Windows 95. There was no comparison
between the two.

Hmm, it may have been IBM's intention to "impose" a replacement of DOS by
OS/2 on all the existing systems in their large corporate customers; in
fact from what we heard from large customers that seemed to be
indicated.... but that's not how the PC market worked back then. Even now
not many people change OS from that delivered with the machine.

You are correct, but *applications* that were developed for yesterday's
machine *must* work on todays. That wass the point of "better DOS than
DOS". Indeed OS/2 V1.3 (which M$ had nothing to do with, like DOS7) was
better DOS than DOS. Warp3 was better Windows than Windows, until API
shifting.

90% of the systems
being shipped were 286's and the installed base was huge.
...forgetting that the '386 was expensive. Dell, you more than most,
know that IBM is all about protecting customer's investments. These
systems weren't $400 Dells.

In 1988, which was about OS/2 V1's delivery timeframe, were 286
systems really still commanding 90% of the general market?

Yes. The 386s were expensive, and IIRC not avalilable in large
quantities.

I had no trouble getting them - in fact even early versions of 386 with
the "16-bit only" and paging bugs.:-)

Of course *you* didn't. Try buying a hundred thousand of 'em to satisy
your customers (then give them the bill).

I don't recall but it had no interest at all for me... 3 years after
the arrival of 80386.

Three years? Were 386s available in 1984? OS/2 V1 was released in
April of 1987.

Well it was announced in April '87 - don't recall actual general
availability but after attending the tech conference (nice mug they
handed out... still have it) in NYC we had no interest anyway.

Sheesh! It was available on its release date. Are you telling be that
you couldn't get a copy for *three* years? Perhaps your last phrase says
it all. Tell me, were you happy with Win95?

But "all that stuff" I mentioned included the 32-bit flat memory
model - that was the killer for doing real computing on a desktop. A
lot of mainframe code got converted to Phar Lap's DOS Extender.

Wunnerful, but that's hardly the point.

Again, perspective. For people who felt hog-tied by the segmented
memory model it was a big deal.

So, you thought Windows was somehow better, in 1987? OS/2 V2 was
released in 1992 and supported the 386 fully.

No, in fact we had unopened Windows boxes lying around at the time - no
interest at all, since it didn't know anything of 386 Protected Mode.
The Phar Lap 32-bit code ran just fine under DesqView386.

So did OS/2, though you had already decided that you weren't interested.
*THAT* was OS/2's problem. No one cared that it was elegant and just
*worked*. IBM didn't care enough that the let it die from neglect. Too
bad, Billy won by default. Too bad indeed.

--
Keith
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Getting DOS screen to full screen ....
    ... but I recognize the word "DOS" which piqued my interest. ... I elect to do my work on a Windows 98 operating system. ... Windows environment, in order for me to enjoy the luxuries of a laptop, ...
    (alt.sys.pc-clone.dell)
  • [Full-disclosure] - IRISH VIRUS - DoS Security Bypass and System access
    ... THE operating system ... Apple Computer Apple DOS ... Windows CE ... LOLDONGS Research, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Banned Town Security ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: Gamma Function
    ... the destructive Windows critter-makers who are ... Windows runs DOS programs ... DOS isn't a multi-tasking operating system. ... The virus itself is but a code fragment that attaches ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Crawl: That was... a surprise. (And score bug.)
    ... This does not need a 32 bit operating system to use, because 16 or even 8 bit processors can interface with larger address spaces by using separate instructions to load the separate parts of the address. ... There also exist "DOS Extenders" that extend DOS to be able to run 32 bit code. ... At the beginning, it was just a hunch based on experience running DOS, various DOS extenders, OS/2 Warp, various versions of Windows, and Linux. ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.misc)
  • Re: Linux? Void my warantee? Make tech support impossible?
    ... from basic DOS to DesqViewX ... though Windows XP is an improvement ... >techniques Linux attacks at most wipe out the compromised account. ... to be ripping off his customers. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)