• Welcome to OS2World OLD-STATIC-BACKUP Forum.
 

News:

This is an old OS2World backup forum for reference only. IT IS READ ONLY!!!

If you need help with OS/2 - eComStation visit http://www.os2world.com/forum

Main Menu

Why can't I upgrade Win-OS/2?

Started by BookWorm, 2009.07.21, 01:44:16

Previous topic - Next topic

BookWorm

I know I can't upgrade Win-OS/2 to 3.11, but I know there is a version of Win 32 for OS/2. How far can 32 bit windows go under Warp 4.52, and what causes the limit? Could it theoretically be patched?

I have always thought the ideal setup would be to install OS/2, then, in Win-OS/2, install the Windows 98SE upgrade, maybe the 98SE2ME upgrade, or maybe go up to ME, add the DOS compatibility patch and stablize it, then, install Windows 2000. The Win 2k OS loader would select OS/2 or 2K, maybe triple boot with DOS & some oddball GUI like GEOS or GEM.

I know this can't be done (can it? I've heard that it *can*, but it was implied that it would be difficult to do, and the majority opinion seems to be that it's impossible.) but what I want to know is why it can't, and since I'm a little crazy and like to experiment, (yes, here I go again. ::) But at least I have another hard drive to crash everything on) I even thought I would try the "impossible", if it's not totally pointless.

Radek

Win-OS/2 allows you to run certain winblows 3.1 apps "seamlessly" like they were OS/2 PM apps. They get their windows and they will look like any other OS/2 apps. You don't need to make any preparations for their running, just run them.

To achieve you are writing about you need VirtualPC or a similar emulator. You can install winblows 98SE, DOS or (most of) other operating systems into it and run them. Moreover, virtual DOS sessions are a part of OS/2 itself. There are certain limitations on the functionality of the emulators, AFAIK:

VirtualPC - emulates S3 Trio graphics, Intel 2104/2114 network card, no sound, no USB but allows you communicating with the host machine using a shared folder.
MVDM (DOS sessions) - usually no sound (unless you have a VDD for your sound card but current sound cards are incompatible with the old DOS apps anyway), only standard VGA video modes (up to 320x200x256).
DosBox (DOS emulator) - Usually unacceptably s l o w . . .., often bad colors, but it emulates Sound Blaster.

Blonde Guy

You can install Win32S version 1.25. You cannot install Win 32S 1.30, nor Win95, Win98 or WinME. That's because all of those grab memory address above 512MB, and the OS/2 DOS subsystem can't allow that. If you can recompile Windows to use lower than 512MB, probably it would all load and run just fine. Maybe if you just run one of those in the debugger, you can see where it's going wrong and patch it.
Expert Consulting for OS/2 and eComStation

oli

no longer an issue these days but you could install 1.30 with some trickery, I used it to run some Macromedia applications, it was flaky but worked.

cyberspittle

Might be best to do a clean install of Windows 95 and use the "Just add Warp". Not sure if setting up a dual boot machine would be any good considering hard disk requirements for older operating systems.

coxy

Hi first post,but regarding this topic and many other areas where OS2~EcomStation could be upgraded has anyone at Serenity Systems thought to collaborate with those developing ReactOs, the scratchbilt Windows XP~2000 clone to implement their code as a replacement for the WinOS2 codebase.
This would render redundant Wine and other attempts of using workarounds to achiever compatability with software and also open up the operating system to a greater potential userbase.
After all one of the outstanding features originally promoted by IBM was the ability to seamlessly run Dos and Windows software,When it was then Current software,would anyone care to name any other OS that would allow programs for another OS to run as they did back then to a great extent.
Virtualisation the current buzz in this area is not truly the answer in this regard despite improved hardware capabilities,people just want things to work.
If it was any one area that hammered the nails into the coffin for the average user it was the lack of updating in this area,understandably and quite frankly rightly so Microsoft wouldn't help here,they are after all in competition.
This however is one area where the skillsets of both parties would work together for the benefit of all involved as well as the end user be they SOHO or Corporate or just a normal end user at home .
There are many people who benefit from the ability of the OS2 codebase to support older software,after all many areas in automation,scientific military and Automotive require Dos based software to run their hardware,OS2's implementation running Dos was far more flexible than that under any form of Windows.
Sadly when it comes to an operating system that can do most things for most people we have had it all along yet it was left out in the cold.
As a sidemote I have and still use OS2 warp 4 (updated as normal) Opendos various versions of windows and Dos and have used Linux since Redhat 6 on and off,I see now many of the issues that people had against Windows, appearing in the various flavours of Linux as witnessed on many Linux forum threads,the amount of hardware and software issues is increasing in the linux world.
There is a lesson there to be learned for the OS2 developers and community, uncontrolled open source is a double edged sword

cytan

If ReactOS can replace the WinOS/2 subsystem, that would be so fantastic that I'm drooling. However, there's no access to source code, and there are so few developers around, it's unrealistic. A more realistic approach would be to port the WPS to ReactOS. Maybe that can be Ecomstation 3.0?

cytan

cyberspittle

Coxy,

I think there is a little confusion on Win-OS/2. It is virtualization, as IBM created a Virtualized DOS Machine (AKA "VDM"). What is cool about OS/2 is its ability to hide this virtualization by running DOS and Windows 3.x applications on the desktop. I know what a pain it is on Windows. Starting a virtual machine to run an application, just plain sucks. Being able to tweak DOS settings is cool indeed. There were a couple of holes in it ... some DOS games ran without sound. However, DOSbox works for me.

As to upgrading a Win-OS/2 to a newer form of Windows (to run newer Windows apps) doesn't make sense to me. If eComstation moved to a hypervisor of some sort and eComstation (OS/2) became a controlling virtual machine, then we would have the capabilty to share the hardware with other virtual machines (WIndows, etc) as with xen. This would be the next step than an improved Virtual DOS Machine to run Windows 9.x, 2k, XP, etc.

BookWorm

>...all of those grab memory address above 512MB,

When Windows 95 was introduced, 512Mb was unheard of. When 98 came out, it was extremely rare. Even around the 2k/ME era, some new computers couldn't take 512Mb. Mine can (maybe more) but was advertised as having a 320Mb limit. So how can operating systems that were designed before 512Mb was possible grab memory above an address that didn't exist?

Or do you mean 512k? That would make more sense.

> and the OS/2 DOS subsystem can't allow that. If you can recompile Windows to use lower than 512MB,
> probably it would all load and run just fine. Maybe if you just run one of those in the debugger, you can see
> where it's going wrong and patch it.

Would it be easier to do that, or to patch OS/2? How would either patch affect compatibility?

> Might be best to do a clean install of Windows 95 and use the "Just add Warp".

Is that a part of the standard Warp 4.52 package?

> Not sure if setting up a dual boot machine would be any good considering hard disk requirements for older
> operating systems.

I'll try it soon, using the smallest Windows installation possible (no options) just to see what happens. I think the FAT-16 limit is 2 gig, but all 3 (95, NT4, OS/2) should just barely fit and boot. If it works, the next hard part will be to deal with file system incompatibility. If it doesn't work, (probably not) at least we'll have a specific error message to base our next wild guess on. ???

RobertM

Quote from: BookWorm on 2009.08.09, 04:43:52
>...all of those grab memory address above 512MB,

When Windows 95 was introduced, 512Mb was unheard of. When 98 came out, it was extremely rare. Even around the 2k/ME era, some new computers couldn't take 512Mb. Mine can (maybe more) but was advertised as having a 320Mb limit. So how can operating systems that were designed before 512Mb was possible grab memory above an address that didn't exist?

Or do you mean 512k? That would make more sense.


Nah, you are mistaking physical addressing with virtual addressing.

Quote from: BookWorm on 2009.08.09, 04:43:52

> and the OS/2 DOS subsystem can't allow that. If you can recompile Windows to use lower than 512MB,
> probably it would all load and run just fine. Maybe if you just run one of those in the debugger, you can see
> where it's going wrong and patch it.

Would it be easier to do that, or to patch OS/2? How would either patch affect compatibility?

> Might be best to do a clean install of Windows 95 and use the "Just add Warp".

Is that a part of the standard Warp 4.52 package?

> Not sure if setting up a dual boot machine would be any good considering hard disk requirements for older
> operating systems.

I'll try it soon, using the smallest Windows installation possible (no options) just to see what happens. I think the FAT-16 limit is 2 gig, but all 3 (95, NT4, OS/2) should just barely fit and boot. If it works, the next hard part will be to deal with file system incompatibility. If it doesn't work, (probably not) at least we'll have a specific error message to base our next wild guess on. ???


|
|
Kirk's 5 Year Mission Continues at:
Star Trek New Voyages
|
|


RobertM

I prefer Warp, then Win98 in a Virtual Session using VPC.


|
|
Kirk's 5 Year Mission Continues at:
Star Trek New Voyages
|
|


michaelhenry

>Hi first post,but regarding this topic and many other areas where OS2~EcomStation could be >upgraded has anyone at Serenity Systems thought to collaborate with those developing >ReactOs, the scratchbilt Windows XP~2000 clone to implement their code as a replacement for >the WinOS2 codebase. This would render redundant Wine and other attempts of using >workarounds to achiever compatability with software and also open up the operating system to >a greater potential userbase.

First, ReactOS shares the Wine codebase, so technically, Wine would still be needed. Second, at this point in time, ROS is still way to buggy to be put in a production environment. Now in a year or two, maybe.  Third, the only way Serenity/Mensys would find a way to implement it would depend on the cost to license WinOS2 from Microsoft.

>I think there is a little confusion on Win-OS/2. It is virtualization, as IBM created a Virtualized >DOS Machine (AKA "VDM"). What is cool about OS/2 is its ability to hide this virtualization by >running DOS and Windows 3.x applications on the desktop.

I think the solution would be more like the Win4Lin products. Using Virtual Box as a subsystem, integrated within eCS (without "starting" a specific machine), and then use an existing copy of the customers Windows COA/Disk (or ship with ReactOS if it makes it to production quality), make it a seemless install and then run the apps integrated with the WPS.

Kinda like the OS/2 for Windows. However, that might be too much programming and hacks for Serenity and Mensys to do by themselves. But it does sound like the perfect business opportunity for some third party ISV.

 
Bro. Michael Henry
Pastor
First Christian Church of Sheridan

BookWorm

Ok, what about installing Windows NT? In 9x/ME, if I insert the NT 4.0 or 2000 (NT 5.0) CD, it installs NT alongside 9x, and sets up dual boot. What if I insert the CD in Win-OS/2? Is it possible to have Windows 2000 dual boot with OS/2 instead of 9x?

Saijin_Naib

Yes, I used to dual-boot Win2k and eCS. Just make sure you start with the Win2k SP4 disk so it won't destroy the IBM Boot manager, it will just take the Active flag off it. Apparently, prior to SP4 it would remove the IBM boot manager during the install process.

BookWorm

I'm not even thinking about using the boot manager right now, just installing 2k to the same partition like I did with 98SE or ME.