Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Lamonte
  • Start date Start date
G

Greg Lamonte

Guest
My favorite OS was OS/2. I like Windows XP 64 and it looks to me as if it's
going to disappear just like OS/2 did because of lack of hardware support.
Isn't that a shame? :(
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

Google Groups has this thing where you can rate posts. Has anyone
else seen that?
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

XP x64 will be officially supported for a long time. It will get patches and
updates for a long time. I liked it a lot, but I've made the move to Vista
64. It appears to have somewhat better driver support, and I suspect that
driver support will continue to improve and grow. But I think "what you see
is what you get" for XP x64 driver support at this point. There may be some
folks who add drivers for X:P x64 while they're doing the Vista 64 drivers.
But I'm not counting on it. Primarily because of the testing needs. The
actual code changes requjired would be simple and straightforward. No
different than those required to back port to XP 32-bit from Vista 32-bit.
But it adds a whole new layer of testing and supporting, and that's
expensive.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Greg Lamonte" <lagre345@aul.com> wrote in message
news:4771040d$0$11032$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> My favorite OS was OS/2. I like Windows XP 64 and it looks to me as if
> it's going to disappear just like OS/2 did because of lack of hardware
> support. Isn't that a shame? :(
>
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

Well, isn't there a few obvious differences, though? Those who think they
are really going to need XP x64 a few years ahead, still will have a well
supported Server version to lean on. I very much doubt that is going to die
anytime soon. Those who want to stay with the Workstation version, probably
will have a follow-up Vista version (someone mention Windows7 the other
day?) that might iron out the worst wrinkles in a relatively short while.

Do not forget that when IBM was lured into investing a large amount of their
capital into OS/2, that OS's objective was fullfilled. That OS was destined
to die!

Originally, as I've heard it - it was Windows that was doomed to be flushed,
since OS/2 was so much more advanced, but as IBM got interested, all of the
new (and secret) stuff was amputated and then grafted onto Windows instead.
(?)

XP x64 may well be 'fizzling' out for other reasons, but it is hardly unique
in the way OS/2 was. And OS/2 hardware support was completely identical to
Window's, wasn't it? IBM just wasn't as good with software as they were with
hardware at the time.

But I agree, if porting drivers is so difficult why didn't 3rd party
developers grab at the chance to use XP x64 as a porting test-bed?


Tony. . .


"Greg Lamonte" <lagre345@aul.com> wrote in message
news:4771040d$0$11032$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> My favorite OS was OS/2. I like Windows XP 64 and it looks to me as if
> it's going to disappear just like OS/2 did because of lack of hardware
> support. Isn't that a shame? :(
>
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

NEWS RELEASE
M-3592


FOR RELEASE APRIL 2, 1987


Microsoft Operating System/2™ With Windows Presentation Manager Provides
Foundation for Next Generation of Personal Computer Industry


REDMOND, WA • April 2, 1987 • Microsoft Corporation today announced
Microsoft Operating System/2 (MS OS/2™), a new personal computer system
operating system. MS OS/2 is planned for phased release to OEM manufacturers
beginning in the fourth quarter of 1987. Designed and developed specifically
to harness the capabilities of personal computers based upon the Intel®
80286 and 80386 microprocessors, MS OS/2 provides significant new benefits
to personal computer application software developers and end-users.


MS OS/2, a multi-tasking operating system which allows applications software
to use up to 16 Mb of memory on 80286 and 80386-based personal computers,
can be adapted for use on most personal computers based on the 80286 and
80386 processors, including the IBM® PC AT and other popular systems in use
today. The MS OS/2 Windows presentation manager is an integral part of the
MS OS/2 product, providing a sophisticated graphical user interface to the
MS OS/2 system. The MS OS/2 Windows presentation manager is derived from the
existing Microsoft® Windows product developed and marketed by Microsoft for
the current generation of IBM personal computers and compatible machines.


The MS OS/2 product is the first to be announced as the result of the Joint
Development Agreement announced by IBM and Microsoft in August 1985.
Microsoft will be offering MS OS/2, including the MS OS/2 Windows
presentation manager, to all its existing OEM customers.


"Microsoft Operating System/2 provides the foundation for the next phase of
exciting growth in the personal computer industry," said Bill Gates,
chairman of Microsoft. "Microsoft is committed to providing outstanding
systems software products to the personal computer industry. MS OS/2 will be
the platform upon which the next 1000 exciting personal computer
applications software products are built. In particular, our commitment to
the power of the graphical user interface has been realized with the
announcement of the MS OS/2 Windows presentation manager and the new IBM
Personal System/2™ series. We believe that these machines represent a new
standard in personal computer graphics capabilities which will drive the
software industry toward the creation of incredible new graphics-based
applications software products."

.....

Tom

MSMVP 1998-2007

"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbmail.dk> wrote in message
news:OucKc0wRIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Well, isn't there a few obvious differences, though? Those who think they
> are really going to need XP x64 a few years ahead, still will have a well
> supported Server version to lean on. I very much doubt that is going to
> die anytime soon. Those who want to stay with the Workstation version,
> probably will have a follow-up Vista version (someone mention Windows7 the
> other day?) that might iron out the worst wrinkles in a relatively short
> while.
>
> Do not forget that when IBM was lured into investing a large amount of
> their capital into OS/2, that OS's objective was fullfilled. That OS was
> destined to die!
>
> Originally, as I've heard it - it was Windows that was doomed to be
> flushed, since OS/2 was so much more advanced, but as IBM got interested,
> all of the new (and secret) stuff was amputated and then grafted onto
> Windows instead. (?)
>
> XP x64 may well be 'fizzling' out for other reasons, but it is hardly
> unique in the way OS/2 was. And OS/2 hardware support was completely
> identical to Window's, wasn't it? IBM just wasn't as good with software as
> they were with hardware at the time.
>
> But I agree, if porting drivers is so difficult why didn't 3rd party
> developers grab at the chance to use XP x64 as a porting test-bed?
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Greg Lamonte" <lagre345@aul.com> wrote in message
> news:4771040d$0$11032$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> My favorite OS was OS/2. I like Windows XP 64 and it looks to me as if
>> it's going to disappear just like OS/2 did because of lack of hardware
>> support. Isn't that a shame? :(
>>
>
>
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

Tom Ferguson wrote:
> NEWS RELEASE
> M-3592
>
>
> FOR RELEASE APRIL 2, 1987
>
>
> Microsoft Operating System/2™ With Windows Presentation Manager Provides
> Foundation for Next Generation of Personal Computer Industry
>
>
> REDMOND, WA • April 2, 1987 • Microsoft Corporation today announced
> Microsoft Operating System/2

Hmmm, so Microsoft called Windows 3.1 OS/2? Shame on them. OS/2 was a
TRUE, real-time mult-itasker unlike any flavors of Windoze ever since
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

So what is true multitasking to you, Linux? Of course Windows is a true
multitasking OS.

"Nero" <noroac5490@ael.com> wrote in message
news:47743a86$0$15385$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Tom Ferguson wrote:
>> NEWS RELEASE
>> M-3592
>>
>>
>> FOR RELEASE APRIL 2, 1987
>>
>>
>> Microsoft Operating System/2™ With Windows Presentation Manager Provides
>> Foundation for Next Generation of Personal Computer Industry
>>
>>
>> REDMOND, WA • April 2, 1987 • Microsoft Corporation today announced
>> Microsoft Operating System/2
>
> Hmmm, so Microsoft called Windows 3.1 OS/2? Shame on them. OS/2 was a
> TRUE, real-time mult-itasker unlike any flavors of Windoze ever since
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

I remember John Dvorac sometime around 91 - 92, when he said that in order
to do any kind of mlti-tasking, you needed a minimum of two machines!

Personally, I think that J.D. said many well balanced horrendues'nesses -
but that one got to take the buiscuit?

TRUE multi-tasking, therefore is not a property of the OS, but one of the
processor.

Windows, or OS/2 - I remain of the firm opinion that OS-based multi-tasking
always relies on time-slicing, so, is not true. With the 'Dual-Cores', the
concept was fianlly realized, but can you use OS/2 for that?


Tony. . .


"Nero" <noroac5490@ael.com> wrote in message
news:47743a86$0$15385$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Tom Ferguson wrote:
>> NEWS RELEASE
>> M-3592
>>
>>
>> FOR RELEASE APRIL 2, 1987
>>
>>
>> Microsoft Operating System/2™ With Windows Presentation Manager Provides
>> Foundation for Next Generation of Personal Computer Industry
>>
>>
>> REDMOND, WA • April 2, 1987 • Microsoft Corporation today announced
>> Microsoft Operating System/2
>
> Hmmm, so Microsoft called Windows 3.1 OS/2? Shame on them. OS/2 was a
> TRUE, real-time mult-itasker unlike any flavors of Windoze ever since
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

This is pretty much what I mean. Laying the marketing 'hype' of this example
under the light of historical analysis, there's no escaping the fact that MS
did develop both systems from scratch and that the 'Joint Venture' consisted
of IBM investing in what they believed was the more advanced system, at a
time when MS had already decided to make Windows the OS of the future.

The philosophy is clear - you cannot allow yourself to let your production
eat away at your basic capital while all the competition keeps theirs
sitting in the bank. Doing that means that if you invest in the wrong system
you leave your competitors in a position where they can eventually buy you
out. So, you come up with a scheme to make the competition expend a large
sum on the 'hopefully' wrong system! Now, IBM didn't make all that many
stupid business deals to bring them in that position and it took a 'Queen
Sacrifice' to have them make one, but their home turf was in hardware and in
the final end they lost their hardware, didn't they? (All, but the
Winchester HD's and the 'PC' brand name, together with the BIOS - as I
recall. Their hardware brand 'Lexmark' was sold off to an outsider.)


Tony. . .


"Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:evBLIkLSIHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> NEWS RELEASE
> M-3592
>
>
> FOR RELEASE APRIL 2, 1987
>
>
> Microsoft Operating System/2™ With Windows Presentation Manager Provides
> Foundation for Next Generation of Personal Computer Industry
>
>
> REDMOND, WA • April 2, 1987 • Microsoft Corporation today announced
> Microsoft Operating System/2 (MS OS/2™), a new personal computer system
> operating system. MS OS/2 is planned for phased release to OEM
> manufacturers beginning in the fourth quarter of 1987. Designed and
> developed specifically to harness the capabilities of personal computers
> based upon the Intel® 80286 and 80386 microprocessors, MS OS/2 provides
> significant new benefits to personal computer application software
> developers and end-users.
>
>
> MS OS/2, a multi-tasking operating system which allows applications
> software to use up to 16 Mb of memory on 80286 and 80386-based personal
> computers, can be adapted for use on most personal computers based on the
> 80286 and 80386 processors, including the IBM® PC AT and other popular
> systems in use today. The MS OS/2 Windows presentation manager is an
> integral part of the MS OS/2 product, providing a sophisticated graphical
> user interface to the MS OS/2 system. The MS OS/2 Windows presentation
> manager is derived from the existing Microsoft® Windows product developed
> and marketed by Microsoft for the current generation of IBM personal
> computers and compatible machines.
>
>
> The MS OS/2 product is the first to be announced as the result of the
> Joint Development Agreement announced by IBM and Microsoft in August 1985.
> Microsoft will be offering MS OS/2, including the MS OS/2 Windows
> presentation manager, to all its existing OEM customers.
>
>
> "Microsoft Operating System/2 provides the foundation for the next phase
> of exciting growth in the personal computer industry," said Bill Gates,
> chairman of Microsoft. "Microsoft is committed to providing outstanding
> systems software products to the personal computer industry. MS OS/2 will
> be the platform upon which the next 1000 exciting personal computer
> applications software products are built. In particular, our commitment to
> the power of the graphical user interface has been realized with the
> announcement of the MS OS/2 Windows presentation manager and the new IBM
> Personal System/2™ series. We believe that these machines represent a new
> standard in personal computer graphics capabilities which will drive the
> software industry toward the creation of incredible new graphics-based
> applications software products."
>
> ....
>
> Tom
>
> MSMVP 1998-2007
>
> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbmail.dk> wrote in message
> news:OucKc0wRIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Well, isn't there a few obvious differences, though? Those who think they
>> are really going to need XP x64 a few years ahead, still will have a well
>> supported Server version to lean on. I very much doubt that is going to
>> die anytime soon. Those who want to stay with the Workstation version,
>> probably will have a follow-up Vista version (someone mention Windows7
>> the other day?) that might iron out the worst wrinkles in a relatively
>> short while.
>>
>> Do not forget that when IBM was lured into investing a large amount of
>> their capital into OS/2, that OS's objective was fullfilled. That OS was
>> destined to die!
>>
>> Originally, as I've heard it - it was Windows that was doomed to be
>> flushed, since OS/2 was so much more advanced, but as IBM got interested,
>> all of the new (and secret) stuff was amputated and then grafted onto
>> Windows instead. (?)
>>
>> XP x64 may well be 'fizzling' out for other reasons, but it is hardly
>> unique in the way OS/2 was. And OS/2 hardware support was completely
>> identical to Window's, wasn't it? IBM just wasn't as good with software
>> as they were with hardware at the time.
>>
>> But I agree, if porting drivers is so difficult why didn't 3rd party
>> developers grab at the chance to use XP x64 as a porting test-bed?
>>
>>
>> Tony. . .
>>
>>
>> "Greg Lamonte" <lagre345@aul.com> wrote in message
>> news:4771040d$0$11032$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> My favorite OS was OS/2. I like Windows XP 64 and it looks to me as if
>>> it's going to disappear just like OS/2 did because of lack of hardware
>>> support. Isn't that a shame? :(
>>>
>>
>>
>
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

"Nero" <noroac5490@ael.com> wrote in message
news:47743a86$0$15385$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Tom Ferguson wrote:
>> NEWS RELEASE
>> M-3592
>>
>>
>> FOR RELEASE APRIL 2, 1987
>>
>>
>> Microsoft Operating System/2™ With Windows Presentation Manager Provides
>> Foundation for Next Generation of Personal Computer Industry
>>
>>
>> REDMOND, WA • April 2, 1987 • Microsoft Corporation today announced
>> Microsoft Operating System/2
>
> Hmmm, so Microsoft called Windows 3.1 OS/2? Shame on them. OS/2 was a
> TRUE, real-time mult-itasker unlike any flavors of Windoze ever since

Not even close. MS developed OS2 under a contract with IBM and with their
participation. A few years into that contract, disagreement arose over the
direction of that development. After some discussion, the two parties
severed the joint development. MS continued development and released their
system as Windows 3.0. IBM continued development and released OS2. There
were those who thought OS2 "better". Others voted with their money for
Windows 3.0. After continuing to support OS2 for a short period, IBM ceased
all development.

All of this is public information if one wants to seek it out.

Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

What's really meta is when I am in XP64, multitasking, and I also have
OS/2 running in a virtual machine on Virtualbox, and in OS/2 I'm
multitasking.

Doing more with two dead OS's than many people with with one live OS.
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?


"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message

> So what is true multitasking to you, Linux? Of course Windows is a true
> multitasking OS.

Although I don't yet use Linux - but I am sure I will once it gets ironed
out - yes, Linux - unlike Windoze - is a TRUE multitasking OS, and so was
OS/2 (not the windoze variety).

I suppose that if you think Windoze is a multitasker you must be destitute
of knowledge about what really constitutes a multitasking OS but, if you are
a M$ lemming, that surely explains your position, doesn't it? :)
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?


"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbmail.dk> wrote in message

>I remember John Dvorac sometime around 91 - 92, when he said that in order
>to do any kind of mlti-tasking, you needed a minimum of two machines!

You are lost in time, dude... With today's dual-processors what do you think
CAN/SHOULD take place?


> TRUE multi-tasking, therefore is not a property of the OS, but one of the
> processor.

You are an encyclopaedia, man. Spread your knowledge sparingly so that you
don't confuse the geeks reading this crap
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

I don't know why you feel being insulting is macho, but that stuff is not
welcome in this ng. Take to AOL.

"Marc Desiderius" <lmarcode@lefeuvre.net> wrote in message
news:4775189e$0$8856$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message
>
>> So what is true multitasking to you, Linux? Of course Windows is a true
>> multitasking OS.
>
> Although I don't yet use Linux - but I am sure I will once it gets ironed
> out - yes, Linux - unlike Windoze - is a TRUE multitasking OS, and so was
> OS/2 (not the windoze variety).
>
> I suppose that if you think Windoze is a multitasker you must be destitute
> of knowledge about what really constitutes a multitasking OS but, if you
> are a M$ lemming, that surely explains your position, doesn't it? :)
>
>
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

Marc Desiderius wrote:

> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>So what is true multitasking to you, Linux? Of course Windows is a true
>>multitasking OS.
>
>
> Although I don't yet use Linux - but I am sure I will once it gets ironed
> out - yes, Linux - unlike Windoze - is a TRUE multitasking OS, and so was
> OS/2 (not the windoze variety).
>
> I suppose that if you think Windoze is a multitasker you must be destitute
> of knowledge about what really constitutes a multitasking OS but, if you are
> a M$ lemming, that surely explains your position, doesn't it? :)

Colin didn't use insults to make his point, and he has not pushed the
conversation to levels warranting a strongly worded reply. Why do you
resort to insults to try to make your point?

John
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

> I suppose that if you think Windoze is a multitasker you must be destitute
> of knowledge about what really constitutes a multitasking OS but, if you
> are a M$ lemming, that surely explains your position, doesn't it? :)

Please, if you want to be taken seriously, at least stop with the childish
"Windoze" and "M$". That's so 1990's.
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

You might want to do a bit of research before you make statements,
especially those that are stock-in-trade to the audience and easily checked
with commonly-available resources.

...........
Multitasking is the ability of a computer's operating system to run several
programs (or processes) concurrently on a single CPU. This is done by
switching from one program to another fast enough to create the appearance
that all programs are executing simultaneously. There are two types of
multitasking:
Preemptive multitasking. In preemptive multitasking, the operating system
decides how to allocate CPU time slices to each program. At the end of a
time slice, the currently active program is forced to yield control to the
operating system, whether it wants to or not. Examples of operating systems
that support premptive multitasking are Unix®, Windows® 95/98, Windows® NT
and the planned release of Mac® OS X.
Cooperative multitasking. In cooperative multitasking, each program controls
how much CPU time it needs. This means that a program must cooperate in
yielding control to other programs, or else it will hog the CPU. Examples of
operating systems that support cooperative multitasking are Windows® 3.1 and
Mac® OS 8.5.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Civil-and...ll2000/LectureNotes/detail/multithreading.htm

...........
This remains valid across multi-core and multi-processor systems. It is the
OS that arbitrates core and processor tasking.

Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007



"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbmail.dk> wrote in message
news:%23BY%23dfPSIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

{Snip}

> TRUE multi-tasking, therefore is not a property of the OS, but one of the
> processor.
>
> Windows, or OS/2 - I remain of the firm opinion that OS-based
> multi-tasking always relies on time-slicing, so, is not true. With the
> 'Dual-Cores', the concept was fianlly realized, but can you use OS/2 for
> that?
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Nero" <noroac5490@ael.com> wrote in message
> news:47743a86$0$15385$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Tom Ferguson wrote:
>>> NEWS RELEASE
>>> M-3592
>>>
>>>
>>> FOR RELEASE APRIL 2, 1987
>>>
>>>
>>> Microsoft Operating System/2™ With Windows Presentation Manager Provides
>>> Foundation for Next Generation of Personal Computer Industry
>>>
>>>
>>> REDMOND, WA • April 2, 1987 • Microsoft Corporation today announced
>>> Microsoft Operating System/2
>>
>> Hmmm, so Microsoft called Windows 3.1 OS/2? Shame on them. OS/2 was a
>> TRUE, real-time mult-itasker unlike any flavors of Windoze ever since
>
>
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

"Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote:

> You might want to do a bit of research before you make statements,
> especially those that are stock-in-trade to the audience and
> easily checked with commonly-available resources.
>
> ..........
> Multitasking is the ability of a computer's operating system to
> run several programs (or processes) concurrently on a single CPU.

As far as computers are concerned, your definition is correct but
multitasking is a term reserved for computers, it is a general term and
the meaning is much broader.

http://www.reference.com/search?db=web&q=Multitasking




--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?


"XS11E" <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A148FF07E91Exs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...
> "Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You might want to do a bit of research before you make statements,
>> especially those that are stock-in-trade to the audience and
>> easily checked with commonly-available resources.
>>
>> ..........
>> Multitasking is the ability of a computer's operating system to
>> run several programs (or processes) concurrently on a single CPU.
>
> As far as computers are concerned, your definition is correct but
> multitasking is a term reserved for computers, it is a general term and
> the meaning is much broader.
>
> http://www.reference.com/search?db=web&q=Multitasking
>
>
>
>
> --
> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
> The Usenet Improvement Project:
> http://improve-usenet.org

Thanks. Very useful to know, I am sure. However, was that discussion not
about computers? Such a long time ago. Memory fades, and fades....

Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

PS
It was not my definition. ;-)
 
Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

Marc Desiderius wrote:
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message
>
>> So what is true multitasking to you, Linux? Of course Windows is a true
>> multitasking OS.
>
> Although I don't yet use Linux - but I am sure I will once it gets ironed
> out - yes, Linux - unlike Windoze - is a TRUE multitasking OS, and so was
> OS/2 (not the windoze variety).

So kindly enlighten us as to what constitutes a "TRUE multitasking OS"
to your way of thinking.
 
Back
Top