Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!codas!karthur From: karthur@codas.att.com (Kurt_R_Arthur) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: OS/2 and the 80286 Message-ID: <1483@codas.att.com> Date: 6 Jan 88 19:06:03 GMT References: <4347@garfield.UUCP> Organization: AT&T, Altamonte Springs, FL Lines: 83 In article <4347@garfield.UUCP> robert4@garfield.UUCP (Robert Pitt) writes: > > I am about to buy an 80286 machine but have come across a number of > conflicting claims about the prowess of machines based on that chip. I had > gathered that an 80386 processor was required to run OS/2, and a number of > salespeople I have asked are of the same understanding. Yet Tandy -in > several brochures- advertises its 3000HL and its "enhanced" 3000 (both 80286 > machines) as "OS/2 ready". Does this mean that there are two kinds of 80286 > machines (with different architecture/options??), one which will run OS/2 and > one which will not? How can one tell, short of trying to run OS/2? Can an > 80286 non-compatible be upgraded to run OS/2? The information I have, gleaned from several different sources is: 1. OS/2 is an 80286 operating system. It does not support 80386 in native mode. This means the 80386 will just emulate the 80286 under OS/2 (and be faster), but the op- erating system will not be able to take advantage of the 80386's advancements. A version of OS/2 that supports the 80386 is not due until 1990 or so. 2. All 80286 _CHIPS_ are able to run OS/2. It is up to each manufacturer, however to perform the modifications nec- essary to make an OS/2 flavor run on their machine. At least in theory, this means Compaq OS/2 may not work on IBM hardware, etc. MS-DOS uses this theory too, but as we know, though, in practice, each DOS is almost identical 3. There are three kinds of 80286 machines, one far more common than the other two: The first kind is the old familiar AT and its clones. It supports 16 bit data paths, and a few other advanced wrinkles. This kind of machine will run OS/2 (provided of course someone customizes a version of the operating system for it). The second kind, which is relatively unknown, is the XT compatible that uses an 80286. Off- hand, the only 2 machines I know of that use an 80286 in an XT compatible are an ITT Xtra and one of the new Tandy 1000's (TX, maybe?). These machines are the standard XT with an 80286 in place of the 8088, 8086 or V20. This species of PC will never run OS/2 without the addition of a 80286 or 80386 accelerator board that supports OS/2 (like a Microsoft Mach-20). The third kind is the infamous IBM XT-286. This machine is really an AT-clone in an XT box. An XT-286 will run IBM's OS/2. A lot of the industry confusion about OS/2 is caused by 2 different reasons, one admirable, the other understandable: 1. When the original AT was released, IBM promised those purchasers they would receive an operating system tailored for the machine. This lack of 'orphaning' for the users who bought early is laudable and evidence of one more reason IBM is the best-selling computer company: they don't abandon people. IBM has taken a LOT of heat from the press for not skipping the 80286 and just writing OS/2 for the 80386, but a promise made is a promise kept (another example of the non-orphaning is the DOS compa- tibility box: I heard the coding of the box took more time than all of the rest of the operating system combined, and delayed release of OS/2 by 1.5 years). 2. IBM tied the announcement of OS/2 to the announcement of the PS/2 series of computers. This 'linking' of concepts with similar names, announcements, etc. serves to confuse the market, which parlays directly into IBM sales. IBM wanted to create the illusion that OS/2 is tied to the PS/2 (thereby racking up sales that might go to clones). Sorry if this message is too long, but I did want to set the record straight. I'm sure I'll take flames for actually complimenting IBM above (grin)! Kurt Arthur Software Services of Florida, Inc.