Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

OS/2 1.2/1.3 disks

Expand Messages
  • Richard A. Cini
    All: Does anyone have a copy of (or a pointer to) OS/2 1.2 or 1.3 that I could get a copy of for a pre-Windows 3.1 project I¹m working on? Thanks! Rich --
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 8, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      OS/2 1.2/1.3 disks All:

          Does anyone have a copy of (or a pointer to) OS/2 1.2 or 1.3 that I could get a copy of for a pre-Windows 3.1 project I’m working on?

          Thanks!

      Rich

      --
      Rich Cini
      Collector of Classic Computers
      Build Master and lead engineer, Altair32 Emulator
      http://www.altair32.com
      http://www.classiccmp.org/cini
    • madodel
      ... I have disk images of : IBM OS/2 Extended Edition 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 IBM OS/2 Standard Edition 1.1 and 1.3 Microsoft OS/2 1.1 and 1.2.1 Be aware that even
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 8, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Richard A. Cini wrote:
        > All:
        >
        > Does anyone have a copy of (or a pointer to) OS/2 1.2 or 1.3 that I
        > could get a copy of for a pre-Windows 3.1 project I’m working on?
        >
        > Thanks!
        >
        > Rich
        >

        I have disk images of :

        IBM OS/2 Extended Edition 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3
        IBM OS/2 Standard Edition 1.1 and 1.3
        Microsoft OS/2 1.1 and 1.2.1

        Be aware that even 1.3 was somewhat picky about what hardware it would run
        on. Mostly PS/2's or IBM Industrial computers. I'm not sure if the
        Microsoft version was better supported as I only have announcements for the
        IBM releases.

        Send me an email directly. madodel (at) ptd.net to discuss access.

        Mark
      • john_apw
        IIRC, The only really stable versions of pre-Windows DOS were 2.11 and 3.3. At about the same time as Win3x, you could upgrade to DOS 5.0. Afterwards, 6.22.
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 9, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          IIRC,

          The only really stable versions of pre-Windows DOS were 2.11 and 3.3.
          At about the same time as Win3x, you could upgrade to DOS 5.0.
          Afterwards, 6.22.

          All the other versions had problems and quirks.

          Whatever you do, DO NOT rely on DOS 4.x. I can't remember what the
          problems were, only that they were many and difficult.

          -JohnM



          --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, "Richard A. Cini"
          <rcini@...> wrote:
          >
          > All:
          >
          > Does anyone have a copy of (or a pointer to) OS/2 1.2 or 1.3
          that I
          > could get a copy of for a pre-Windows 3.1 project I¹m working on?
          >
          > Thanks!
          >
          > Rich
          >
          > --
          > Rich Cini
          > Collector of Classic Computers
          > Build Master and lead engineer, Altair32 Emulator
          > http://www.altair32.com
          > http://www.classiccmp.org/cini
          >
        • john_apw
          Oh, that wasn t helpful, was it? I mis-read the request. For some reason my eyes glazed over when they got to OS/2 , and translated that to DOS . Sorry...
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 9, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Oh, that wasn't helpful, was it? I mis-read the request.

            For some reason my eyes glazed over when they got to "OS/2", and
            translated that to "DOS".

            Sorry...

            Not that I'm prejudiced or anything, but I used to complain that OS/2
            should have been advertised as "the world's largest licensed
            virus"... :)

            -JohnM





            --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, "john_apw"
            <infomagician@...> wrote:
            >
            > IIRC,
            >
            > The only really stable versions of pre-Windows DOS were 2.11 and
            3.3.
            > At about the same time as Win3x, you could upgrade to DOS 5.0.
            > Afterwards, 6.22.
            >
            > All the other versions had problems and quirks.
            >
            > Whatever you do, DO NOT rely on DOS 4.x. I can't remember what the
            > problems were, only that they were many and difficult.
            >
            > -JohnM
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, "Richard A. Cini"
            > <rcini@> wrote:
            > >
            > > All:
            > >
            > > Does anyone have a copy of (or a pointer to) OS/2 1.2 or 1.3
            > that I
            > > could get a copy of for a pre-Windows 3.1 project I¹m working on?
            > >
            > > Thanks!
            > >
            > > Rich
            > >
            > > --
            > > Rich Cini
            > > Collector of Classic Computers
            > > Build Master and lead engineer, Altair32 Emulator
            > > http://www.altair32.com
            > > http://www.classiccmp.org/cini
            > >
            >
          • Bryan Pope
            ... Hmm... I think you are confusing OS/2 with Windows 95? OS/2 was a true 32-bit multi-tasking operating system while Windows 95 was still stuck on top of
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 9, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              john_apw wrote:
              >
              > Not that I'm prejudiced or anything, but I used to complain that OS/2
              > should have been advertised as "the world's largest licensed
              > virus"... :)
              >
              Hmm... I think you are confusing OS/2 with Windows 95? OS/2 was a
              true 32-bit multi-tasking operating system while Windows 95 was still
              stuck on top of DOS like Windows 3.1. OS/2 could even run DOS games in
              a *window* at full speed. With Windows 95, you had to run them full
              screen or boot into DOS.

              Cheers,

              Bryan
            • Sridhar Ayengar
              ... I think that applies to Windows more correctly. OS/2 was superior to the contemporary version of Windows every step of the way. Peace... Sridhar
              Message 6 of 9 , Oct 9, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                john_apw wrote:
                > Not that I'm prejudiced or anything, but I used to complain that OS/2
                > should have been advertised as "the world's largest licensed
                > virus"... :)

                I think that applies to Windows more correctly.

                OS/2 was superior to the contemporary version of Windows every step of
                the way.

                Peace... Sridhar
              • Sridhar Ayengar
                ... On top of that, it ran Windows 3.1 faster than DOS did. Peace... Sridhar
                Message 7 of 9 , Oct 9, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bryan Pope wrote:
                  > john_apw wrote:
                  >> Not that I'm prejudiced or anything, but I used to complain that OS/2
                  >> should have been advertised as "the world's largest licensed
                  >> virus"... :)
                  >>
                  > Hmm... I think you are confusing OS/2 with Windows 95? OS/2 was a
                  > true 32-bit multi-tasking operating system while Windows 95 was still
                  > stuck on top of DOS like Windows 3.1. OS/2 could even run DOS games in
                  > a *window* at full speed. With Windows 95, you had to run them full
                  > screen or boot into DOS.

                  On top of that, it ran Windows 3.1 faster than DOS did.

                  Peace... Sridhar
                • fairlanefastback
                  Yeah OS/2 was much nicer IMO than early Windows. Much less security concerns as well. Though I only really ran Warp and not really earlier versions.
                  Message 8 of 9 , Oct 9, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yeah OS/2 was much nicer IMO than early Windows. Much less security
                    concerns as well. Though I only really ran Warp and not really
                    earlier versions.

                    --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, Bryan Pope <bryan.pope@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > john_apw wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Not that I'm prejudiced or anything, but I used to complain that OS/2
                    > > should have been advertised as "the world's largest licensed
                    > > virus"... :)
                    > >
                    > Hmm... I think you are confusing OS/2 with Windows 95? OS/2 was a
                    > true 32-bit multi-tasking operating system while Windows 95 was still
                    > stuck on top of DOS like Windows 3.1. OS/2 could even run DOS games in
                    > a *window* at full speed. With Windows 95, you had to run them full
                    > screen or boot into DOS.
                    >
                    > Cheers,
                    >
                    > Bryan
                    >
                  • madodel
                    ... What is interesting is that it was so well thought out that even without the source, OS/2 is still being extended so it can run on current hardware. Pretty
                    Message 9 of 9 , Oct 9, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
                      > john_apw wrote:
                      >> Not that I'm prejudiced or anything, but I used to complain that OS/2
                      >> should have been advertised as "the world's largest licensed
                      >> virus"... :)
                      >
                      > I think that applies to Windows more correctly.
                      >
                      > OS/2 was superior to the contemporary version of Windows every step of
                      > the way.
                      >
                      > Peace... Sridhar

                      What is interesting is that it was so well thought out that even without
                      the source, OS/2 is still being extended so it can run on current hardware.
                      Pretty good for an operating system that hasn't had a new public
                      version since 1999 (Warp Server eBusiness) and limited available releases
                      in 2000 and 2001 (Merlin Convenience Packages 1 and 2). eComStation is
                      based on that last MCP release, but they have it booting off of CD and
                      flash drives and even bootable JFS. Biggest issues are the lack of a
                      current Flash player and current Java port.

                      Mark (Typing this on a Thinkpad T61 running eCS 2.0 RC4)
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.