<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: VM/386	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://virtuallyfun.com/2011/02/18/vm386/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2011/02/18/vm386/</link>
	<description>Fun with Virtualization</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:51:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Christian		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2011/02/18/vm386/comment-page-1/#comment-168510</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:51:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=366#comment-168510</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I know it&#039;s been two years, but... OldTimer, do you have a copy of WinView? If so, can I contact you with regards to it?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know it&#8217;s been two years, but&#8230; OldTimer, do you have a copy of WinView? If so, can I contact you with regards to it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: OldTimer		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2011/02/18/vm386/comment-page-1/#comment-63686</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[OldTimer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2014 19:23:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=366#comment-63686</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[You looking for Citrix Multiuser, the CLI-only? Or Citrix WinView, which did OS/2, DOS, and Windows (Win-OS/2)? Pretty sure I have WinView, but my Citrix MultiUser is still shrink-wrapped, so I&#039;m not opening that! I also have one of the last versions of PC-MOS/386 as well]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You looking for Citrix Multiuser, the CLI-only? Or Citrix WinView, which did OS/2, DOS, and Windows (Win-OS/2)? Pretty sure I have WinView, but my Citrix MultiUser is still shrink-wrapped, so I&#8217;m not opening that! I also have one of the last versions of PC-MOS/386 as well</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: neozeed		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2011/02/18/vm386/comment-page-1/#comment-50518</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[neozeed]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Dec 2013 05:17:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=366#comment-50518</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://virtuallyfun.com/2011/02/18/vm386/comment-page-1/#comment-50515&quot;&gt;David&lt;/a&gt;.

One day I hope to score a copy of Citrix multiuser OS/2 ... Although I suspect at this day &amp; age it would be easier to hack up something myself to give me that multiuser MS-DOS feel]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://virtuallyfun.com/2011/02/18/vm386/comment-page-1/#comment-50515">David</a>.</p>
<p>One day I hope to score a copy of Citrix multiuser OS/2 &#8230; Although I suspect at this day &#038; age it would be easier to hack up something myself to give me that multiuser MS-DOS feel</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: David		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2011/02/18/vm386/comment-page-1/#comment-50515</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Dec 2013 05:05:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=366#comment-50515</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Yes - yes that sounds even more correct.   And after some time the product was able to multiuser Win NT 3.51 and then TSE 4  (terminal server 4). Then when Metaframe came out the company sold off to a French firm (if I remember that part correctly).  Still was really neat stuff for me.  David]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes &#8211; yes that sounds even more correct.   And after some time the product was able to multiuser Win NT 3.51 and then TSE 4  (terminal server 4). Then when Metaframe came out the company sold off to a French firm (if I remember that part correctly).  Still was really neat stuff for me.  David</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Anonymous Coward		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2011/02/18/vm386/comment-page-1/#comment-16437</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:13:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=366#comment-16437</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[VM/386 was created in the late 1980&#039;s by Intelligent Graphics Corp (IGC), based in California.  The original VM/386 had very advanced technology for it&#039;s day, but that worked against it in the DOS multitasker market.  It had too much overhead compared to other products that didn&#039;t create truly independent virtual machines (e.g. Desqview).  Later versions of VM/386 added multi-user support, using traditional serial terminals and/or special video hardware (multiple VGA chips on one ISA/PCI board, with the OS enabling the right chip as it switched tasks).  VM/386 multi-user saw some success in niche markets, such as point of sale systems, but the company wasn&#039;t doing well.  AIS International bought IGC in the early 1990&#039;s.  Product development continued for several more years with a new team (none of the original IGC developers wanted to relocate to Chicago).  The last version (5 point something) was released in 2000.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>VM/386 was created in the late 1980&#8217;s by Intelligent Graphics Corp (IGC), based in California.  The original VM/386 had very advanced technology for it&#8217;s day, but that worked against it in the DOS multitasker market.  It had too much overhead compared to other products that didn&#8217;t create truly independent virtual machines (e.g. Desqview).  Later versions of VM/386 added multi-user support, using traditional serial terminals and/or special video hardware (multiple VGA chips on one ISA/PCI board, with the OS enabling the right chip as it switched tasks).  VM/386 multi-user saw some success in niche markets, such as point of sale systems, but the company wasn&#8217;t doing well.  AIS International bought IGC in the early 1990&#8217;s.  Product development continued for several more years with a new team (none of the original IGC developers wanted to relocate to Chicago).  The last version (5 point something) was released in 2000.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: David		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2011/02/18/vm386/comment-page-1/#comment-430</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Apr 2011 16:59:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=366#comment-430</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hello.  What a blast from the past.  I am extremely familiar with IGC VM/386.  In fact I know the creator of the product who was living close to me here in the Chicago-land area. This was originally AIS International back in the mid 80&#039;s!  This was a great product and it led me to create my 2 companies Vizioncore and now Liquidware Labs.  Very interesting to see someone talking about this technology which was way ahead of it&#039;s time.  Actually, you might want to look up MTerm (was a replacement for VM/386) or MultiNode (a windows version kind of like Virtual Computer).  The IGC technology was sold to a French company I believe. Good luck on whatever you&#039;re trying to do... and for current technology look at VMware View and Citrix XenDesktop (these technologies CAN be excellent if you design them properly or else it&#039;s a waste today and you may be better off with &#039;Windows Terminal Services&#039;) or contact David Bieneman @ Liquidware Labs and I&#039;d be happy to point you in a direction that may help you.  Designed properly, VDI is excellent and can be less costly and perform better than most people realize!  Best, David Bieneman]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello.  What a blast from the past.  I am extremely familiar with IGC VM/386.  In fact I know the creator of the product who was living close to me here in the Chicago-land area. This was originally AIS International back in the mid 80&#39;s!  This was a great product and it led me to create my 2 companies Vizioncore and now Liquidware Labs.  Very interesting to see someone talking about this technology which was way ahead of it&#39;s time.  Actually, you might want to look up MTerm (was a replacement for VM/386) or MultiNode (a windows version kind of like Virtual Computer).  The IGC technology was sold to a French company I believe. Good luck on whatever you&#39;re trying to do&#8230; and for current technology look at VMware View and Citrix XenDesktop (these technologies CAN be excellent if you design them properly or else it&#39;s a waste today and you may be better off with &#39;Windows Terminal Services&#39;) or contact David Bieneman @ Liquidware Labs and I&#39;d be happy to point you in a direction that may help you.  Designed properly, VDI is excellent and can be less costly and perform better than most people realize!  Best, David Bieneman</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Neozeed		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2011/02/18/vm386/comment-page-1/#comment-400</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Neozeed]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:17:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=366#comment-400</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m glad you like the blog, trnsz!  I&#039;ve been out of town on vacation, I&#039;m hoping my 2.0 arrived...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;These kinds of multi user/MS-DOS clones seem kind of interesting to me, as they fill what I could have seen as a very profitable and viable industry for Microsoft, but for some reason they never did chase.... For instance with Windows/386 how hard would it have been to use the same infrastructure but make it multi user?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I guess it was simply the weird stage between Xenix and NT... I know there was some MS-DOS emulation product for Xenix on the 386, although the cost would be massively prohibitive.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Much like QNX with it&#039;s DOS-emulator, RUNDOS that we ran in Ontario... Someone is selling rundos for over $600 USD so yeah, it&#039;s insane.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#39;m glad you like the blog, trnsz!  I&#39;ve been out of town on vacation, I&#39;m hoping my 2.0 arrived&#8230;</p>
<p>These kinds of multi user/MS-DOS clones seem kind of interesting to me, as they fill what I could have seen as a very profitable and viable industry for Microsoft, but for some reason they never did chase&#8230;. For instance with Windows/386 how hard would it have been to use the same infrastructure but make it multi user?</p>
<p>I guess it was simply the weird stage between Xenix and NT&#8230; I know there was some MS-DOS emulation product for Xenix on the 386, although the cost would be massively prohibitive.  </p>
<p>Much like QNX with it&#39;s DOS-emulator, RUNDOS that we ran in Ontario&#8230; Someone is selling rundos for over $600 USD so yeah, it&#39;s insane.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: trnsz		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2011/02/18/vm386/comment-page-1/#comment-399</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[trnsz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 00:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=366#comment-399</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I remember this from back in the day as well!  I also seem to remember that PC/MOS was the superior product (and was used to build some database-driven systems that were still in use into the 2000&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;VM/386 1.22 is available from some of the standard abandonware sites I see.  I might give it a shot on real hardware.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;BTW - I&#039;ve been a fan of your blog for a long time but haven&#039;t ever let you know.  Keep it up.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I remember this from back in the day as well!  I also seem to remember that PC/MOS was the superior product (and was used to build some database-driven systems that were still in use into the 2000&#39;s.</p>
<p>VM/386 1.22 is available from some of the standard abandonware sites I see.  I might give it a shot on real hardware.</p>
<p>BTW &#8211; I&#39;ve been a fan of your blog for a long time but haven&#39;t ever let you know.  Keep it up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Neozeed		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2011/02/18/vm386/comment-page-1/#comment-396</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Neozeed]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Feb 2011 03:44:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=366#comment-396</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Very cool...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&#039;ve been playing with some old AMI bios &#038; cirrus logic bios on Qemu 0.9.0 (mostly because it&#039;s ISA emulation isn&#039;t broken)...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So far nothing. :&#124;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very cool&#8230;</p>
<p>I&#39;ve been playing with some old AMI bios &amp; cirrus logic bios on Qemu 0.9.0 (mostly because it&#39;s ISA emulation isn&#39;t broken)&#8230;</p>
<p>So far nothing. 😐</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Raijinzrael		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2011/02/18/vm386/comment-page-1/#comment-395</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Raijinzrael]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Feb 2011 03:29:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=366#comment-395</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I think that this can get working with Bochs...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I made some fixes to get real BIOS and VGABIOS images working with Bochs, and them work seamlessy with the new 2.4.5 release, with all options working correctly... i think that VM/386 can work with this emulation enviroment, despite those incomplete VMWare and QEMU CPU and BIOS32 virtualizations.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that this can get working with Bochs&#8230;</p>
<p>I made some fixes to get real BIOS and VGABIOS images working with Bochs, and them work seamlessy with the new 2.4.5 release, with all options working correctly&#8230; i think that VM/386 can work with this emulation enviroment, despite those incomplete VMWare and QEMU CPU and BIOS32 virtualizations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
