While I had posted endlessly about this particular computer, as someone that I had long desired as a kid, overall, the PS/2 model 60 is an underwhelming machine, with an exceptionally high price tag. Many other fans of other 80s 16-bit computers, were able to augment their weak processors with faster 16bit CPUs, and even 32bit processors. As it turns out, the IBM PS/2 also had options:
On the one hand, I have to imagine that if you could afford a $10,000+ 286 in 1987 you probably would have upgraded to something else in the last 5 years. The Kingston upgrade heralds from 1993, and well that 10Mhz 286 is pretty much borderline useless for productivity. I’m not even going to talk about gaming! DooM is right around the corner being released at the end of the year, and how on earth can you justify this monster of a machine at your desk?
So let’s unpack this little doodad!
Installation
The first step in the manual says you need to extract your main processor, and maths co-processor if you have one installed. The FPU’s are so cheap now, it seemed crazy to not get one. Although the only thing more bizarre is that considering the asking price of the PS/2 model 60, is that the FPU was even considered optional. This was a serious business machine afterall!
With the processor extracted, the next big task is to identify pin 1. Looking from the top it’s impossible to see, but rotating the board around it’s easier to see the indentation that they left on the board to denote pin 1. Unfortunately, the socket they used has no visible indication, and Intel had not learned the importance of keying parts yet, making incorrect insertion impossible.
With pin 1 identified, it’s now time to gently insert the upgrade module.
I had also purchased the 80387sx 25Mhz math coprocessor. Combining this with the IBM IBM 486SLC2-50 (50G6950) should give a rather 486 like experience. And keeping with 80s tradition all the chips point in various directions making this look like a mess.
Physical installation is as simple as that, with the module socketed we are go for power on!
Since this is the model 60, that means I’m still using that BOCARAM/2 card that totally messes up with the BIOS settings, so I have to remove the card, and configure things one card at a time.
But it does work!
Brining up MSD it does indeed show that it is a 486, with built in math coprocessor. I didn’t try it without one, to see if it becomes a 486SX, but I guess it would?
Default performance however…
For some reason it felt faster doing the initial memory test. But that was demonstrably false. By default, the upgrade module runs at the original speed, meaning you have 32bit instructions at the 286’s 10Mhz clock. There is an included driver for MS-DOS & OS/2 2.0 GA that will turn on all the fancy features, but that means that it won’t work for Windows NT, or Xenix. SAD.
However, with the driver enabled, we are talking 386DX/33 speeds! Making this 2x the speed of the PS/2 Model 80 @16mhz!
And why yes, it runs DooM! Performance is terrible since the memory is all 16bit, and the VGA on the PS/2 model 60/80 motherboards is 8bit, well there is so much performance left behind.
The 32bit port of Sarien to Pharlap 386 v4 /Watcom7 is pretty fast as well!
And SCSI remains a winner with the 32bit dumb SCSI card in a 16bit MCA slot, I still get 2,318.9 Kilobytes/Second
The good
The upgrade when compared to a new system is a fantastic bit of value. People had been buying and selling 386sx machines, which are basically full feature 286 machines with the hobbled 16-bit external 386 processors. Into the early 90’s all the rage was faster clocks, internal clock doubling, and yet even more cache. The later PS/2 model 80, running at 25Mhz did include the 82385 cache controller, and soldered on the motherboard cache ram, making it the best of the 80’s.
The bad
There is literally only so much you can do with a 16bit machine, and it being 1993, the Pentium was already shipping it’s 5v 60/66Mhz variant, with the infamous FDIV bug. Over the next year the Pentium would see it’s voltage dropped to 3.3v, and clock speed increased. Good times. The Pentium would drive 64-bit memory access along with faster 33Mhz PCI bus making it an incredible machine. Even a hopped up 286 is vastly outclassed, with its ancient and laughably tiny MFM hard disks, and 16-bit memory/peripheral bus.
If you are hanging onto a computer from 1987 in 1993, odds are you have old software anyways, and this is such an incredibly compelling upgrade for such an old klunker. By default it preserves the 286 speeds on boot if you so need them, but it’s nice having some 32bit POWER.
Although I wouldn’t want to use GCC on a machine this starved of resources, not even in 1993.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a very 1980’s awesome machine. Aesthetically. But practically? No way, it’s a legit white elephant. And it killed OS/2 before it even became a thing. I know what about the JDA, and IBM interference? What about the poor choice of the 80286 processor? What about DOS Extenders? YES it’s all there, Half an Operating System, for Half a computer, the real reason OS/2 failed, and it’s wrapped up in a 20 x 8 x 18 inches package weighing in at 40 pounds.
Behold the IBM PS/2 model 60.
The base model PS/2 60 with the 44Mb hard disk was priced at an eye watering $5,925 in 1987. And to be clear that is with only has ONE megabyte of RAM which is nowhere near enough to even boot OS/2. Realistically, you would need the additional memory card, and another 4MB of RAM, raising the price far higher, as stated in the requirements for the sales demonstration of OS/2.
The 77Mb disk system would set you back $6,295, again not counting the needed memory upgrades.
It’s BIG, loud, expensive, and more importantly obsolete on day one.
Going back, to the original success of the IBM PC and it’s open architecture lead to the one big issue, which is that it was trivial for people to clone, as they published everything you’d want to know in their technical reference manuals. The one thing that was copywrite was the BIOS. However as I’m sure everyone heard the story of how Columbia Data Products released the MPC 1600, which set the gold standard on reverse engineering, but opened the floodgates to bigger players like Compaq, and ushered in the clone revolution.
IBM was obviously not happy with this. IBM always looked to hardware for money, and IBM build quality, and of course that lead us to the PS/2. There is no way they could have developed this in the space of a year, which again if it took 2-3 years to bring them to market, it would explain so many of the missteps of the Model 30 which both had an ISA bus, and had either an 8086 or 80286 processor. This may have been okay for 1985, but they were far too old & slow for 1987. Many people have cited that part of the PS/2 revolution was the new bus on the model 60/80 Microchannel which unlike ISA had to be licensed from IBM, but of course it didn’t catch on, instead it gave confidence to the industry to not only set out on their own 386 machines, but then their own 32bit bus EISA. Yet another reason the 8086/80286 machines should never had existed.
Looking back to December of 1984 we can see the MSRP for the 6Mhz IBM AT was $5,795, the AT model 099 included a whopping 20MB hard disk, a single high density 1.2MB 5 1/4″ floppy drive, and 512kb of RAM. Now jump forward a few years, and every clone manufacturer has benefited from economies of scale as the commodity parts increase of demand and sourcing has only led to lower prices. Except for IBM. While the Model 60 does have twice the RAM going up to a base configuration of 1 megabyte, and a 44MB hard disk, the price is $6,995 or a 20% price increase!
What lead to this massive stagnation from 1985 to 1987? I’m sure it has almost everything to do with Don Estridge’s untimely death in 1985. I can’t imagine IBM releasing an XT years later with the same design language as the new ‘powerful’ machines, no doubt just fooling consumers into thinking they are ready for the 1990’s when instead, it’s a product more akin to 1982.
From Infoworld 1988:
On the one hand, IBM has shipped nearly 2 million PS/2s in the year since the machines were introduced. The Model 50 is currently the best-selling microcomputer in the industry a position it has held since November 1987, according to market research firm Store-board Inc. What makes these figures even more significant, say analysts, is that many of the alleged benefits of the PS/2 have yet to be fully exploited.
Although there was certainly an initial corporate interest in the PS/2’s IBM did not keep up with faster Intel CPUs quick enough and failed to keep up interest in the base models, leading to significant price cuts in the spring of 1988.
Time and time again you’ll hear how there was no software poised to take charge of these 286/386 models, and there was no compelling reason to do so. And it’s why it was such a big mistake to not have allowed Microsoft to being GDI to OS/2 along with it’s working drivers & applications to have shortened development time to get them to market. By shipping these expensive premium machines without OS/2 (normal users don’t change operating systems), and the double slap insult being that none of these machines are capable out of the box of running *any* version of OS/2 it’s not hard to see why it failed.
Okay so the PS/2 was too expensive!
Actually, it was too cheap! They should have not bothered with the new look XTs it only created branding confusion, and really all 286/386 equipped models should have been able to run OS/2, with no upgrades needed. I can’t imagine anyone would be happy after spending six plus thousand on a new machine to only find out that to run the OS of the future, you need to spend a few more thousand.
Windows was irrelevant in 1987!
There is no doubt that being able to run Windows applications natively on OS/2 would have only helped it tremendously, as OS/2 would be the ‘professional’ version of Windows. Although OS/2 did achieve this through paravirtualization, having GDI/USER native to OS/2 would have consumed far less ram as you wouldn’t need to load two windowing environments at once!
While Balance of Power may not have been the #1 chart topper, it was one of the first commercial games for Windows (Maybe it was the first?), showing that instead of developing UI code & drivers, that even a run-time platform was a viable choice.
v86 mode was too difficult and it delayed OS/2 2.0 for years!
What if I told you that there is FOOTBALL & PIGSKIN? Granted they are text mode, but they absolutely incorporate v86 mode into what is basically OS/2 1.0. In 1987. Why was there no OS2/386? Yeah. IBM.
Instead, all the 1.x versions of OS/2 had a SINGLE MS-DOS box, or penalty box, even the 386 has the single DOS session limitation. So if your work flow was stuck to a single DOS session what compelling reason would there be to upgrade to OS/2? NONE. Speaking of 1987 however there was Windows/386 towards the end of the year.
Windows/386, is the friendliest glance into today’s future (Think of it as a graphical hypervisor, like VMware/KVM). Windows was the one environment where Microsoft didn’t need IBM’s permission to do anything, or adhere to any other standards, Microsoft added v86 support into Windows, and it brought mainframe power to the average user, by allowing them to create virtual machines running their own isolated MS-DOS applications, and even allowing copy/paste of data from between them, and into new Windows applications. While Windows 2 was a shadow of what would become the Windows 3.0 juggernaut of 1990, it was quickly headed in the right direction.
What is it with the 386 anyways?
And why were they so adverse to the 386? the 1st gen Model 80 motherboard feels more like a begrudging reaction to Compaq rather than what it should have been by the time they released the 3rd – 25Mhz version, with onboard cache controller & ram. Beyond v86 mode, there was the large memory space, and 32bit registers making it possible to port minicomputer (and even mainframe) programs to the PC. Was this desktop future too scary for IBM? Did they really thing that by refusing to adopt the 386 that they could somehow influence the rest of the market to not being 32bit computing to the masses? Even in the early 80’s there was the Definicon, a NS32016 cpu board you could plug into your IBM PC and unleash a programmable 32bit processor with upwards of 2MB of RAM. If IBM was not going to make a 32bit computer, others would find a way, utilizing the ever-increasing supply of open PC hardware.
As far as I can tell IBM didn’t even permit Windows/386 or any version of Windows to be bundled or shipped with the PS/2’s further alienating them from the growing market of software. And of course, by not increasing the RAM the pre-loaded operating system was still PC-DOS, not OS/2. It really shakes confidence when IBM won’t even preload their jointly developed Operating System of the future.
Then along came Windows.
While Windows 3.0 was fine enough running in 16bit protected mode on both the 286 & 386, having the ability to launch v86 machines, and take advantage of hardware paging of the 386 on Windows 3.0. At least you were 2/3rds of the chip’s capabilities, unlike OS/2 1.x where you used none.
There is money in those developer hills!
Time and time again, this has been one of the industry’s biggest failings. Just as IBM charged a fortune for SDK’s and DDKs all it did was raise the bar so high very few people paid for them, strangling the supply of apps & drivers.
While the PS/2’s were very expandable, it seems outside of collectors, very few are. Which again speaks to why it was so important to get that initial pre-loaded configuration right. And you control that with the pre-load, just as Apple forced the wedge by first loading OS X onto machines, then making it the default. At best with Warp IBM pre-loaded it on many devices, but users were oblivious that it was even there. It was more than once I’d seen someone buy a retail copy of Warp, to run this OS/2 thing to only find out their ThinkPad already had a copy.
The prices to get started with technical information, the toolkit and a compiler may seem expensive, but compared to the infamous $3,000 SDK & seminars.
Instead, developers should have been given copies for free, or even back then, on the MSPL. While the Microsoft Programmer’s Library is an invaluable resource, the lack of tools is just odd. Why even have slack space on those early CD-ROMs?
No doubt all the painful lessons were learned from OS/2 for Windows. Just as Windows NT ended up being everything NTOS/2 3.0 was going to be.
So yeah, really it was the PS/2 Model 60?
Bringing out a super expensive 16bit machine in 1987, holding Microsoft back in every technical way possible, along with all the poor choices revolving around IBM’s fear of the 386, and the 32bit future doomed OS/2 before it even began.
At best the 8086/80286 machines should have been cheap machines for MS-DOS present, but again the outlier is the PS/2 Model 60. Far too expensive with no real compelling reason to buy one – Don’t get me wrong I love mine! But it’s incredibly impractical.
If anything, once more again, OS/2 1.x should never been a thing, it performs terribly on 286’sand the single 3xdos session is just painful. With its heavy requirements, it always should have been targeting the 386, and the brave future of 1987 onwards, not 1984, and certainly not the PS/2 model 60, which never should have existed.
Hamstringing OS/2 to the $6,995 PS/2 model 60 in 1987 doomed it all from the start. It never stood a chance.
From cracyc and roytam’s fork, I have incorporated a correction. These include file access using FCB and fixing exceptions around the FPU of the MAME version of the i386 core. In addition, the DAA/DAS/AAA/AAS/AAM/AAD instructions of the MAME version of the i386 core have been modified based on the DOSBox implementation. With the Pentium 4 version, the testi386.exe is the same as the real thing.
The I386 core of NP21/W has been updated to equivalent to ver0.86 rev92 beta2. Also, fixed the build time warning so that it does not appear.
Improved checking when accessing environment variables, referencing incorrect environment tables. Recent builds have resolved an issue that prevented testi386.exe from working. Improved the efficiency of memory access handling. Basic memory, extended memory, and reserved areas (such as VRAM) can be accessed in that order with a small number of conditional branches. The processing speed may be slightly increased.
I don’t want to complain or anything, I’m very thankful for the tool. It’s just so amazing.
but on my Windows 10 install I have so many issues relating to the font/screen changes, that I just made an incredibly lame fork, and commented out those changes, msdos-player_. I stumbled onto the issue by accident by redirecting stdout/stderr, and compiling stuff ran fine, but as soon as it started to mess with the console it’d just crash.
OK so you can run some basic stuff like compilers, but what about ORACLE?!
I did have to subst a drive, as I didn’t feel like dealing with paths and stuff, I had extracted it from oracle-51c-qemu, and modified the autoexec & config.ora and yeah, using the 386 or better emulation it just worked! Sadly there is no network part of the install, although there is a SDK so I guess there ought to be a way to proxy queries.
OK, but how about something even more complicated?! NETWARE!
Obviously there is no ISA MFM/IDE disks in MS-DOS Player, but the server loaded!
Needless to say this update is just GREAT!
I’d say try the one hosted on Takeda’s site! It’ll almost certainly work fine for you. Otherwise I guess try mine. Or not.
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.
-Ian Malcolm
Ever since I got my first 286 board way back in the early 90’s (1990? 1991?) I have been intrigued by the whole protected mode of operation. Unfortunately, in the era the required tools were way out of my reach, and of course were not available at retail. But now I live in the future where I have all the parts! Let’s look at the needed parts
I have to once more again thank my patrons, and people tolerating the google ads as it made all the difference in being able to buy all this stuff. And now is as good a time as any other to put it all together.
I stumbled upon this repo on sourceforge, Sarien. It included a Turbo C++ port, which is pretty exciting! So, this became my goal, get Sarien running on Phar Lap 286.
Installing Microsoft C requires you to pick and choose both hosting, targeting environments, along with what the preferred libraries are. In the business we call this foreshadowing as this can be such a giant PITA. At least virtual machines are fast, plentiful, and cheap. In addition I had been using MS-DOS player to host the tools on Windows 11. This of course proved weird later.
The first step was getting it running on MS-DOS using Microsoft C 6.0a. This was actually pretty easy, the hard part was working out the makefile, as some files don’t compile with optimisations. And overall, the project doesn’t seem to work with /Ox at all. I haven’t spent enough time mixing and matching settings to find what actually doesn’t work, but I’m in a hurry, and /Os seems to work just fine.
In no time I had both the CGA & VGA drivers up and running and verified working on my PS/2. Great!
Now comes the fun, getting it ready to run on Pharlap.
Phar Lap’s 286|DOS-Extender is pure magic. A DOS extender is a special program that can load a protected mode program into memory on a 286 or better computer and run it. At it’s heart, it can proxy MS-DOS functionality from protected mode to real mode, allowing you to use a lot of methodology and code from traditional real mode code. Phar Lap, goes beyond that by providing a pseudo OS/2 1.2 environment on MS-DOS, including advanced features like DLL’s, and being able to use ALL the RAM in your computer. Of course on the 286 there is a massive caveat:
The 286 has no built-in function for switching from protected mode to real mode. This makes programs that rely a LOT on MS-DOS potentially very slow. You can absolutely feel the difference between the real mode and the protected mode version of Sarien.
Phar Lap does include a test program, swtest which can benchmark the switching methods, so let’s run it and get some scores.
Switch code version = 1.14
BIOS signature: BA66CC86
BIOS date: 02/13/87
Machine ID = 0, A20 method = PS2, Reset method = Standard
Starting test for Switch Mode 3 (SLOW) ... Test complete.
Avg switch time (usecs): To prot = 34, To real = 101, Total = 135
Min switch time (usecs): To prot = 32, To real = 98, Total = 130
Max switch time (usecs): To prot = 35, To real = 103, Total = 138
Machine ID = 0, A20 method = PS2, Reset method = Standard
Starting test for Switch Mode 2 (AT) ... Test complete.
Avg switch time (usecs): To prot = 34, To real = 86, Total = 120
Min switch time (usecs): To prot = 33, To real = 83, Total = 116
Max switch time (usecs): To prot = 36, To real = 88, Total = 124
Machine ID = 0, A20 method = PS2, Reset method = Standard
Starting test for Switch Mode 1 (SURE) ... Test complete.
Avg switch time (usecs): To prot = 34, To real = 70, Total = 104
Min switch time (usecs): To prot = 32, To real = 68, Total = 100
Max switch time (usecs): To prot = 35, To real = 72, Total = 107
For those of you wondering what the timing is like on a 386, here is my 16Mhz PS/2 Model 80 board (now with fully 32bit memory)
Switch code version = 1.14
BIOS signature: 039D2DB4
BIOS date: 03/30/87
Machine ID = 0, A20 method = PS2, Reset method = Standard
Starting test for Switch Mode 5 (386) ... Test complete.
Avg switch time (usecs): To prot = 31, To real = 22, Total = 53
Min switch time (usecs): To prot = 30, To real = 20, Total = 50
Max switch time (usecs): To prot = 32, To real = 23, Total = 55
I’m honestly surprised the 286 switches from protected back to real so quickly! Although as you can see from the 386 timings it’s significantly faster than the 286.
Here is a quick video, real mode on the left, protected mode on the right. Yes I need to get a VGA capture card. Sorry.
Being a DOS extender it does have built in functions for things like hooking interrupts like this:
Using pointers into things like video ram do require ‘asking for permission’ but it’s not too involved:
int rseg;
/* Get PM pointer to text screen */
DosMapRealSeg(0xb800,4000,&rseg);
textptr=MAKEP(rseg,0);
with the segment mapped, and a pointer to the segment, and now I can read/write directly into video RAM!
/* save text screen */
memcpy(textbuf,textptr,4000);
Just like that!
I’m not sure what I screwed up on the VGA graphics, as it doesn’t work correctly, but oddly enough CGA does work.
And now this is where everything goes off the rails.
It ran fine on emulation. So all excited I fired up the PS/2 and….
This lead me to more fun in how on earth to debug this. Of course Phar Lap 286 version 2.5 requires me to have Microsoft C/C++ 7.0. I shamelessly downloaded a disk set from pcjs.org. You actually need to install it, to copy out the files required:
28/05/1991 05:37 pm 47,216 CFIG286.EXE
26/11/1991 11:19 am 13,531 GORUN286.EXE
19/03/1992 04:00 am 42,720 shw0.dll
19/03/1992 04:00 am 105,039 eew0cxx.dll
19/03/1992 04:00 am 410,112 cvw4.exe
19/03/1992 04:00 am 91,118 eew0can.dll
19/03/1992 04:00 am 74,400 emw0w0.dll
03/08/1992 09:34 pm 2,649 INT33.DLL
03/08/1992 09:40 pm 2,718 MSG.DLL
03/08/1992 09:40 pm 1,702 NAMPIPES.DLL
03/08/1992 09:42 pm 2,073 NLS.DLL
03/08/1992 09:43 pm 5,184 PTRACE.DLL
03/08/1992 09:45 pm 2,320 SESMGR.DLL
03/08/1992 09:50 pm 1,508 WIN87EM.DLL
05/08/1992 12:04 am 3,100 KEYBOARD.DLL
05/08/1992 06:33 pm 270 TOOLHELP.DLL
14/08/1992 07:38 pm 7,891 KERNEL.DLL
14/08/1992 09:40 pm 14,545 USER.DLL
09/09/1992 10:59 pm 209,922 RUN286.EXE
09/09/1992 10:59 pm 229,046 RUN286D.EXE
14/09/1992 11:01 pm 14,024 TLW0LOC.DLL
17/09/1992 07:26 pm 34,152 CVP7.EXE
While CVP7 does come with Phar Lap, you have to run it via run286. As you may have noticed there is a mixture of OS/2 and Windows DLL’s in here, as at this point CodeView was a Windows protected mode debugger. The divorce was in full swing, and Microsoft C/C++ 7.0 had amputated the majority of OS/2 support. I’m sure all this is in the manuals, however all I have is disk images. There was no C 6.0a supported hosted debugger. Maybe it’s in the v1/v2 of Phar Lap 286, but I only have 2.5. There is version 3 files on the internet but I wanted to stick to 2.5.
And this is all I got. Yes, I did recompile with ‘/Od /Zi’ along with using cvpack on the executable. Yes, after copying the source to the PS/2 I was able to see the source line mapping, but it immediately jumps to assembly and GP Faults. All this is fine, but IT RUNS UNDER EMULATION.
What is going on?!
I asked around on discord, and found someone willing to test on their 286. It also crashed. I tried VMware and .. it crashed too! So did 86box! Ok now we’re going somewhere!
Since I had been using MS-DOS player to run the tools, I had an issue with the linker in C 6.0a crashing, so I tried the one from C/C++ 7. It also didn’t work. I tried the one from Visual C++ 1.5. It also failed. Almost giving up on the entire thing, since I had copied the source code to the PS/2, I tried something really silly, I compiled it using the /qc or QuickC flag. I wasn’t too worried about sizes as again I’m going to run in protected mode. It took some 20-30 minutes to compile, as 10Mhz machines are not the best for building software in this modern age. Much to my surprise it actually ran.
This was kind of shocking as I’m not sure what I screwed up to not get this to work, but it worked! I went ahead and changed the build to not use QuickC, but rebuild with /Os (Optimize for space). It took about an hour. And it too worked.
Shockingly it runs! I’m not sure what on earth is up with the linking. I did find it easier to just rebuild on Qemu since it can easily map into my source directory and copy everything over and re-build very quickly.
Later I did try copying over compiled objects built using the MS-DOS Player, and linked them natively, and they ran fine.
What is it with the LINK?!
One weird thing on 86box is my pre-built machine I was using has a 5 1/4″ 1.2Mb floppy for the A: drive. It’s too small to fit MS-DOS, the game data and Phar Lap 286 all on there. Although Stacker to the rescue and it fits!
I removed a lot of Unix quality of life, to make it more MS-DOS dumping everything in the same directory so you can save & load games.
I’d never seen this one before, but attempting to boot up PC-DOS 4.00 or 4.01 on my PS/2 model 60, with 7 virtual disks attached, all I get is a single smiley/happy face, ASCII 1 ‘☺’ on boot.
MS-DOS 5.00 doesn’t care.
While trying the Apricot MS-DOS 4 set I got on eBay, it boots from floppy disks, crashes trying to boot from the hard disk, and trying to run fdisk just causes a divide by zero error.
run-time error R6003
- integer divide by 0
I’m a bit reluctant to rip the whole machine apart as SD card extension cables don’t work for me which is even more annoying. Didn’t people buy big machines and put in a LOT of disks to just run MS-DOS? Even a Netware server still requires MS-DOS to boot.
Is my 286 just too weird?!
I’m not sure if it’s worth following up, but it is perplexing. Maybe I need to rename all my disks, and stick with whatever was actually selling in 1987. And sadly that means not fully loading it out.
Back in the olden days of when Microsoft had pivoted out of OS/2 in a hurry, I’ve always felt that the common ‘OMF’ objects ought to link for OS/2. But for some reason I never tried. But for some reason I thought I’d try it today.
I first installed Microsoft C 6.0, and set it up for a native OS/2 to OS/2 1.2 setup. This way I get a pure OS/2 include/library directory set. In retrospect, I don’t know why I didn’t just use 2 include / library directory sets to far easier target stuff, without dealing with changing the default names, and making linking an all around living hell.
So the first thing to do is to tell QuickC for Windows to default to the OS/2 include directory (turns out it wont link anyways). Compiling is nothing special. When setting up the project you’ll need a DEF file, I use this simple one:
NAME QCO2 WINDOWAPI
PROTMODE
CODE PRELOAD
Nothing to it!
I tried to fight the Windows linker, but it figures out what you are doing and won’t do it. But can you manually link? Well QuickC for Windows does include a DOS linker, and it’s oddly enough newer than the one for Microsoft C 6.0!
C:\proj\o2>msdos \WIN16APP\QCWIN\bin\link hi.obj
Microsoft (R) Segmented-Executable Linker Version 5.15
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp 1984-1991. All rights reserved.
Run File [hi.exe]:
List File [NUL.MAP]:
Libraries [.LIB]: doscalls SLIBCE
Definitions File [NUL.DEF]: qco2.def
C:\proj\o2>msdos hi.exe
This program cannot be run in DOS mode.
Manually invoking the linker wasn’t all too hard, just answer the 30 questions. I did set the LIB environment variable so it picked up the libraries just fine. And yes, it created my OS/2 binary no problem!
And as you saw from above, yes it does run!
I do suppose the graphical editors would have been nice some 30 years ago, but in today’s era, sadly it doesn’t matter. QuickC for Windows won’t run under WLO, so this prevents it being a backdoor GUI/Protected mode compiler for OS/2. It’s a shame too as at least running under Windows 3.0, QuickC for Windows is WAY faster than using Microsoft C 6.00 in either read mode, protected mode with smartdrive.. I’m not sure what the deal is. Even with the advanced caching SCSI controller.
So I had gotten this Boca Ram/2 card with 2MB of RAM, with space for an additional 6MB. Unfortunately trying to find matching memory has been a lost cause. Since the existing memory is 9 chip modules, I take that to mean it’s parity RAM, so I went shopping for much more available 3 chip modules.
I picked up 2x 1MB modules for £10.
Slotting them carefully into the ram card, taking great care as the clips are plastic!
Now from what I can remember being told is to never ever ever mix memory types like this. But logically I have to think that 9×1 = 4+4+1, right? RIGHT?!
I copied the @7A7A.ADF onto the reference disk image, slotted the card and booted up to the config, and toggled the card to 4M
I didn’t trust the auto-config, plus I just wanted to see what was there. Also I’ve always wondered if the PS/2 model 60 (or 30? 50z?) can slot higher density than the 256kb SIMM’s that IBM had used. I guess one day I’ll give it a shot.
Anyways thinking that this is about done, I save the config and reboot and now It’s Bocaram/2 issues.
Immediately, on reboot I get error 164.
164 POST detected a base memory or extended memory size mismatch error.
1. Run F1 Setup. Check System Summary menu for memory size change. 2. Run the Extended Memory Diagnostic tests.
Booting from the reference disk just crashes the PC.
Fantastic.
Pressing F1 however does let you boot, ignoring the issue.
After a bunch of digging I found this zip file with some utils. And just guessing br2pmems ‘fixes’ the CMOS settings allowing the machine to boot normally.
So now it’ll recognize the 5MB of RAM, and just boot normally. GREAT. But booting the reference disk still hangs the machine.
Which then brings me to the next upgrade:
The IBM SCSI with Cache aka the SPOCK. Since I ruined the one SCSI card, and ended up picking up a second card, but this time with the appropriate cable I’ve caused a massive market panic on Microchannel SCSI cards. Seriously check eBay, and you will see that the pricing has collapsed with many now selling in the £20-30 range. You’re welcome!
Not really wanting a 3rd SCSI card, but my eye saw this one with the cache RAM, and I figured if I wanted the ultimate PS/2 of course I’d want a caching controller. This looks to be the first rev of the PCB, but with the ‘hot fixes’ in place from the second rev. While the ROMs are stepping back to 1990, I don’t care much about the 1GB disk limit, as the BlueSCSI can emulate all the available devices in the chain, so I’m not losing anything in the way of capacity. This is a 286 after all.
Since the RAM card screws up the setup program, I have to remove it, and the old SCSI controller, re-configure the system with all the RAM and disks removed first. Then put in the new controller, and re-run setup.
I just accept the defaults, and reboot to check what happened. So far it looks good, slot 8 being near the middle of the PCB, and closer to the disk cage where the blue SCSI rests.
Remembering that the IBM controllers inventory the disks backwards, the 380MB disk image on SCSI ID 6, is the primary boot disk. I didn’t set it to the full 1GB as I want to later see how older versions of DOS/OS2 work with this, and I know they have issues with disks bigger than 512MB, but I figured matching a disk that did exist in 1988 would be more realistic.
With the SCSI setup, I could put the troublesome Boca board back with the RAM, and get my system booting up with the new “faster” SCSI controller, and all that new RAM.
Of course I did a few benchmarks on the old SCSI controller so I would know how much more awesome the new one is.
As you can see this is booted with my normal config.sys with a himem.sys and smartdrv from Windows 3.1 on a MS-DOS 5.1 install.
2,345.8 KB/sec With himem.sys & smartdrv
2,347.5 KB/sec with no himem.sys
2,316.6 KB/sec with runtime xmsmmgr & smartdrv
2,334.0 KB/sec with Windows 3.1 himem.sys no smartdrv
So, with these scores in hand, you can see that the penalty for various XMS memory access being turned on is there, but it’s nowhere near as massive as I’d have thought for performance. Even with it just being there, although again it’s so minimal.
Now for the real shocker:
That’s right, the advanced card is slower. A good 11% slower. Well, that was disappointing. I’m still keeping it in the machine, as having a hardware caching controller was all the rage, just like Mach microkernels. Maybe it’d make more of a difference in a 32bit system, but it’s performance is very underwhelming. For anyone wondering, the WDC AC2340, is an EIDE 340MB hard disk, with a 64kb cache. Im sure it was considered very fancy, and fast for the era, and it’s nice to know that no matter the SCSI controller, the BlueSCSI blows it out of the water. Also keeping in mind that MFM data transfers are usually sub 400KB/sec, so this is much more faster.
Okay you have all this XMS what are you going to do with it?
Well, after I did manage to get this original copy of Word for Windows 1.0, I thought that it would be a good test. One fun thing is that it includes the ‘runtime’ version of Windows 2.11, which can also upgrade an existing install of Windows 2 if detected. Running Windows 2 on MS-DOS 5, does involve loading the setver command in the config.sys, and rebooting. Windows 2 cannot use XMS (more on that) but instead uses the older LIM EMS standard that allows a 64kb page to be viewed from a far larger card. Since the 8086/80286 still use 64kb segments it’s not all that crazy to use.
And that brings me to this great program EMM286!
It allocates a 64kb page in low ROM, and backfills it from XMS. So I give it 3MB, and now I have 1.3MB of XMS left, and 3MB of LIM EMS ready for Windows!
So now I have EMS & XMS! And didn’t have to get some pesky EMS board either. I am pretty sure you need device drivers to use EMS, so how do you use LIM EMS under OS/2 1.x? I have no idea. Probably not I guess?
Anyways I run word, everything is great, it sees extra ram. I exit windows, and unload EMM286, and ..
3.4MB of XMS available? Somehow I lost a megabyte of RAM from Windows 2?! I’m not sure what is going on, or why or how Windows even touched it. Needless to say if you want it back, you need to reboot.
That’s right 494KB free! I thought MS-DOS under OS/2 just used some stubs in real mode, and called back to protected mode. No doubt this is totally wrong, there has to be some weird version of DOS+OS2 that actually runs in real mode going on here. I know that ‘bimodal drivers’ were a thing, but it sure seems like there really is a ‘real mode OS/2’ kernel with MS-DOS tacked onto the side.
It’s annoying OS/2 can’t tell you how much ram it sees and what is in use, but at least Windows 3.0 can. It’s more than enough to run Sim City, clearly making this one of the more expensive machines to run the game as intended. With the added RAM it doesn’t thrash as hard, but having emulated disks probably doesn’t matter as much as access time is always zero, and it’ll stream data as fast as it can. You can feel the difference moving between tasks, but things like the OS/2 file manager that loads a view into every directory is still incredibly slow. What were they thinking?!
Thouhts?
Back in the day this would have been an incredibly expensive upgrade. And is it worth it? The machine is still locked at 10Mhz. The FPU is also locked at 10Mhz, and you can feel it. The lightening fast disk access, despite it being some 11% slower is really hard to tell. Does the caching help at all? Applications don’t have to page in/out like crazy before as there is enough RAM to actually run them, but that is where the 10Mhz processor just isn’t there.
Just like the caching SCSI controller, I’m sure we’ve all heard how having that magical EMS memory would help out games like Wing Commander.
Well, I had to put them side by side, as I couldn’t believe it, but adding EMS made it noticeably slower. I was *NOT* expecting that. I should add that I used Vegas & this quick tutorial, on how to pan & resize one video to get them side by side. No doubt it’s not perfect but it’s enough to see that once the ship explodes, the performance on the EMS configuration is greatly throttled. It’s moments like this that makes me wonder is this something the caching SCSI card would do better implicitly? Or is it snake oil as well?
3MB is enough to load OS/2, and one application, just as Word v1 or Excel v2/v3 load just fine, but swapping between them is basically unloading one from memory, and loading the other back out to disk. It’s a shame RAM cost so much 1987-1992 as people really could have benefited from it. It’s just utterly bizarre that on such an outrageously expensive system that you even need RAM upgrade cards, it really should have been baked into the main logic board.
Well like everything else, once you know what to do, its pretty self explanatory and easy. But until that point it’s a lot of trail and error.
The PS/2 model of computers went away from the PC/XT/AT design for something that would be more toolless and allow for more automation in the building & assembling of these machines. That means they removed loose wiring where possible to give not only great airflow, but an overall clean aesthetic to the PS/2 build. What this also means is that the old 34pin floppy ribbon will not do.
The PS/2 version uses and edge connection and integrates the 5v/12v power rails into the interface. You can try to add an old floppy to the mix, but there is 5 pins that need to be held high through a resistor pack to get an old floppy drive working. I didn’t want to fight it that much so instead I ordered an adapter from eBay, being sold by markgm.
After much trial and error I found
After a lot of trial and error I found jumpering it for S0 was what worked. While I had read that JC was also needed, it just didn’t work when I tried. S0 puts the gotek into the first floppy position, in the older PC/XT/AT’s they jumper every drive as S1, but have a twist in the cable to negate it on the primary position.
The other catch is that it absolutely required a FF.cfg file
interface = ibmpc-hdout
host=pc-dos
Even though so many other systems didn’t need it, mine sure did. And Obviously I flashed my drive to the latest version of flashfloppy (3.41 as of now.). That also meant checking the processor type, which, is simple enough to check by opening it up, and setting your camera to maximum zoom.
Or checking the gallery of microcontrollers in the various Gotek’s. The prices have shot up dramatically over the last few years for unknown reasons, so they switched to from the ST to the AT line or similar processors.
Can’t say I blame them.
So with the drive updated, and config file loaded, along with a disk image, it finally booted up!
And with that in place I was able to boot the reference disk, and setup the system. The inside is a bit ugly but, I wanted to get this thing fully loaded, so I picked up an 80287-10.
One interesting thing about the PS/2 line of machines is that the 286’s could run their math coprocessors in synch. The IBM-5170/AT ran it asynchronously at 2/3rds the clock value. I would have imagined they convinced someone somewhere how at big step up from a 6Mhz 80286 & 4mhz 80287 to get into a PS/2 model 50/60 with a blistering 10Mhz 80286/287.
Happily the 80287-10 I had gotten from fractal2015, worked just fine.
Wow. awesome.
I’m waiting still for some cables to hook up the bluepill to the SCSI card, and the memory card, so I can run meaningful applications like SimCity for Windows, and OS/2.
In the meantime I can do simple stuff from floppy. I’m still trying to keep an eye out for either an ethernet card, or a Token Ring card & MAU, along with cisco cards to at least let me use NetBEUI.
But for anyone else needing a solid answer on how to get the Gotek working with an IBM PS/2 model 60, here you go!
With the pre-christmas release of the Microsoft OS/2 betas 1.00, 1.01, 1.02, 1.03 & 1.05 on archive.org, and helping Ncommander with an upcoming video, it seemed like a good place to start, not with OS/2 but rather with MS-DOS 4.0.
Microsoft started work on a multitasking version of MS-DOS in January 1983. At the time, it was internally called MS-DOS version 3.0. When a new version of the single-tasking MS-DOS was shipped under the name MS-DOS version 3.0, the multitasking version was renamed, internally, to MS-DOS version 4.0. A version of this product–a multitasking, real-mode only MS-DOS–was shipped as MS-DOS version 4.0. Because MS-DOS version 4.0 runs only in real mode, it can run on 8088 and 8086 machines as well as on 80286 machines. The limitations of the real mode environment make MS-DOS version 4.0 a specialized product. Although MS-DOS version 4.0 supports full preemptive multitasking, system memory is limited to the 640 KB available in real mode, with no swapping.2 This means that all processes have to fit into the single 640 KB memory area. Only one MS-DOS version 3.x compatible real mode application can be run; the other processes must be special MS-DOS version 4.0 processes that understand their environment and cooperate with the operating system to coexist peacefully with the single MS-DOS version 3.x real mode application.
Because of these restrictions, MS-DOS version 4.0 was not intended for general release, but as a platform for specific OEMs to support extended PC architectures. For example, a powerful telephone management system could be built into a PC by using special MS-DOS version 4.0 background processes to control the telephone equipment. The resulting machine could then be marketed as a “compatible MS-DOS 3 PC with a built-in superphone.” Although MS-DOS version 4.0 was released as a special OEM product, the project–now called MS-DOS version 5.0–continued. The goal was to take advantage of the protected mode of the 80286 to provide full general purpose multitasking without the limitations–as seen in MS-DOS version 4.0–of a real-mode only environment. Soon, Microsoft and IBM signed a Joint Development Agreement that provided for the design and development of MS-DOS version 5.0 (now called CP/DOS). The agreement is complex, but it basically provides for joint development and then subsequent joint ownership, with both companies holding full rights to the resulting product.
As the project neared completion, the marketing staffs looked at CP/DOS, nee DOS 5, nee DOS 4, nee DOS 3, and decided that it needed…you guessed it…a name change. As a result, the remainder of this book will discuss the design and function of an operating system called OS/2.
– Inside OS/2.
Although MS-DOS 4.00M disk images have been floating around for quite some time, either a 2 360k disk set, or a single 720k disk image, I don’t think anyone (including me) really tore into it that much. It does have the ability to freeze DOS 3 programs, giving the illusion of running more than one. The session manager is pretty sparse but hitting left alt twice will pop it up giving you the ability to toggle through programs with ease.
There is a FDISK, FORMAT & SYS command making it straight forward to setup a hard disk, and copy the files over, I didn’t see any installer.
there is a PS command to show running processes. Also there is a DOSSIZE to show the memory partitioning and how much is available. Although there is a SWAPPER program I’ve been unable to get it to actually fun.
Another interesting thing if you run the unix ‘strings’ command against all the EXE’s you’ll find the string:
C Library - (C)Copyright Microsoft Corp 1985
Implying that not only was DOS 4.00M a ‘new’ DOS, but it was also written in C. No doubt this contributed to a larger file size than DOS 3, however it would also give that holy grail of portability, at least to new CPU modes. Also many files have the name of the source files baked in such as:
Okay so far, so good. But we’ve all seen this before, and scratched this OS about this far, because what else can you do? It’s not like there is any dev tools to do anything fun!
Well the tool hidden in plain sight is LINK4, which in retrospect is specific for MS-DOS 4.00M.
Microsoft (R) 8086 Object Linker Version 4.01
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp 1984, 1985. All rights reserved.
Object Modules [.OBJ]:
There is no SDK for MS-DOS 4.00M, but they were kind enough to leave the linker in place. A quick check of the Windows 1.01 SDK shows that it also includes LINK4:
Microsoft 8086 Object Linker
Version 4.00 (C) Copyright Microsoft Corp 1984, 1985
Object Modules [.OBJ]:
It appears that if the dates and versions are to be trusted they are of the same vintage, but the Windows linker is older, and that they both output to a NE or New Executable. So to start the experiment I created a simple hello world exe from a simple:
void main(){
printf("Hello from MSC 3\n");
}
To compile this I used Microsoft C 3.0 (more on why later), and used LINK4 to create an EXE:
C:\dos\msc3>cl /c hello.c
Microsoft C Compiler Version 3.00
(C)Copyright Microsoft Corp 1984 1985
hello.c
C:\dos\msc3>msdos dos4m\link4 hello.OBJ
Microsoft (R) 8086 Object Linker Version 4.01
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp 1984, 1985. All rights reserved.
Run File [HELLO.EXE]:
List File [NUL.MAP]:
Libraries [.LIB]:
Definitions File [NUL.DEF]
Okay, everything looks fine so far. Attempting to run this under MS-DOS just results in the error:
Program too big to fit into memory
Well now that’s odd. Checking the EXE with the Linux ‘file’ command reveals:
file HELLO.EXE
HELLO.EXE: MS-DOS executable, NE (unknown OS 0) (EXE)
So obviously it’s a NE, but it is an older/unknown version to the file map database. There is no stub so I suppose that is why MS-DOS is getting confused.
Now let’s try MS-DOS 4.00M
Well now isn’t that interesting?!
Excited with the ability to create special MS-DOS 4.00M programs, I get my favorite vintage ’87 Infocom interpreter, InfoTaskForce 87, and get it building on MSC 3.0. However instead of using the MS-DOS 4.00M linker, I thought I should try to use the Windows 1.01 linker and libraries for the exe:
NAME Infocom
DESCRIPTION 'Infocom 87 interpreter for Planetfall(83)'
DATA MULTIPLE
HEAPSIZE 1024 ; Must be non-zero to use Local memory manager
STACKSIZE 4096 ; Must be non-zero for SS == DS
; suggest 4k as minimum stacksize
SEGMENTS
_INIT PRELOAD MOVEABLE DISCARDABLE
One thing to save you the horror is that between MS-DOS 2 & 3 the way command line arguments changed. I forget the details but no matter what I tried I was unable to parse the CLI or the environment in this setup. I suppose if I had documentation of the product there would be some hint as to what tools or setup to use. Instead, I took the easy way and hard coded to load Planetfall.
Unfortunately, this success would prove to be the exception to the rule. I took trek, converted it to K&R C, as Microsoft C 3.00 from 1985 is well. old, and sadly it just won’t run. Likewise, I took Hack 1.03 and although it runs on MS-DOS it will not run on MS-DOS 4.00M. I am sure there is some fundamental reason why it’s not working, and probably tied to creating a proper DEF file. I’m sure it was all written down somewhere but I don’t know. And yes I tried specifying either floating point emulation via library or inline, and it made no difference.
Looking at OS/2 1.00
Loading up the infamous $3,000 OS/2 1.00 beta, and hitting ctrl+escape you are greeted with session manager!
Notice the R for real-mode. With the obvious implication that everything else is protected mode. Going one step further on the excellent site pcjs.org there is OS/2 betas SIZZLE and although there is no OS/2 development bits on there, the directory DOS3TOOL reveals that the C compiler for this era for at least MS-DOS is MSC 3.0. Also included is our friend LINK4.
I create a simple def file that contains the single word ‘PROTMODE’ which should give me my OS/2 binary.
So let’s run that through hello world:
msdos sizzle\DOS3TOOL\link4 hello.OBJ,hello,,,hello.def;
Microsoft (R) Segmented-Executable Linker Version 5.00.21
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp 1984, 1985, 1986. All rights reserved.
C:\dos\msc3>
However attempting to run this just crashes amazingly.
No doubt it’s because the real-mode libc is using interrupt 21 calls, which OS/2 sure wouldn’t like. I’m pretty sure it requires an OS/2 libc that uses DOSCALLS.DLL to function, which I just don’t have any pre-release versions, nor any libc source code to really make it possible. And attempting to port one to OS/2 pre-releases just doesn’t seem so worth the time.
So for the heck of it I point the LIB variable to the OS/2 1.00 SDK’s libs and re-run the link:
C:\dos\msc3>msdos sizzle\DOS3TOOL\link4 hello.OBJ,hello.exe,hello.map,C:box0\x\MSC\LIB\slibc5.lib box0\x\LIB\DOSCALLS.LIB,hello.def;
Microsoft (R) Segmented-Executable Linker Version 5.00.21
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp 1984, 1985, 1986. All rights reserved.
By default it’s trying to link in EM.LIB, SLIBFP.LIB, SLIBC.LIB. Trying to add them all in the command line link just hangs LINK4 maybe a response file is better suited. Anyways:
It does run on OS/2 1.00, which I guess isn’t surprising as the LINK4 & libraries are from/for this version.
As an interesting note, OS/2 links against doscalls library/DLL to interface to the OS. While MS-DOS 4.00M doesn’t have a seperate DLL, rather it’s baked into IBMDOS.COM
Noticeably absent is file I/O, No doubt allowing programs to use the standard int21 interface to the kernel for file I/O. No doubt this is in its primordial state, as the OS was going to evolve a bit more until it became OS/2. Unfortunately I have no idea how to link or call into this. Without any SDK it’s impossible to say. And even then is developing for a real mode OS worth the effort?
So what have we learned? LINK4, aka the MS-DOS 4.00M Linker, probably should have been called LINKNE for the NE format. Also there is references to it having it’s own virtual memory paging system, and being able to link larger EXE’s than the traditional link command. Sadly I was unable to get any non trivial programs running. I don’t think it was a memory model thing, although the C compiler has issues with InfoTaskForce and the large memory model for some reason, but small & medium work fine. I’d like to think that DOS 4.00M could support massive EXE’s much like Windows 1.01, however despite being from the same company and using the same tools, the memory manager for DOS 4.00M & Windows is fundamentally different.
With all these exiting OS/2 betas now available I’ll have to take some more time to explore them in more detail.
But until then I thought this genesis of DOS 4.00M was worth the look.
One of the more interesting things about OS/2 1.x is how it had this interesting idea of how to strattle the bridge between old and new, and it was a very common bridge tactic where you can have a shipping program that can simply run in both the older operating system, and the new one. Naturally there is trade offs, you can’t fully take advantage of all kinds of features on the new side, you will be largely held back on the old side, but all is not lost, there is space for things that fit in the ‘same but bigger’ world where you have an overlap between old and new.
For OS X, this was the Carbon era, for Windows this was the famous Win32s extensions, and for OS/2 it’s the Family API.
As a quick example, allocating memory under MS-DOS may be limited to 640kb, but under OS/2 you have access to so much more memory, the entire capacity of an IBM AT class machine. And this also got OS/2 tools into a lot of MS-DOS developer’s hands as the early compilers and tools were built around the Family API and were able to run on so called legacy environments. Although it was far better to run on OS/2, the advantage 30+ years later is that MS-DOS emulation is more common and prevalent than OS/2, especially on non x86 processors.
As an added bonus you really don’t have to mess with the API at all, as the LIBC will use it no doubt.
At any rate, using Microsoft C 6.00 (I can’t get the syntax right for 5.1 to save my life, I suspect I need to run it UNDER OS/2 to build for OS/2 properly), you can compile a typical stdio compliant program, and get an OS/2 executable.
The real fun is from the bind program which will convert that OS/2 program to a full Family mode app with the bind program.
And now on MS-DOS (Under OS/2) you can see very quickly that the OS/2 app won’t run, however the family mode one does!
So this is what let’s me run the older SDK tools as I’d simply forgotten about this great mode, letting you run programs in either environment.
Of course the added fun is the 3rd party product Phar Lap’s 286|Dos-Extender that provides some OS/2 services under MS-DOS in addition to greater memory but DLL’s! But that’s for another story.
**EDIT Oh and another edit, here is how to make the OS/2 program ‘window’ compatible with a link time definition file:
and then on the console:
And there we go with some magical flags & def file it’s now marked as being compatible with window mode. So no full screen VIO tricks for you!