That's amusing... I remember that back in the days when I used OS/2, that was the sensitive OS, that would refuse to work if the hardware was faulty. I got constant blue screens from OS/2 until I replaced my SIMMs, which were somehow misplaced.
Yes, OS/2 back then would be difficult to get running on some machines because there was a lot of real crap hardware that was marginally designed for single tasking DOS and not for really multitasking your box.
A friend of mine, who used Windows '95, had lost her motherboard because her CPU fan didn't work...I don't think it's a very good idea in the long run, to ignore heat sink problems and just let the computer run.
About OS/2 and CPUs and heat: The reason people put massive heatsinks and fans on their PC processors is so that they don't melt from Windows95/NT running them at full tilt at all times.
When the CPU fan goes out under Windows, it isn't long before the CPU goes with it.
Under OS/2, it only tasks the processor when it needs it. When it isn't working the CPU, it lets the CPU rest in low power states.
An example was when I installed an AMD K6-200 in my system, I had heard that these ran hot, so I had a pretty stout heatsink and fan. I brought it up first under Win95 and let it sit to get to a steady state idle tempurature. It seemed quite warm (at the base of the heat sink), and it stayed that way with nothing going on. I then rebooted into OS/2 to check it there. Even before OS/2 had finished booting, the CPU had begun cooling off (mostly I/O handled by the bus not the CPU). I let it sit there to reach steady state idle, and it was cold and remained so. Even running bunches of stuff didn't get it very warm because it was always cooling off when it got a chance.
In other words, the CPU activity monitor in Windows lies to you. It's really running the CPU full at all times.
Unlike WinDOS, Versions of OS/2 after 1.x still run 1.x applications just fine, so embedded apps designed for OS/2 1.x do not require 1.x to run. They can use newer versions and run on newer hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, OS/2 back then would be difficult to get running on some machines because there was a lot of real crap hardware that was marginally designed for single tasking DOS and not for really multitasking your box.
About OS/2 and CPUs and heat: The reason people put massive heatsinks and fans on their PC processors is so that they don't melt from Windows95/NT running them at full tilt at all times.
When the CPU fan goes out under Windows, it isn't long before the CPU goes with it.
Under OS/2, it only tasks the processor when it needs it. When it isn't working the CPU, it lets the CPU rest in low power states.
An example was when I installed an AMD K6-200 in my system, I had heard that these ran hot, so I had a pretty stout heatsink and fan. I brought it up first under Win95 and let it sit to get to a steady state idle tempurature. It seemed quite warm (at the base of the heat sink), and it stayed that way with nothing going on. I then rebooted into OS/2 to check it there. Even before OS/2 had finished booting, the CPU had begun cooling off (mostly I/O handled by the bus not the CPU). I let it sit there to reach steady state idle, and it was cold and remained so. Even running bunches of stuff didn't get it very warm because it was always cooling off when it got a chance.
In other words, the CPU activity monitor in Windows lies to you. It's really running the CPU full at all times.
Unlike WinDOS, Versions of OS/2 after 1.x still run 1.x applications just fine, so embedded apps designed for OS/2 1.x do not require 1.x to run. They can use newer versions and run on newer hardware.