Starting a multi core CPU as single core [on hold]
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Is it possible to use a system with a modern, multi-core CPU with older operating systems that only support single core operation? Is this something that needs to be set in the BIOS? Does it depend on the CPU, the BIOS, the OS, or something else?
operating-system bios cpu
edited 2 days ago
Alex Hajnal
3,43531432
asked 2 days ago
Shadow
504
New contributor
Shadow is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by Raffzahn, paxdiablo, Dr Sheldon, Brian Tompsett - 汤莱恩, Wilson yesterday
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question does not appear to be about retrocomputing, within the scope defined in the help center." – Raffzahn, paxdiablo, Dr Sheldon, Brian Tompsett - 汤莱恩, Wilson
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Is it possible to use a system with a modern, multi-core CPU with older operating systems that only support single core operation? Is this something that needs to be set in the BIOS? Does it depend on the CPU, the BIOS, the OS, or something else?
operating-system bios cpu
edited 2 days ago
Alex Hajnal
3,43531432
asked 2 days ago
Shadow
504
New contributor
Shadow is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by Raffzahn, paxdiablo, Dr Sheldon, Brian Tompsett - 汤莱恩, Wilson yesterday
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question does not appear to be about retrocomputing, within the scope defined in the help center." – Raffzahn, paxdiablo, Dr Sheldon, Brian Tompsett - 汤莱恩, Wilson
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
I think this has been closed as off-topic because the core question is about how to use modern CPUs with any retrocomputing as ancillary information.
– wizzwizz4♦
yesterday
I agree this is off topic. And I apologize, I'm still trying to aclimate to the whole stack exchange model.
– Shadow
yesterday
Oh, no; it's fine! I was just posting a comment because the system complained about a close-without-comment. We need off-topic questions almost as much as on-topic questions, since that way we can figure out the site scope (although that's less important now, since we're pretty sure what to allow and what not to). It's all part of the learning process.
– wizzwizz4♦
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Is it possible to use a system with a modern, multi-core CPU with older operating systems that only support single core operation? Is this something that needs to be set in the BIOS? Does it depend on the CPU, the BIOS, the OS, or something else?
operating-system bios cpu
edited 2 days ago
Alex Hajnal
3,43531432
asked 2 days ago
Shadow
504
New contributor
Shadow is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Is it possible to use a system with a modern, multi-core CPU with older operating systems that only support single core operation? Is this something that needs to be set in the BIOS? Does it depend on the CPU, the BIOS, the OS, or something else?
operating-system bios cpu
operating-system bios cpu
edited 2 days ago
Alex Hajnal
3,43531432
asked 2 days ago
Shadow
504
New contributor
Shadow is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 days ago
Alex Hajnal
3,43531432
asked 2 days ago
Shadow
504
New contributor
Shadow is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 days ago
Alex Hajnal
3,43531432
edited 2 days ago
Alex Hajnal
3,43531432
edited 2 days ago
Alex Hajnal
3,43531432
3,43531432
asked 2 days ago
Shadow
504
New contributor
Shadow is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 days ago
Shadow
504
asked 2 days ago
Shadow
504
504
New contributor
Shadow is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Shadow is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Shadow is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by Raffzahn, paxdiablo, Dr Sheldon, Brian Tompsett - 汤莱恩, Wilson yesterday
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question does not appear to be about retrocomputing, within the scope defined in the help center." – Raffzahn, paxdiablo, Dr Sheldon, Brian Tompsett - 汤莱恩, Wilson
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as off-topic by Raffzahn, paxdiablo, Dr Sheldon, Brian Tompsett - 汤莱恩, Wilson yesterday
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question does not appear to be about retrocomputing, within the scope defined in the help center." – Raffzahn, paxdiablo, Dr Sheldon, Brian Tompsett - 汤莱恩, Wilson
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
I think this has been closed as off-topic because the core question is about how to use modern CPUs with any retrocomputing as ancillary information.
– wizzwizz4♦
yesterday
I agree this is off topic. And I apologize, I'm still trying to aclimate to the whole stack exchange model.
– Shadow
yesterday
Oh, no; it's fine! I was just posting a comment because the system complained about a close-without-comment. We need off-topic questions almost as much as on-topic questions, since that way we can figure out the site scope (although that's less important now, since we're pretty sure what to allow and what not to). It's all part of the learning process.
– wizzwizz4♦
yesterday
add a comment |
I think this has been closed as off-topic because the core question is about how to use modern CPUs with any retrocomputing as ancillary information.
– wizzwizz4♦
yesterday
I agree this is off topic. And I apologize, I'm still trying to aclimate to the whole stack exchange model.
– Shadow
yesterday
Oh, no; it's fine! I was just posting a comment because the system complained about a close-without-comment. We need off-topic questions almost as much as on-topic questions, since that way we can figure out the site scope (although that's less important now, since we're pretty sure what to allow and what not to). It's all part of the learning process.
– wizzwizz4♦
yesterday
I think this has been closed as off-topic because the core question is about how to use modern CPUs with any retrocomputing as ancillary information.
– wizzwizz4♦
yesterday
I think this has been closed as off-topic because the core question is about how to use modern CPUs with any retrocomputing as ancillary information.
– wizzwizz4♦
yesterday
I agree this is off topic. And I apologize, I'm still trying to aclimate to the whole stack exchange model.
– Shadow
yesterday
I agree this is off topic. And I apologize, I'm still trying to aclimate to the whole stack exchange model.
– Shadow
yesterday
Oh, no; it's fine! I was just posting a comment because the system complained about a close-without-comment. We need off-topic questions almost as much as on-topic questions, since that way we can figure out the site scope (although that's less important now, since we're pretty sure what to allow and what not to). It's all part of the learning process.
– wizzwizz4♦
yesterday
Oh, no; it's fine! I was just posting a comment because the system complained about a close-without-comment. We need off-topic questions almost as much as on-topic questions, since that way we can figure out the site scope (although that's less important now, since we're pretty sure what to allow and what not to). It's all part of the learning process.
– wizzwizz4♦
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
The previous answer talks about various issues that may arise when attempting to run an older OS on a modern system, but doesn’t really focus on the questions asked.
When a multicore CPU powers on, a single core is activated. The BIOS typically has a configuration option to control how many additional cores should be activated. If this BIOS setting is set to a single core, then any OS that boots will see only that one core.
When the BIOS starts up the boot loader, followed by the OS itself, again that is done with only a single core active. The BIOS reports the number of cores available to the OS. If the OS supports multicore operation, the OS activates the additional cores. If not, the OS will proceed on the original single core. Operating systems such as Linux have a boot option to specify the number of cores to activate, so the OS can be limited to one core. This is useful for debugging.
On a processor with hyperthreading, every place I wrote “core” above can be replaced with “hardware thread”.
answered yesterday
prl
1742
New contributor
prl is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Preface: I assume the question to be deleted or moved soon, as this is not in any way RC related. After all, the issue in question is not the classic OS, but workings modern hard- and software.
Since every multi core CPU starts up in single core mode, it is basically possible to use any old, single core OS. As long as the CPU is compatible - which no longer always is true - but that's less due having multiple cores (or threads) but changes in basic CPU design.
In compatibility mode even a modern BIOS should be able to to initiate classic upstart procedures. With modern (UEFI) BIOS, you may have to activate CSM mode (Compatibility Support Module).
Past that hurdle it depends much on the OS to be used. Emulation on BIOS level for like Kbd/Mouse and basic Video will work fine. Even basic Disk may work (Size and filesystem may of course be a bigger issue).
As soon as direct hardware drivers are installed, the chances will reduce. While chipsets do emulate several classic ports one way or another, they are not realy foolproof. In fact, they are usually only tested to boot some minimal DOS for BIOS updates, not so much for OS support in all possible configurations. So DOS 1.25 may work better than 5.0 with its GUI. Similar systems that rely on special, no longer supported processor modes - like 286 protected mode and alike got a high chance of failure. So I wouldn't really try for OS/2 - not even 1.2 without any GUI.
edited yesterday
Anonymous
79916
answered 2 days ago
Raffzahn
42.6k596174
To add to that, compatibility with basic peripherals may be an issue. While the South Bridge (or equivalent) should present the older interfaces (PS2 keyboard and mouse, etc.) as fully-emulated devices sitting on an ISA bus one may still encounter problems. USB keyboards and mice, even in "backwards-compatible" mode might not function. Video presents its own set of problems; while pretty much any card will support basic VGA graphics, support for the physical interface (especially anything besides parallel PCI or ISA) may be lacking in older OSes.
– Alex Hajnal
2 days ago
2
@AlexHajnal Well, yes. Then again it depends much on the OS in use. DOS got a good chance to succeed. Kbd/Mouse will work fine. Similar for basic Video. Even Disk may work great. Ofc, only as long as everything works via the ROM-BIOS. As soon as direct hardware drivers are installed, the chances will reduce. So DOS 1.25 may work better than 5.0 :)) Similar systems that rely on special, no longer supported processor modes - like 286 protected mode and alike.
– Raffzahn
2 days ago
1
@AlexHajnal Actually, most of these things are still 100% backwards compatible (in fact, most of the time it's hacked to work even on Windows - Doom still runs just fine on 32-bit Windows 10, for example). You can still start Turbo Pascal on Windows 10 and write old-school VGA DMA graphics code, because both VGA and Windows have a great track record for compatibility. Sound is another matter - it wasn't standardized at all until DirectX.
– Luaan
yesterday
2
@AlexHajnal I agree with Luaan. Current graphics support on systems with a CSM is still register-compatible with VGA. DOS itself hardly has any hardware-specific code, so running DOS 1 (without folders!) or DOS 5 or 6 won’t make any difference. As Luaan says, sound is another matter; even PCI-hosted sound hardware is usually not Adlib or SB-register-compatible without a TSR.
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
1
Probably worth pointing out that modern video cards often do an awful job of emulating CGA and EGA as well. vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=61223
– mnem
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
The previous answer talks about various issues that may arise when attempting to run an older OS on a modern system, but doesn’t really focus on the questions asked.
When a multicore CPU powers on, a single core is activated. The BIOS typically has a configuration option to control how many additional cores should be activated. If this BIOS setting is set to a single core, then any OS that boots will see only that one core.
When the BIOS starts up the boot loader, followed by the OS itself, again that is done with only a single core active. The BIOS reports the number of cores available to the OS. If the OS supports multicore operation, the OS activates the additional cores. If not, the OS will proceed on the original single core. Operating systems such as Linux have a boot option to specify the number of cores to activate, so the OS can be limited to one core. This is useful for debugging.
On a processor with hyperthreading, every place I wrote “core” above can be replaced with “hardware thread”.
answered yesterday
prl
1742
New contributor
prl is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
The previous answer talks about various issues that may arise when attempting to run an older OS on a modern system, but doesn’t really focus on the questions asked.
When a multicore CPU powers on, a single core is activated. The BIOS typically has a configuration option to control how many additional cores should be activated. If this BIOS setting is set to a single core, then any OS that boots will see only that one core.
When the BIOS starts up the boot loader, followed by the OS itself, again that is done with only a single core active. The BIOS reports the number of cores available to the OS. If the OS supports multicore operation, the OS activates the additional cores. If not, the OS will proceed on the original single core. Operating systems such as Linux have a boot option to specify the number of cores to activate, so the OS can be limited to one core. This is useful for debugging.
On a processor with hyperthreading, every place I wrote “core” above can be replaced with “hardware thread”.
answered yesterday
prl
1742
New contributor
prl is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
The previous answer talks about various issues that may arise when attempting to run an older OS on a modern system, but doesn’t really focus on the questions asked.
When a multicore CPU powers on, a single core is activated. The BIOS typically has a configuration option to control how many additional cores should be activated. If this BIOS setting is set to a single core, then any OS that boots will see only that one core.
When the BIOS starts up the boot loader, followed by the OS itself, again that is done with only a single core active. The BIOS reports the number of cores available to the OS. If the OS supports multicore operation, the OS activates the additional cores. If not, the OS will proceed on the original single core. Operating systems such as Linux have a boot option to specify the number of cores to activate, so the OS can be limited to one core. This is useful for debugging.
On a processor with hyperthreading, every place I wrote “core” above can be replaced with “hardware thread”.
answered yesterday
prl
1742
New contributor
prl is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The previous answer talks about various issues that may arise when attempting to run an older OS on a modern system, but doesn’t really focus on the questions asked.
When a multicore CPU powers on, a single core is activated. The BIOS typically has a configuration option to control how many additional cores should be activated. If this BIOS setting is set to a single core, then any OS that boots will see only that one core.
When the BIOS starts up the boot loader, followed by the OS itself, again that is done with only a single core active. The BIOS reports the number of cores available to the OS. If the OS supports multicore operation, the OS activates the additional cores. If not, the OS will proceed on the original single core. Operating systems such as Linux have a boot option to specify the number of cores to activate, so the OS can be limited to one core. This is useful for debugging.
On a processor with hyperthreading, every place I wrote “core” above can be replaced with “hardware thread”.
answered yesterday
prl
1742
New contributor
prl is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
prl
1742
New contributor
prl is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
prl
1742
answered yesterday
prl
1742
1742
New contributor
prl is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
prl is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
prl is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Preface: I assume the question to be deleted or moved soon, as this is not in any way RC related. After all, the issue in question is not the classic OS, but workings modern hard- and software.
Since every multi core CPU starts up in single core mode, it is basically possible to use any old, single core OS. As long as the CPU is compatible - which no longer always is true - but that's less due having multiple cores (or threads) but changes in basic CPU design.
In compatibility mode even a modern BIOS should be able to to initiate classic upstart procedures. With modern (UEFI) BIOS, you may have to activate CSM mode (Compatibility Support Module).
Past that hurdle it depends much on the OS to be used. Emulation on BIOS level for like Kbd/Mouse and basic Video will work fine. Even basic Disk may work (Size and filesystem may of course be a bigger issue).
As soon as direct hardware drivers are installed, the chances will reduce. While chipsets do emulate several classic ports one way or another, they are not realy foolproof. In fact, they are usually only tested to boot some minimal DOS for BIOS updates, not so much for OS support in all possible configurations. So DOS 1.25 may work better than 5.0 with its GUI. Similar systems that rely on special, no longer supported processor modes - like 286 protected mode and alike got a high chance of failure. So I wouldn't really try for OS/2 - not even 1.2 without any GUI.
edited yesterday
Anonymous
79916
answered 2 days ago
Raffzahn
42.6k596174
To add to that, compatibility with basic peripherals may be an issue. While the South Bridge (or equivalent) should present the older interfaces (PS2 keyboard and mouse, etc.) as fully-emulated devices sitting on an ISA bus one may still encounter problems. USB keyboards and mice, even in "backwards-compatible" mode might not function. Video presents its own set of problems; while pretty much any card will support basic VGA graphics, support for the physical interface (especially anything besides parallel PCI or ISA) may be lacking in older OSes.
– Alex Hajnal
2 days ago
2
@AlexHajnal Well, yes. Then again it depends much on the OS in use. DOS got a good chance to succeed. Kbd/Mouse will work fine. Similar for basic Video. Even Disk may work great. Ofc, only as long as everything works via the ROM-BIOS. As soon as direct hardware drivers are installed, the chances will reduce. So DOS 1.25 may work better than 5.0 :)) Similar systems that rely on special, no longer supported processor modes - like 286 protected mode and alike.
– Raffzahn
2 days ago
1
@AlexHajnal Actually, most of these things are still 100% backwards compatible (in fact, most of the time it's hacked to work even on Windows - Doom still runs just fine on 32-bit Windows 10, for example). You can still start Turbo Pascal on Windows 10 and write old-school VGA DMA graphics code, because both VGA and Windows have a great track record for compatibility. Sound is another matter - it wasn't standardized at all until DirectX.
– Luaan
yesterday
2
@AlexHajnal I agree with Luaan. Current graphics support on systems with a CSM is still register-compatible with VGA. DOS itself hardly has any hardware-specific code, so running DOS 1 (without folders!) or DOS 5 or 6 won’t make any difference. As Luaan says, sound is another matter; even PCI-hosted sound hardware is usually not Adlib or SB-register-compatible without a TSR.
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
1
Probably worth pointing out that modern video cards often do an awful job of emulating CGA and EGA as well. vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=61223
– mnem
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
Preface: I assume the question to be deleted or moved soon, as this is not in any way RC related. After all, the issue in question is not the classic OS, but workings modern hard- and software.
Since every multi core CPU starts up in single core mode, it is basically possible to use any old, single core OS. As long as the CPU is compatible - which no longer always is true - but that's less due having multiple cores (or threads) but changes in basic CPU design.
In compatibility mode even a modern BIOS should be able to to initiate classic upstart procedures. With modern (UEFI) BIOS, you may have to activate CSM mode (Compatibility Support Module).
Past that hurdle it depends much on the OS to be used. Emulation on BIOS level for like Kbd/Mouse and basic Video will work fine. Even basic Disk may work (Size and filesystem may of course be a bigger issue).
As soon as direct hardware drivers are installed, the chances will reduce. While chipsets do emulate several classic ports one way or another, they are not realy foolproof. In fact, they are usually only tested to boot some minimal DOS for BIOS updates, not so much for OS support in all possible configurations. So DOS 1.25 may work better than 5.0 with its GUI. Similar systems that rely on special, no longer supported processor modes - like 286 protected mode and alike got a high chance of failure. So I wouldn't really try for OS/2 - not even 1.2 without any GUI.
edited yesterday
Anonymous
79916
answered 2 days ago
Raffzahn
42.6k596174
To add to that, compatibility with basic peripherals may be an issue. While the South Bridge (or equivalent) should present the older interfaces (PS2 keyboard and mouse, etc.) as fully-emulated devices sitting on an ISA bus one may still encounter problems. USB keyboards and mice, even in "backwards-compatible" mode might not function. Video presents its own set of problems; while pretty much any card will support basic VGA graphics, support for the physical interface (especially anything besides parallel PCI or ISA) may be lacking in older OSes.
– Alex Hajnal
2 days ago
2
@AlexHajnal Well, yes. Then again it depends much on the OS in use. DOS got a good chance to succeed. Kbd/Mouse will work fine. Similar for basic Video. Even Disk may work great. Ofc, only as long as everything works via the ROM-BIOS. As soon as direct hardware drivers are installed, the chances will reduce. So DOS 1.25 may work better than 5.0 :)) Similar systems that rely on special, no longer supported processor modes - like 286 protected mode and alike.
– Raffzahn
2 days ago
1
@AlexHajnal Actually, most of these things are still 100% backwards compatible (in fact, most of the time it's hacked to work even on Windows - Doom still runs just fine on 32-bit Windows 10, for example). You can still start Turbo Pascal on Windows 10 and write old-school VGA DMA graphics code, because both VGA and Windows have a great track record for compatibility. Sound is another matter - it wasn't standardized at all until DirectX.
– Luaan
yesterday
2
@AlexHajnal I agree with Luaan. Current graphics support on systems with a CSM is still register-compatible with VGA. DOS itself hardly has any hardware-specific code, so running DOS 1 (without folders!) or DOS 5 or 6 won’t make any difference. As Luaan says, sound is another matter; even PCI-hosted sound hardware is usually not Adlib or SB-register-compatible without a TSR.
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
1
Probably worth pointing out that modern video cards often do an awful job of emulating CGA and EGA as well. vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=61223
– mnem
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Preface: I assume the question to be deleted or moved soon, as this is not in any way RC related. After all, the issue in question is not the classic OS, but workings modern hard- and software.
Since every multi core CPU starts up in single core mode, it is basically possible to use any old, single core OS. As long as the CPU is compatible - which no longer always is true - but that's less due having multiple cores (or threads) but changes in basic CPU design.
In compatibility mode even a modern BIOS should be able to to initiate classic upstart procedures. With modern (UEFI) BIOS, you may have to activate CSM mode (Compatibility Support Module).
Past that hurdle it depends much on the OS to be used. Emulation on BIOS level for like Kbd/Mouse and basic Video will work fine. Even basic Disk may work (Size and filesystem may of course be a bigger issue).
As soon as direct hardware drivers are installed, the chances will reduce. While chipsets do emulate several classic ports one way or another, they are not realy foolproof. In fact, they are usually only tested to boot some minimal DOS for BIOS updates, not so much for OS support in all possible configurations. So DOS 1.25 may work better than 5.0 with its GUI. Similar systems that rely on special, no longer supported processor modes - like 286 protected mode and alike got a high chance of failure. So I wouldn't really try for OS/2 - not even 1.2 without any GUI.
edited yesterday
Anonymous
79916
answered 2 days ago
Raffzahn
42.6k596174
Preface: I assume the question to be deleted or moved soon, as this is not in any way RC related. After all, the issue in question is not the classic OS, but workings modern hard- and software.
Since every multi core CPU starts up in single core mode, it is basically possible to use any old, single core OS. As long as the CPU is compatible - which no longer always is true - but that's less due having multiple cores (or threads) but changes in basic CPU design.
In compatibility mode even a modern BIOS should be able to to initiate classic upstart procedures. With modern (UEFI) BIOS, you may have to activate CSM mode (Compatibility Support Module).
Past that hurdle it depends much on the OS to be used. Emulation on BIOS level for like Kbd/Mouse and basic Video will work fine. Even basic Disk may work (Size and filesystem may of course be a bigger issue).
As soon as direct hardware drivers are installed, the chances will reduce. While chipsets do emulate several classic ports one way or another, they are not realy foolproof. In fact, they are usually only tested to boot some minimal DOS for BIOS updates, not so much for OS support in all possible configurations. So DOS 1.25 may work better than 5.0 with its GUI. Similar systems that rely on special, no longer supported processor modes - like 286 protected mode and alike got a high chance of failure. So I wouldn't really try for OS/2 - not even 1.2 without any GUI.
edited yesterday
Anonymous
79916
answered 2 days ago
Raffzahn
42.6k596174
edited yesterday
Anonymous
79916
edited yesterday
Anonymous
79916
edited yesterday
Anonymous
79916
79916
answered 2 days ago
Raffzahn
42.6k596174
answered 2 days ago
Raffzahn
42.6k596174
answered 2 days ago
Raffzahn
42.6k596174
42.6k596174
To add to that, compatibility with basic peripherals may be an issue. While the South Bridge (or equivalent) should present the older interfaces (PS2 keyboard and mouse, etc.) as fully-emulated devices sitting on an ISA bus one may still encounter problems. USB keyboards and mice, even in "backwards-compatible" mode might not function. Video presents its own set of problems; while pretty much any card will support basic VGA graphics, support for the physical interface (especially anything besides parallel PCI or ISA) may be lacking in older OSes.
– Alex Hajnal
2 days ago
2
@AlexHajnal Well, yes. Then again it depends much on the OS in use. DOS got a good chance to succeed. Kbd/Mouse will work fine. Similar for basic Video. Even Disk may work great. Ofc, only as long as everything works via the ROM-BIOS. As soon as direct hardware drivers are installed, the chances will reduce. So DOS 1.25 may work better than 5.0 :)) Similar systems that rely on special, no longer supported processor modes - like 286 protected mode and alike.
– Raffzahn
2 days ago
1
@AlexHajnal Actually, most of these things are still 100% backwards compatible (in fact, most of the time it's hacked to work even on Windows - Doom still runs just fine on 32-bit Windows 10, for example). You can still start Turbo Pascal on Windows 10 and write old-school VGA DMA graphics code, because both VGA and Windows have a great track record for compatibility. Sound is another matter - it wasn't standardized at all until DirectX.
– Luaan
yesterday
2
@AlexHajnal I agree with Luaan. Current graphics support on systems with a CSM is still register-compatible with VGA. DOS itself hardly has any hardware-specific code, so running DOS 1 (without folders!) or DOS 5 or 6 won’t make any difference. As Luaan says, sound is another matter; even PCI-hosted sound hardware is usually not Adlib or SB-register-compatible without a TSR.
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
1
Probably worth pointing out that modern video cards often do an awful job of emulating CGA and EGA as well. vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=61223
– mnem
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
To add to that, compatibility with basic peripherals may be an issue. While the South Bridge (or equivalent) should present the older interfaces (PS2 keyboard and mouse, etc.) as fully-emulated devices sitting on an ISA bus one may still encounter problems. USB keyboards and mice, even in "backwards-compatible" mode might not function. Video presents its own set of problems; while pretty much any card will support basic VGA graphics, support for the physical interface (especially anything besides parallel PCI or ISA) may be lacking in older OSes.
– Alex Hajnal
2 days ago
2
@AlexHajnal Well, yes. Then again it depends much on the OS in use. DOS got a good chance to succeed. Kbd/Mouse will work fine. Similar for basic Video. Even Disk may work great. Ofc, only as long as everything works via the ROM-BIOS. As soon as direct hardware drivers are installed, the chances will reduce. So DOS 1.25 may work better than 5.0 :)) Similar systems that rely on special, no longer supported processor modes - like 286 protected mode and alike.
– Raffzahn
2 days ago
1
@AlexHajnal Actually, most of these things are still 100% backwards compatible (in fact, most of the time it's hacked to work even on Windows - Doom still runs just fine on 32-bit Windows 10, for example). You can still start Turbo Pascal on Windows 10 and write old-school VGA DMA graphics code, because both VGA and Windows have a great track record for compatibility. Sound is another matter - it wasn't standardized at all until DirectX.
– Luaan
yesterday
2
@AlexHajnal I agree with Luaan. Current graphics support on systems with a CSM is still register-compatible with VGA. DOS itself hardly has any hardware-specific code, so running DOS 1 (without folders!) or DOS 5 or 6 won’t make any difference. As Luaan says, sound is another matter; even PCI-hosted sound hardware is usually not Adlib or SB-register-compatible without a TSR.
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
1
Probably worth pointing out that modern video cards often do an awful job of emulating CGA and EGA as well. vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=61223
– mnem
yesterday
To add to that, compatibility with basic peripherals may be an issue. While the South Bridge (or equivalent) should present the older interfaces (PS2 keyboard and mouse, etc.) as fully-emulated devices sitting on an ISA bus one may still encounter problems. USB keyboards and mice, even in "backwards-compatible" mode might not function. Video presents its own set of problems; while pretty much any card will support basic VGA graphics, support for the physical interface (especially anything besides parallel PCI or ISA) may be lacking in older OSes.
– Alex Hajnal
2 days ago
To add to that, compatibility with basic peripherals may be an issue. While the South Bridge (or equivalent) should present the older interfaces (PS2 keyboard and mouse, etc.) as fully-emulated devices sitting on an ISA bus one may still encounter problems. USB keyboards and mice, even in "backwards-compatible" mode might not function. Video presents its own set of problems; while pretty much any card will support basic VGA graphics, support for the physical interface (especially anything besides parallel PCI or ISA) may be lacking in older OSes.
– Alex Hajnal
2 days ago
2
2
@AlexHajnal Well, yes. Then again it depends much on the OS in use. DOS got a good chance to succeed. Kbd/Mouse will work fine. Similar for basic Video. Even Disk may work great. Ofc, only as long as everything works via the ROM-BIOS. As soon as direct hardware drivers are installed, the chances will reduce. So DOS 1.25 may work better than 5.0 :)) Similar systems that rely on special, no longer supported processor modes - like 286 protected mode and alike.
– Raffzahn
2 days ago
@AlexHajnal Well, yes. Then again it depends much on the OS in use. DOS got a good chance to succeed. Kbd/Mouse will work fine. Similar for basic Video. Even Disk may work great. Ofc, only as long as everything works via the ROM-BIOS. As soon as direct hardware drivers are installed, the chances will reduce. So DOS 1.25 may work better than 5.0 :)) Similar systems that rely on special, no longer supported processor modes - like 286 protected mode and alike.
– Raffzahn
2 days ago
1
1
@AlexHajnal Actually, most of these things are still 100% backwards compatible (in fact, most of the time it's hacked to work even on Windows - Doom still runs just fine on 32-bit Windows 10, for example). You can still start Turbo Pascal on Windows 10 and write old-school VGA DMA graphics code, because both VGA and Windows have a great track record for compatibility. Sound is another matter - it wasn't standardized at all until DirectX.
– Luaan
yesterday
@AlexHajnal Actually, most of these things are still 100% backwards compatible (in fact, most of the time it's hacked to work even on Windows - Doom still runs just fine on 32-bit Windows 10, for example). You can still start Turbo Pascal on Windows 10 and write old-school VGA DMA graphics code, because both VGA and Windows have a great track record for compatibility. Sound is another matter - it wasn't standardized at all until DirectX.
– Luaan
yesterday
2
2
@AlexHajnal I agree with Luaan. Current graphics support on systems with a CSM is still register-compatible with VGA. DOS itself hardly has any hardware-specific code, so running DOS 1 (without folders!) or DOS 5 or 6 won’t make any difference. As Luaan says, sound is another matter; even PCI-hosted sound hardware is usually not Adlib or SB-register-compatible without a TSR.
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
@AlexHajnal I agree with Luaan. Current graphics support on systems with a CSM is still register-compatible with VGA. DOS itself hardly has any hardware-specific code, so running DOS 1 (without folders!) or DOS 5 or 6 won’t make any difference. As Luaan says, sound is another matter; even PCI-hosted sound hardware is usually not Adlib or SB-register-compatible without a TSR.
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
1
1
Probably worth pointing out that modern video cards often do an awful job of emulating CGA and EGA as well. vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=61223
– mnem
yesterday
Probably worth pointing out that modern video cards often do an awful job of emulating CGA and EGA as well. vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=61223
– mnem
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
I think this has been closed as off-topic because the core question is about how to use modern CPUs with any retrocomputing as ancillary information.
– wizzwizz4♦
yesterday
I agree this is off topic. And I apologize, I'm still trying to aclimate to the whole stack exchange model.
– Shadow
yesterday
Oh, no; it's fine! I was just posting a comment because the system complained about a close-without-comment. We need off-topic questions almost as much as on-topic questions, since that way we can figure out the site scope (although that's less important now, since we're pretty sure what to allow and what not to). It's all part of the learning process.
– wizzwizz4♦
yesterday